My vote for the worst diavlog ever. Public intellectualism? Yawn. Why Ezra hates political science? Gag. The poor sound quality was actually a relative plus. Without that it would have taken on the aura of a dorm room post party bullshit session. Daniel Drezner deserves better company in my opinion. I know, I know, if you don't like it, don't watch it. If only time travel were an option.

Hard to hear at times, but worthwhile I thought.

Diavlog's not loading for me...?

Dan correctly points out that there's nothing new in the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton. There's also nothing new about the press pulling their punches with Democratic candidates until after they've lost an election. I rememeber TNR's nasty post-mortem on Mike Dukakis, which probably contained the first unkind words about him to appear on their pages. And can someone explain to me how John Kerry became the nominee when it appears (after the fact) he was everyone's 7th or 8th choice? With Hillary's candidacy clearly finished, the media can tell us how they really feel about the Clintons (surprise: not much differently than a lot of Republicans do!) and bring to bear the full weight of their protective maternal instincts on Barack Obama's campaign. Expect more high-minded tut-tutting about what "The American People Really Care About" etc. It's not going to be enough. The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process. The Obama candidacy will be the latest and worst in a string of fiascos for the Party. Magazine columnists would do well to

Quoting Namazu: Dan correctly points out that there's nothing new in the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton. There's also nothing new about the press pulling their punches with Democratic candidates until after they've lost an election. I rememeber TNR's nasty post-mortem on Mike Dukakis, which probably contained the first unkind words about him to appear on their pages. And can someone explain to me how John Kerry became the nominee when it appears (after the fact) he was everyone's 7th or 8th choice? With Hillary's candidacy clearly finished, the media can tell us how they really feel about the Clintons (surprise: not much differently than a lot of Republicans do!) and bring to bear the full weight of their protective maternal instincts on Barack Obama's campaign. Expect more high-minded tut-tutting about what "The American People Really Care About" etc. It's not going to be enough. The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process. The Obama candidacy will be the latest and worst in a string of fiascos for the Party. Magazine columnists would do well to

Namazu:

There's also nothing new about the press pulling their punches with Democratic candidates until after they've lost an election.

I disagree. The press was merciless on Al Gore during the campaign -- repeating his supposed lies about "inventing the Internet" and "discovering Love Canal" ad nauseum, and building these incorrect examples into an overarching narrative that he lied about everything. As AemJeff has pointed out, the press, especially those who follow the candidates, tend to cover a candidate based more on personality than anything else. I'd add to his list of press favorites Mike Huckabee. You rarely heard about his wingnut positions on taxes or his disbelief in science; instead, you heard all about what a great sense of humor he had and how he played the bass. Another good example: Howard Dean. While he was leading early in the 2004 campaign, I must have heard the meme, "I like everything about Howard Dean except Howard Dean," a thousand times. When the "Dean Scream" occurred, the MSM used it to bury him. From the current campaign, a good case can be made that the press gave little coverage and lots of mockery to Kucinich and Biden, and maybe even Edwards. And I think

Both Klein and Drezner fail to acknowledge the rise of think tanks, a perjorative term that only arose in the 60s, as a midpoint between the height of academics and public journalists and the ubiquitous profundity allowed by the Internet.

Quoting bjkeefe: How much more coverage of Wright, Rezko, Ayers, flag pins, hand not over heart, and "bitter/cling" do you want?

Namazu is absolutely correct in saying: "The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process." Wright didn't break big till after Super Tuesday. Why? Ayers and Rezko were basically given a pass till after Super Tuesday. A Chicago fixer loans him $300K for the next-door property...not a problem. Cling-gate was the only thing mulled over to the max, in it's proper time, and much more than it should have been. And finally this past week-end I saw a piece on how he elimated his competitors by legal means in his first run for the Illinois Senate. If he is elected it will have been by the Press.

Quoting look: If he is elected it will have been by the Press.

Sour grapes. I think this might have had something to do with it:

Senior advisers, including Plouffe and delegate specialist Jeffrey Berman, diced the country into 435 congressional districts, the basis for pledged-delegate allocations. They examined each district under different scenarios -- for instance, before and after former senator John Edwards left the race. And they identified quirks that Obama could exploit -- such as the fact that in districts that awarded an even number of delegates, the take was generally split evenly, if the winning margin was kept reasonable.

