That is some first-rate spinning. You truly have no shame, do you?

Please tell me you're at least getting paid for this.

What's up with Hillary's "abestos pants" line? Doesn't that imply that she's a "liar, liar"? Maybe not the best-chosen metaphor . . .

Okay, seriously, where are the editors of this blog? This is first-rate, embarrassing anti-journalism, worthy of a formal complaint. I mean, for goodness sake, "Resplendent?" Have some dignity! Or at least spell the word correctly as you shill.

I also like the twinkle in Clinton's eye, your reassurance that she is still in charge, and your assertion that Clinton's attack was "her forte" while Obama only "tries to" fight back.

If you want to be a full time Clinton advocate, that's fine -- all you have to do is admit that's what you want, write from that perspective, and not constantly slant *everything you write* in this direction.

It's getting really hard to take TAP seriously with this kind of nonsense happening daily.

"No flashing lights, that is, except the twinkling of Hillary Clinton's eye. Clinton is back in business, and she's feeling fine. "This pantsuit is asbestos tonight," she joked, replendent in a trendy grey jacket and black shirt."

Oh, barf.

GFR's love notes to Hillary are really wearing thin.

If I wanted to read this sort of content-free cheerleading I could just go straight to the Clinton campaign site and drink from the source.

This sort of post really detracts from the value of TAPPED as a blog.

GFR has booed HRC as well. I notice all the comments are from guys. Hey, the MSM basically said the same thing — HRC was on tonight. So GFR used a flowery word...you know what, it's a tremendous moment that we have we a woman running. If you're a woman, HRC was resplendent tonight. Would the entry be more pallatable is she said, "respendent b*tch!"?

Well, I'm a woman, a feminist, and loyal Dem. But as soon as I started reading the post about the "twinkle" I knew it was one of GFR's, and I sighed and rolled my eyes.

hey gem1 -
so why did you roll your eyes? because it was too personal of a comment? because you don't like hillary? just curious. it didn't bother me because i want hillary to be the leader of the free world. and yes, i admit a lot of it is because she is a woman.

and the coronation continues....

Seriously, that's your synposis of the debate?

To Clinton, 'mud-slinging' = telling the truth and challenging her ability to both take in enormous amounts of money from entrenched interests and be a candidate of change.

That sounds eerily similar to something that's been buzzing around for about 7+ years.

oh, and for the record, I'm female and I do not support either Hillary Clinton's candidacy or GFR's biased writing.

scoutt:

No one begrudges GFR having a candidate. But no one comes to TAPPED for this sort of writing. Her posts are bordering on outright advocacy. Not journalism, not analysis - just fawning cheerleading.

This belongs on a personal blog, not TAPPED.

Fun, interesting analysis. Thanks.

hey bob,
cool. got it. i guess i visit andrew sullivan's site too much which is full of personal stuff. Tapped isn't supposed to be that sloppy. understand and thanks.

Heres a pearl: CNN giving Clinton softball questions.

I missed the end of the debate (DVR timing issue) ... when did Wolf Blitzer call Senator Clinton on deliberately planting the suggestion, not only false but also absurd, that raising the cap on payroll tax is a tax increase on retirees.

I could not be more serious when I ask where the editors are. I want someone to come explain why this is being allowed to continue. Not because I think I'm entitled to know, but because I think it would be funny to watch them try.

Let's be fair, this analysis is pretty much the way the debate went. I saw it and was amazed at how strong she looked and how timid Obama and Edwards appeared. The only thing that should be mentioned here is the other strong performance of the night, that of my candidate, Joe Biden.

Was she also resplendent, Chester?

I actually thought that Hillary did just fine during the debate.

It's GFR's constant "I love Hillary" posts (and not just this one) that made me roll my eyes. Sure, everyone is going to have a candidate, but there is a difference to me between using your position here at TAPPED for that candidate, and writing about that candidate. Sidney Blumenthal left SALON to work on the Clinton campaign so he could be FOR a candidate. He isn't trying to claim he's objective.

Yeah, so who is in charge of this blog anyway? Is it GFR? Or is there somebody who can at least clarify things?

I'd also like to know about the comment-scrubbing that's been going on.

I thought Chris Dodd was replendent myself. It was also a nice touch to bring the Hillary Clinton cheering section. Added a real touch of class to the proceedings when anybody who questioned the Queen was booed.

"For him to be throwing this mud and throwing these charges really retracts from what we are trying to do for America."

Retracts?

Oh God, not another George W. Bush. Maybe it's just a typo and not an accurate quote. The definition of throwing mud, of course, is saying anything critical of the Queen and Annointed One.

Edwards wasn't booed because "he questioned the queen." He was booed because he took a very well answered question about running as a female candidate, and when any of the male candidates were asked if they wanted to respond, he turned it into yet another attack on her for the same mud he is always trying to sling "takes money from lobbyist yada yada yada..." Well, he needs to own up to his own acceptance of money from hedge funds before he criticizes other candidates.

And back to the original point, Oh yeah, wasn't the question about his response to her being a female candidate and if he felt he was being criticized as part of the "boys club."

THIS is why he was booed...because he has become a pathetic and aggressive candidate who takes every opportunity to critisize the front runner. Sad, sad, sad.

Debate perceptions are subjective by nature. Trying to reduce the debate to straightforward facts (who-what-when-etc.) would actually be misleading. Maybe an editor could cut out general opinions like what Hillary's forte is.

Still, the consensus is Hillary outgunned not one, but two sharpshooters last night? Even hacks like Mark Halperin know better than to pretend Clinton didn't win last night. Now that would be fraudulent journalism.

I enjoyed your analysis Garance. It was quite a show last evening, to see Hillary stand her ground and to do so with grace and sophistication.

And exactly when can we expect John Edwards to just give up trying to be President.

Has he ever won anything yet?

I was at the Vegas debate and when all the candidates came out, their supporters stood and applauded them. Yes, there were lots of Clinton supporters there, but believe me when I tell you, the boos did not only come from them. My husband, who is still undecided and NOT leaning toward Clinton, booed both Edwards and Obama. He was there to see a debate about issues, not Dem on Dem attacks. This is why the crowd booed.

And it's why they heckled and booed Blitzer as well. During the pre-debate warm-up with the audience, Blitzer talked about how "we are all political junkies" and how he hoped that we would all come out a little more informed after the debate. So, what question led the debate? Not Iraq, not health care, not education, not veterans issues, not the economy. Nope. It was a question about the previous debate and the attacks on Senator Clinton.
So you can see that Wolf and Co were just blowing smoke up our hind end. Nevadans know BS when they see it.

The media doesn't want us informed, they want a story they can beat to death for the next week.

"Has he ever won anything."

Yes, a shit load of court cases as well as defeating an incumbent Republican in a southern, Republican entrenched senate race.

Hath your candidates done such things?