Clinton's cozy relationship with certain journalists *cough*Blumenthal*cough*cough* leave no reason for concern....just ask Conason.

;)

Obama had a grilled cheese sandwich. Obama scratched his ass.

Why is any of this news?

In finally agree with Electro Robot on something. I wonder what the weather is like in Hell today?

Obama hires media person for media-related role

The only surprising thing about this useless post is that it wasnt Kopplemans

If some people think Obama's relationship to the media has been too cozy. then for heaven's sake what about McCain??? He seems to get a free pass regarding his marital history, his wealthy wife's tax returns, the statements of his extreme right wing religious supporters, his relationships with lobbyists (though that nut seems to be starting to crack) and just about anything else that might appear negative concerning him. And the media definitely seem extremely reluctant to recognize that the straight-talking maverick image they created for him ceased to be reality some time ago. The Democrats are going to need to force some of these issues into the public consciousness if they hope to beet him this November.

Why does Clinton need Fodder? She's out of the race..

I thought I was reading the high school interns on broadsheet for a minute. Are they doing the blog for college credit here on war room too? I thought this was the last bastion of analysis on Salon.

What on earth is wrong with hiring someone from the media a spokeperson for a campaign? It happens in every campaing- probably every administration. Perhaps HRC will use it as fodder - doesn't mean that there is actually any 'there there'. Also, I doubt Hillary and SNL are still friends after the last skit they did impersonating her.

The ranking is pretty ridiculous, this is true. This is why I'm convinced that most of the anti-Obama trolls here are Republican shills, because it's pretty hard to believe they'd hate him THAT much when his platform is virtually identical to Clinton's. He supports NAFTA, he would be willing to use force and keep the nuclear option on the table, and though his healthcare plan is different from Hilary's (and, some might legitimately say inferior though I personally think it has a better chance of passing), it has in common the fact that it is far from the type of single-payer system that most of us 'far-left' liberals would prefer. He's an establishment candidate through and through.

HOWEVER (and this is the part that I fear it may be unwise to say, but screw it, it's not like I'm famous) the reason a lot of 'far-left liberals' like myself are quietly supporting him is because we have something between a feeling and a hope that much of this is temporary posturing and that deep down, he is like us. His associations with the Hyde Park intellegentsia, while anathema in the mainstream, give me a sense of hope in that he is willing to fraternize with the sort of people that, while demonized in mainstream media, are par for the course in academic intellectual circles.

And this is the larger point - what's more important than his liberalism is his intellectualism. It comes through in the way he speaks, in the way he responds to questions more directly than other candidates rather than with pre-scripted buzzword-laden catchphrases that make you want to puke. Of course I'm speaking relatively here - I've often wished that he would do this more and use words like 'change' less, but as with other things, I grudgingly accept that as what he needs to do to win. The point is that even if I'm wrong regarding his politics and he proves to be a thoroughly centrist president, this still won't be worse than any of the alternatives we currently have. And if he brings no other improvements, his contribution to raising the bar of political discourse may prove to be more valuable than any specific policy.

If you've been following the way the media dismissively brushes off Obama's 'base' when they speak of the almighty white working class vote, you would think that 'people with college degrees' were some kind of inferior second-class citizens not worthy of consideration (I'm not even gonna touch the similar dismissal of blacks). Of course we're used to this as the Democrats have been brushing us off for years. The logic is that since we're actually informed and smart enough not to base our votes on idiotic emotional reactions to someone's slip of the tongue, you can treat us like shit and we'll still vote for you as long as you're slightly to the left of the other guy. But you have no idea how many far-left friends I've had to argue with after they proclaimed that they don't vote because it just "supports the system" and "they're all the same". Obama has brought in a lot of that crowd among the young. If you think that Obama can be shelved on the basis of not appealing to white people and these young supporters will still come out and vote for Hilary, you're wrong.

Quote:

As for the notion that the press treats Obama too uncritically, Douglass told the New York Times, "I think my former colleagues in the press have been quite tough on him and I think they've done good strong enterprise reporting ... I don't think anybody’s been given a pass this year."

So candidates have gotten "passes" before? Like in 2000 and 2004?

With Linda Douglas, it's all open and above board. It doesn't violate boundaries as George Will did advising Reagan on his 1980 TV debate with Carter or William Kristol now serving as an informal advisor (source: Center for American Progress)--but apparently a real one--to McCain. There is Blumenthal and the Clintons over a long period of time--no wall of separation there.

Hard to make Feingold (who is an unquestioned liberal) more liberal than Obama--Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft for Attorney-General. Sanders, like Feingold, is a great progressive fighter but voted his constituency on gun control--hardly different from the NRA.