The campaign leadership had wanted no distractions before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, so the planning in Chicago was done in secret. But on the night of Jan. 4, as Obama's Iowa staff staggered into his Des Moines campaign headquarters, still ragged from celebrating the senator's improbable victory there, field director Paul Tewes took it public.

Everyone on the payroll in Iowa would be assigned to another state, he announced. Hotels had already been booked and rooms in the homes of volunteers arranged. Marygrace Galston, who had helped oversee the ground-game deployments, gave staff members until 6 p.m. to say whether

Quoting TwinSwords: Sour grapes.

Not.

Also: A lot of people like him. That should help him get elected, too. Democrats succeed despite the press, not because of it.

Believe me, I think he's a political genius who ran an extremely efficient campaign and fund-raising machine. But how about address what I said? If the Wright story had broken much earlier and more attention had been paid to Rezko, I don't think he would have done nearly as well on Super Tuesday. And still to be brought forward, now that the Press has expedited his nomination, are issues like his ties to ACORN, a far-left community action group.

look:

Wright didn't break big till after Super Tuesday. Why?

Keep in mind that we are talking about a few seconds of video out of what are probably many hours available on those DVDs. A concentrated, all-out search for ammunition to use against Obama is the only way these clips turned up, and the urge to search to this level was stimulated only by his ability to stay in contention. Prior to Super Tuesday, evidently, no one had the urge to dig this deep, presumably since it was expected that he would not do so well. Recall that this was the Clinton game plan -- bury him with a strong showing in the big states on Super Tuesday. I'll suppose one could concede a possible failure to dig out these nuggets that later became big news, but at the absolute worst, this is due to a lack of diligence, and hardly to a conscious effort to suppress, on the part of the press. It also presumes something close to unlimited resources. I'll also note that it's not as if no one knew that Jeremiah Wright was an important figure in

Quoting bjkeefe: Keep in mind that we are talking about a few seconds of video out of what are probably many hours available on those DVDs. A concentrated, all-out search for ammunition to use against Obama is the only way these clips turned up, and the urge to search to this level was stimulated only by his ability to stay in contention. Prior to Super Tuesday, evidently, no one had the urge to dig this deep, presumably since it was expected that he would not do so well. Recall that this was the Clinton game plan -- bury him with a strong showing in the big states on Super Tuesday.

As I recall it, Super Tuesday was expected to be pretty close.

I'll suppose one could concede a possible failure to dig out these nuggets that later became big news, but at the absolute worst, this is due to a lack of diligence, and hardly to a conscious effort to suppress, on the part of the press. It also presumes something close to unlimited resources.

My point was that it was a lack of diligence based on enchantment with Obama. As far as

look:

I'll leave you the last word, unless you say something outrageous.

LOL! No, I don't think I have anything outrageous to offer, at least on this topic. I'll go along, somewhat, with your point about there an early kid-glove treatment of Obama by much of the MSM. I guess I won't go along completely, though, because I still do believe he was seen as a long shot at the outset (how many exposés did we hear about Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, etc., etc., etc.?). And yeah, he's a charming guy and a mesmerizing figure on stage, and that probably put some stars in some reporters' eyes for a while. Kinda like with McCain, thought for different reasons, and also kind of like Clinton, from the perspective of a lot of female reporters (I remember, for example, back when I used to think Rachel Sklar would criticize anybody). So, in the end, there's something to your point that I accept, but I maintain it was not as extensive as you seem to think, nor do I think there was anything particularly unusual about it. I also take your point about the media's job being to inform the public. On the other hand, they have failed so miserably on so many fronts for so long

NYT: Clinton likely to suspend bid on Friday
The former first lady will also reportedly endorse rival Barack Obama
By Adam Nagourney and Michael Luo
The New York Times
updated 7:46 p.m. ET, Wed., June. 4, 2008 NEW YORK - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Barack Obama on Friday after Democratic members of Congress urged her on Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to unite around Mr. Obama, according to a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton is likely to make the announcement in New York City, an aide said, although no final venue has been chosen. Her decision came after a day of telephone conversations with supporters on Capital Hill about what she should do now that Mr. Obama has claimed enough delegates to secure the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had initially said she wanted to wait before making any decision, but her aides said that in conversations, some of her closest supporters said it was urgent that she step aside. 'To the end' “We pledged to support her to the end,” said Representative Charles W. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she

Twin: BloggingHead Jeralyn Merritt, who you probably remember as a vigorous Clinton supporter, posted a pretty gracious response to this news. Excerpt:

If Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, I will do the same. I think it will be what she wants her supporters to do.

