One of the most disillusioning, disturbing outcome of this primary/ge season for me has been watching the so called "left wing" become everything I have hated and detested and disrespected on the right.
On the blogs, on the MSM, in the print media, it has been sad to see.  

Of course Fournier's behavior is reprehensible. But so is Keith Olbermann's and the entirety of NBC News. But no one demands Olbermann resign. It is silly to ask it of Ron Fournier now. But that is all we are now - hypocrites.

It all stinks, but it isn't going to change until we stop reading, listening, watching, stop buying the products advertised - and that's just not going to happen.

I happen to agree with Fournier - the Biden nomination was, ultimately, a move made out of weakness - but I didn't need Fournier to tell me that because I have a relatively functional brain and a mind that is pretty capable of thought and reason; in my opinion, if more people tried thinking for themselves instead of allowing the twits in the media to tell them what they're supposed to think, the balance of power might be tilted more toward us.

I am just so over the "outrage" that ensues whenever Obama comes in for even the mildest criticism; if he's so fragile that he cannot stand on his own and fight his own battles, he doesn't deserve to win.  He - and the left blogs that get out the torches and pitchforks whenever a bad word is uttered about Obama - ought to look at how Hillary Clinton managed to persevere in the face of relentless and unchallenged bias.

But what do I know?

Time to go back to my novel.  THE LIFE AND TIMES OF MICHAEL K by Nobel winner J.M. Coetzee.  A book of staggering beauty, like most of his stuff.  The guy writes epics in 200 pages.  Astounding stuff really.

BTD,

I have often referenced your blog posts for someone that I respect, and although I don't always agree with you, I have found that your analysis and thoughts went where many most wouldn't go.  Which means, as an Obama supporter, you are able to "tell it as it is" and opine beyond that which would box you in as someone who tows the company line or is plagued with blind faith.  It is obvious to me that you attempt to inject integrity integriy into all of your posts... more so than others on this blog and certainly more than others on the vast blogosphere... for the most part.

The thing is, many of us run to the sources that preach to the choir.  We don't like dissenting opinions nor do we like it when our candidate of choice "Appears" to be slighted.

I've recently been apart of friendly debates with some of my closest friends.  They vary in politics, in some cases, by a large sum.  Nader, Obama, Clinton(s), McCain, Bush, Ron Paul etc.  I literally have the UN of political dispositions in my group of debaters. (18 of us)

All but two Obama supporters agreed with an assessment that we recently argued....

With all the faults of all the campaigns,we came to agree on something that would have changed the whole dynamics of the primaries.  Obama and Clinton came within a razor thin margin of each other despite all her miscalculations. If the position had been reversed, there would be suggestions that Obama 'miscalculated'.

Millions upon millions of people rely on CNN and MSNBC for their headlines and political news.  Political junkies are glued to those outlets along with their cyber sources.  Most of them that watch CNN/MSNBC tend to vote Democratic.

Two "Media Bias" reports were released in the last week of Feb leading into the March 5th primaries.  After viewing all the coverage, there seemed to be a focus on non-polical items WRT Hillary (cackle and nutcracker come to mind).  Regardless of what she said or did, the least important parts of her campaign were discussed rather than sufficient coverage of her Foreign Policy speech at George Washington University (with 30 flag officers), for example.  Many of those talking heads were still discussing Obama's soaring rhetoric and were all enamored by his 'movement'.

Usually candidates start to get vetted coming out of Iowa, but this really didn't happen to Obama as he was inspiring, afterall... and unique.  (can't blame the lack of focus on real journalism when something so unique and inspiring comes along).

Up until that last week in Feb. people didn't realize the extent of his relations with the likes of Rezko, Wright et al.  No one knew of his voting records.  None of the journalist question his role on his committees, votes for Bush/Cheney energy bill or that BAIP act debacle among many others that are slowly bubbling into mainstream media.

It took two reports before CNN/MSNBC started to report the convtoversial Rev Wright and his church.  Of course, they did, but it didn't last long, but that's not the point.  Without those reports, the blatant lack of reporting from those two networks that millions upon millions of voters get their information from, would not have happened.

Who knows... if MSNBC really evaluated her Foreign Policy speech and covered it as well as they covered Obama's rallies... maybe voters would have loved it. I don't know.

The point is that we came to the conclusion that since it took outside media bias reports for CNN and MSNBC to cover the negatives of Obama, if those two reports came out only several weeks earlier before Super Tuesday, we feel like it's very clear...  The dynamics would have been extremely different and Hillary may have been the nominee.

I can remember when Wolf Blitzer asked in front of a panel "Is the media biased?" lol

We started on our discovery in May and may our conclusions a few weeks ago.  Since then, those items that were never brought up about Obama are now bubbling to the surface.  The problem for Obama is that all of his 'negatives' will come all at once in the most crucial part of the GE.  That could shock some folks that just didn't realize he wasn't perfect.

Anyways, I could write on and on about every little detail.  But I don't want to be flamed.  I figured I'd give food for thought just in case someone wanted to chime in with their assessment of the primary from that reference point. Of course, we could be wrong about this.

I don't see what the fuss is all about.  The central thesis of the piece is rock solid (that the choice of Biden highlights Obama's weaknesses), and he gives Obama's spinners their opportunity (and, as usual, they rewrite history).  I'd disagree that "the pick says something profound" about Obama, because what it says about Obama is actually mundane.  

This question comes from an observation of mine that the Democratic/left blogs seem to be tearing us apart. I'm 58 and a 40-year Dem voter/worker/supporter.  I do not recall, even in the worst of our internecine battles (1980 -- I don't count 1968 as that was a revolution) there being as much vitriol among people who should be compatriots as this year.  For example, I drifted here after 5 years almost exclusively at DKos. I don't write offensive things and really try to gauge how honest and thoughtful I get with my comments on every issue and, yet, I have been labelled "racist", "deadender", and so many other hurtful things over the past 9 months at DK that I can't even go there now except to see friendly old names in Cheers & Jeers and occasionally in a non-political diary.

I truly can't believe Democrats can say the things they're saying to each other.  Maybe I'm pollyanna-ish, but I thought we were better than that.

All of which leads me to a hunch that, as much as online is seen as rich turf for partisan politics, it my be that political blogs are undermining a lot of the promise of online. I read things in poliblogs and then see them creep into the media (e.g., the meme that the Clintons were racist during the primaries) and wonder how negatively poliblogs are shaping the overall discourse.

I'm just dismayed by what I'm reading across the Dem poliblogs -- which is why I enjoy reading Talk Left (where discourse is truly moderated).

You are banned from my threads RealLeft.

Do not come back to my posts ever again.

I did not know the post was labeled opinion. It appears Moveon is getting involved in this.

I think the issue is that a partisan runs the AP Wash. DC post.  This guy considered a job in teh McCain campaign.

The Associated Press is the backbone of the world's information system serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats. It is the largest and oldest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio and video.

AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.

And apparently, one recommended diary is up there shouting that letter writing and phone calls just aren't enough.  No, we need to
look the man up!  Investigate him!  Threaten his job! Find out where he lives!  Show up at his house with flaming torches and pitchforks and drive him out of the village! (OK, I made that last part up. But just barely.)  That's what the republicans would be doing! After all, they took down Dan Rather - so we can take one of theirs out, too!!!