There was never any question whether I would support the ultimate Democratic nominee. I always said I would. With only one candidate in the race, Obama is the nominee -- on Friday.

If Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, I will do the same. I think it will be what she wants her supporters to do.

Admirable notion from someone who oviously cares more about the Democratic party principles than her own candidate. (cough, cough) Eastwest (cough, cough.)

Quoting look: But how about address what I said?

OK. The crux your argument is that if the media had focused sooner and more intensly on Ayers, Wright, Rezko, ACORN, etc. (collectively "the smear issues") Obama would not have won the nomination. That is a reasonable hypothesis. We'll never know for sure, but I can't deny the possibility that the media could have damaged him more severly and earlier if they had harped on those non-issues on a schedule more to your liking. This leaves aside the question of whether doing so would be appropriate, or whether it is fair or accurate to try to define Obama by the words and actions of other people. I don't think guilt by association is fair, but I realize we disagree about that. Initially you made a different claim: that if Obama wins the general election, it will be because of the media's failure to report the smear issues on your schedule. I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting. But this is a very weak argument, in my view, because by now

Quoting bjkeefe: Twin:

BloggingHead Jeralyn Merritt, who you probably remember as a vigorous Clinton supporter, posted a pretty gracious response to this news. Excerpt:

That was a gracious statement. She and Big Tent Democrat have both been a lot more reasonable than Larry Johnson at No Quarter. I don't think he'll ever come around. He basically considers Obama as the devil. I'm looking forward to the next Glenn Loury / John McWhorter diavlog to see how they view these last days of the campaign. I wonder if Glenn will ever get on board with the Obama candidacy.

Well said. I have nothing to add, except to say I agree with every word and couldn't have expressed better.

Quoting AemJeff: Well said. I have nothing to add, except to say I agree with every word and couldn't have expressed better.

Hey, thanks! I appreciate it. For some reason I was afraid that post was semi-incoherent.

Quoting TwinSwords: Hey, thanks! I appreciate it. For some reason I was afraid that post was semi-incoherent.

No. I'm with AemJeff. That second paragraph (beginning: "Initially you made a different claim ...") was especially incisive.

Quoting TwinSwords: OK.

The crux your argument is that if the media had focused sooner and more intensly on Ayers, Wright, Rezko, ACORN, etc. (collectively "the smear issues") Obama would not have won the nomination. That is a reasonable hypothesis. We'll never know for sure, but I can't deny the possibility that the media could have damaged him more severly and earlier if they had harped on those non-issues on a schedule more to your liking. This leaves aside the question of whether doing so would be appropriate, or whether it is fair or accurate to try to define Obama by the words and actions of other people. I don't think guilt by association is fair, but I realize we disagree about that.

Initially you made a different claim: that if Obama wins the general election, it will be because of the media's failure to report the smear issues on your schedule. I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting. But this is a very weak argument, in my view, because by now the smear issues have been

Quoting TwinSwords: That was a gracious statement. She and Big Tent Democrat have both been a lot more reasonable than Larry Johnson at No Quarter.

A very low bar ;^), but I take your point.

I'm looking forward to the next Glenn Loury / John McWhorter diavlog to see how they view these last days of the campaign. I wonder if Glenn will ever get on board with the Obama candidacy.

That's an interesting thought. I'd bet that he will not be outwardly enthusiastic, and in fact will probably give considerable voice to his ongoing worries about inexperience, but I hope deep within, he'll be happy.

Quoting bjkeefe: No. I'm with AemJeff. That second paragraph (beginning: "Initially you made a different claim ...") was especially incisive.

But TS was even more incisive when he said this:

I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting.

Quoting look: What you call harping on non-issues, I call reporting the facts. The schedule more to my liking would have been in a timely enough manner for me to make a more informed decision. Instead of guilt by association, some would say "you're known by the company you keep."

Obama claims to possess the ability to reach across the aisle, yet he started his career by manipulating the resources of the very far left. I think it is not insignificant that he sat in a church like Wright's for 20 years, that he received political support from a group whose admitted goal was to increase dependence on Welfare, that he accepted a $300,000 loan from a Chicago politico, that he accepted fund-raising help from a known, unrepentant domestic terrorist, that he voted against the interests of his district as a state senator.

Points all taken, though I disagree completely. Could I ask you a favor? Could you refer me to a source for the ACORN controversy, and the stuff about increasing dependence on welfare? Also: Who do you plan to vote for this fall? Were you a Hillary person, or a Republican?

Quoting look: But TS was even more incisive when he said this:

I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting.

Point taken, although, as you know, I don't think that's how it would have played out. But we'll never know, so I'll leave it at that. BTW, I hope you didn't think I was piling on there. It's just that I thought Twin said something quite cogent in that second paragraph.

Quoting TwinSwords: Points all taken, though I disagree completely.

Could I ask you a favor? Could you refer me to a source for the ACORN controversy, and the stuff about increasing dependence on welfare?

Also: Who do you plan to vote for this fall? Were you a Hillary person, or a Republican?

This was originally linked by pisc in the Gratuitous Disrespect thread: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jE0ODI=&w=MA== I voted for Obama, but am becoming increasingly disenchanted.

*in my best Mae West voice* 'Night, boys.

Quoting look: This was originally linked by pisc in the Gratuitous Disrespect thread:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jE0ODI=&w=MA==

I voted for Obama, but am becoming increasingly disenchanted.

Thank you for the link. I googled "Obama ACORN" when you refered to it earlier and found the same article, though I didn't read beyond the first paragraph or two. I will do so now. You voted for Obama? That's really kind of amazing. You seem to have moved well past disenchantment at this point. If you don't mind me asking, have you decided who you will vote for in November?

Quoting look: *in my best Mae West voice*

'Night, boys.

Good night. Thanks for the conversation.

look: What about that article worries you about Obama? I read the whole thing, and as far as I can tell, the worst you can say about him from it, assuming the whole thing is true, is this: he helped an organization that has a different political agenda than what conservatives would like to see, and some of this organization's activities were disruptive. The article admits that Obama didn't do anything illegal. It also seems to vacillate between (a) accusing him of exaggerating his accomplishments on behalf of the group and (b) accusing him of being closely connected with shadowy "radicals." Well, which is it? Is he a do-nothing, or is he in thrall to these horrible poor people who want a bigger slice of the pie? Seems like another attempt to (a) paint Obama as a far-leftist, (b) tar him with guilt by association, and (c) use a lot of buzzwords to create FUD. I don't see anything substantive that he did wrong. The giveaway is in the article's repeated comparisons of ACORN to MoveOn and CodePink (*cue ominous music* only ACORN is much more shadowy!) -- neither of which are particularly dangerous organizations on any battlefield except the one of

Quoting bjkeefe: look:

What about that article worries you about Obama? I read the whole thing, and as far as I can tell, the worst you can say about him from it, assuming the whole thing is true, is this: he helped an organization that has a different political agenda than what conservatives would like to see, and some of this organization's activities were disruptive. The article admits that Obama didn't do anything illegal.

It also seems to vacillate between (a) accusing him of exaggerating his accomplishments on behalf of the group and (b) accusing him of being closely connected with shadowy "radicals." Well, which is it? Is he a do-nothing, or is he in thrall to these horrible poor people who want a bigger slice of the pie?

Seems like another attempt to (a) paint Obama as a far-leftist, (b) tar him with guilt by association, and (c) use a lot of buzzwords to create FUD. I don't see anything substantive that he did wrong.

The giveaway is in the article's repeated comparisons of ACORN to MoveOn and CodePink (*cue ominous music* only ACORN is much more shadowy!) -- neither of which are particularly dangerous organizations on any battlefield except the one of

Quoting TwinSwords: If you don't mind me asking, have you decided who you will vote for in November?

Not yet.

look: Thanks for your answer. As I said in my previous post about ACORN, I don't see that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in the legal sense. I can see how you and others could see it as wrongdoing in the political sense -- both as an objection to the stated goals of the organization and in the sense of Obama being hypocritical about his affiliation with these goals and his later actions. I don't have any objection to a politician getting elected and then doing favors for his core constituency. I mean, in the ideal, of course I do. But given how our system works, I don't, and I especially don't when the favors are being done for those who so infrequently get any help from those in office. Compared to the corporate welfare handed out every damned day by politicians, from military contracts to sweetheart deals for the telcos to friendly regulations for credit card companies, banks, and stockholders, ... I won't go on and on. I'll just say that whatever "funneling" Obama may have done in this regard is so lost in the noise that I can't even be upset about it in the idealistic sense. As for

Quoting look: *in my best Mae West voice*

'Night, boys.

Just to echo Brendan a bit: I wasn't really looking to score a bank shot on your post. TS's post did a good job of expressing something I feel pretty strongly about.

In the interest of preserving my sanity from making endless quote brackets, I'll place my answers within your post: As I said in my previous post about ACORN, I don't see that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in the legal sense. I can see how you and others could see it as wrongdoing in the political sense -- both as an objection to the stated goals of the organization and in the sense of Obama being hypocritical about his affiliation with these goals and his later actions. I don't have any objection to a politician getting elected and then doing favors for his core constituency. I mean, in the ideal, of course I do. But given how our system works, I don't, and I especially don't when the favors are being done for those who so infrequently get any help from those in office. Compared to the corporate welfare handed out every damned day by politicians, from military contracts to sweetheart deals for the telcos to friendly regulations for credit card companies, banks, and stockholders, ... I won't go on and on. I'll just say that whatever "funneling" Obama may have done in this regard is so lost in

look:

Yes, it's important to make voting easy. I just think he was finessing the system, and as the lawyer representing the case, he went on to benefit from the new voters, which I consider a conflict of interest.

Well ... doesn't everybody, all the time, try to acquire more voters? There are voter enrollment efforts all over the place -- malls, churches, college campuses, etc. By your reasoning, wouldn't it then be a conflict for every politician who voted in favor of making it easier for people to register to vote? And since citizens have a right to vote, isn't it also arguable that any vote against such an effort also displays a conflict of interest?

No, I'm not flailing around to find reasons to dislike him. I am thinking aloud, trying to work out a problem. Please note this is a free board, Brendan, not your personal play-pretty.

If this is a free board, then I am just as entitled to interpret your statements, out loud, as you are to think out loud. And since your thinking, as displayed here, is highly tilted in one direction, it is entirely reasonable of me to remark upon that. If you don't want your thoughts challenged, don't publish them.

I was blind-sided by

Quoting bjkeefe: If this is a free board, then I am just as entitled to interpret your statements, out loud, as you are to think out loud. And since your thinking, as displayed here, is highly tilted in one direction, it is entirely reasonable of me to remark upon that. If you don't want your thoughts challenged, don't publish them.

Brendan, why not just stick to the issues? You 'interpreting' me as flailing around is not helpful. I'm not operating under the same set of assumptions that you are, so for you to say in another thread:

No. It sounds like you've found another cherry to pick in your ongoing campaign to find fault in everything Obama.

makes you appear to think that everyone who is not cuh-razy about Obama has some 'splainin' to do. Please back off on the personal remarks.

look:

Brendan, why not just stick to the issues? You 'interpreting' me as flailing around is not helpful.

You're asking me to adhere to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. How helpful is it to quote Beatrix Potter or to accuse me of treating this forum as my "play-pretty?" How helpful is it for you to characterize anyone who supports Obama, and who mounts a vigorous defense against attacks on him, as being "cuh-razy about Obama?" Sure, I'm emphasizing aspects that best support my point of view, just as you are. Why should your perspective of him be privileged? The way that I see it, you are posting a lot of speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated. Some of the things you say or link to strike me as outright smears or efforts to spread FUD. I happen to support him, and I'm going to push back when you do that. I think you sometimes show a tendency to select data to suit your theory, and I am going to call you on that, too.

Please back off on the personal remarks.

I will bear your request in mind. It's possible that I have

Quoting bjkeefe: You're asking me to adhere to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. How helpful is it to quote Beatrix Potter or to accuse me of treating this forum as my "play-pretty?" How helpful is it for you to characterize anyone who supports Obama, and who mounts a vigorous defense against attacks on him, as being "cuh-razy about Obama?" Sure, I'm emphasizing aspects that best support my point of view, just as you are. Why should your perspective of him be privileged?

Brendan, please note I said those things in order to back you off from your personal remarks. My meaning is that not everyone is as taken with Obama as you are, and do not need to explain themselves to you.

The way that I see it, you are posting a lot of speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated. Some of the things you say or link to strike me as outright smears or efforts to spread FUD. I happen to support him, and I'm going to push back when you do that. I think you sometimes show a tendency to select data to suit your

look:

Please give me some specific examples. I'm posting or discussing things I find interesting or surprising.

I think, in general, your linking to opinion pieces found on rightwing websites, the latest example being the ones to do with ACORN, and earlier ones to do with Rezko, Wright, or Ayers, speak to what I said about you posting "speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated." I am not going to go through your old posts and provide specific links, since I'm pretty sure you'd just repeat what you said above -- that you find them "interesting or surprising." I'll just leave it at this -- our perspectives on the worth and substance of a lot of these articles are different, and I don't think we'll be able to budge each other on this.

Thanks for that. I know I don't have a perfect record, either.

And thank you, too.

Addressing me directly does not have to include impugning my motives.

You're right. If I have gone too far in the past, I apologize, and as I said, I will make an extra effort to avoid doing so from now on.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think, in general, your linking to opinion pieces found on rightwing websites, the latest example being the ones to do with ACORN, and earlier ones to do with Rezko, Wright, or Ayers, speak to what I said about you posting "speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated."
I am not going to go through your old posts and provide specific links, since I'm pretty sure you'd just repeat what you said above -- that you find them "interesting or surprising." I'll just leave it at this -- our perspectives on the worth and substance of a lot of these articles are different, and I don't think we'll be able to budge each other on this.

That's not really satisfactory, Brendan. Instead of supplying at least two or three more examples, in order to begin to establish a pattern, you put me in the position of doing your research in order to defend myself.

Quoting look: That's not really satisfactory, Brendan. Instead of supplying at least two or three more examples, in order to begin to establish a pattern, you put me in the position of doing your research in order to defend myself.

You misunderstood my last post. I did not ask you to do any research. I am not asking you to defend yourself. I merely said that I did not think it would be worthwhile to continue debating whether or not your choice of sources show bias or not. But, for completeness, and since you asked, I took a quick look at what you've posted lately. It appears that in the most recent three in which Obama was at issue and you referred to external sources, those sources were two from National Review, one from the Manhattan Institute (passing along something from the Wall Street Journal), and one from what appears to be an alt-weekly type of paper (Houston Press) whose stance on Obama seems obvious. Here are the three posts: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...5&postcount=23
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...6&postcount=19
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=11 Again, if you find what these sources offer to be "interesting or surprising," that's fine. I just wanted to point out that your external references all come from organizations that

Quoting bjkeefe: You misunderstood my last post. I did not ask you to do any research. I am not asking you to defend yourself. I merely said that I did not think it would be worthwhile to continue debating whether or not your choice of sources show bias or not.

But, for completeness, and since you asked, I took a quick look at what you've posted lately. It appears that in the most recent three in which Obama was at issue and you referred to external sources, those sources were two from National Review, one from the Manhattan Institute (passing along something from the Wall Street Journal), and one from what appears to be an alt-weekly type of paper (Houston Press) whose stance on Obama seems obvious.

Here are the three posts:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...5&postcount=23
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...6&postcount=19
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=11

Again, if you find what these sources offer to be "interesting or surprising," that's fine. I just wanted to point out that your external references all come from organizations that have a clear anti-Obama stance. It seems, therefore, that you're mostly looking for data to bolster your recent disenchantment, or, at least, only passing along those data that do.

I mean, what would you think if I wanted to make a case against

look: Noted. As I said, I don't think it's worth debating, and certainly not example by example. I just wanted to register my impression, and I acknowledge that you disagree with my impression.