Yup, never underestimate the left's love of a good ol' fashioned circular firing squad.

The only people the left loves attacking more than righties, are other lefties.

That's been a strength of rethugs since Reagan's infamous 11th Commandment: "thou shalt not criticize another republican."

of them vulnerable to getting used by certain kinds of insiders? Hence, they don't trust anyone else in or out, which sadly includes themselves (kind of like some Libertarians I know).

In general, most democrats are part of the reality based community, and call it like they see it. Its the GOP that attracts most of the little lock step boot-lickers type who will gladly disregard reality for the sake of cheerleading their party on, no matter what.

That strength should be used selectively - as in not using it during the couple of months leading up to the election.

Remember, we are actually contesting Nazis who want to take away the right to vote (in several states), lie constantly, have the entire MSM on their side, and have billions of legal & illegal (Adelson's prostitution profit$) behind them.

On a related note, I suggest we suspend Godwin's Law whenever repigs are actually acting like actual Nazis.

Less than a dozen?

And that was enough to create a national and international talking point.

but it's not completely true that the media would have reported this as just another debate, with both sides claiming victory.

the media certainly retains a strong right-wing bias, and they came out swining for rmoney well before democrats started wailing.

own power, no matter what that costs anyone else. It's more about base-building to some factions than it is about what people need.

and seconds for Tweety over Obama.

But then I think it's because networks like MSNBC are not really "news", they are opinion - with some of the pundits supposedly hired as "analysts" and others as "editorialists" (pure opinion within the confines of the corporate rulebook).

right criticize Romney if he had a bad debate. They have let him pass for all the lies. Obama did a terrible job. He has never has been a good debater to me. But he will make up for it.

matters what I see, or what I think. In fact, I just wait for the news/pundit reactions to TELL me what I saw, and what I think. That's most of America, I'm wagering. Obama didn't make any big gaffes, he didn't come off as a liar or an asshole, but he was subdued. A subdued performance being called a DISMAL FAILURE--if that is enough to sway the electorate, then we get what we get, because Obama is only human.

The wisdom of the media does determine who 'wins'.
And, I do not not know the basis of how 'wins' are determined.
I tend to doubt that Obama is a good debater ( witness the run to the nomination); so that may be a handicap.

unexpected happens.

I don't blame them for getting hysterically upset. We all have a lot riding on this next election, but we can also learn how to not make the situation worse than it is.

SNL had fun with Tweety this past Saturday night - would like for the focus to go elsewhere next time!

I was shocked at the hair on fire afterward. It was absurdly out of proportion -- like a cluster tantrum.

Rachel on her show the next day said "Romney won" several times. really, Rachel? how can you win when all you're bringing is LIES?!

but i get this. liberals should have been singing the praises of the man who told the truth and hitting up that motherfucking so-called "winner" all the way.

not that it would have changed the media's take.

Did they really expect Obama to act like Howard Dean? The story should have been Romney's lies, not Obama's mild-mannered performance.

Tweety and Ed Schultz exert that kind of control over the whims of the American voting populace to the point of earth-moving changes in poll numbers? Even the thought of that is utterly laughable!

All we have to do is look back at the real-time threads that were being posted as the debate was unfolding. There were LOTS of DUers tearing their hair out not even 15 minutes into the debate, and long before any pundit began to weigh in with their own opinion...

They were vicious. They doused Obama in gasoline and then set fire to him. I remember being in absolute shock when Ed came out swinging. And when Matthews started to add fuel to the fire, I started to wonder if I’d seen the same debate they had. Sharpton was the only person who kept his cool, and although he tried to bring a bit of sanity to the “discussion,” I got the distinct impression that he was also a bit dumbfounded by the vitriol. In dissecting/discussing with friends MSNBC’s visceral response to Obama’s performance, I could only come up with this as an explanation: I think they took it personally that Obama didn’t use “their” rebuttals/zingers/observations. Even Matthews said that Obama should watch more cable. IOW – we’ve been working hard on your campaign, Mr. President, and you haven’t bothered to notice, as evidenced by your performance during the debate. I was so disgusted at their lack of professionalism, that I was tempted to stop watching them completely. You can argue that Dems are part of the reality based community and that is what we saw here, and while I agree that Dems are part of the reality based community, I don’t think that is what we saw here – what we saw was unprofessional, unproductive, and just plain mean. You don’t have to sling bullshit to try & make your guy look good, but you also shouldn’t smear him with fecal matter. It is possible to be critical and question his performance without foaming at the mouth FOR DAYS ON END!

The show before and after were good 'entertainment'. They, simply, lost their composure.

Couldn't agree more. All professional distance and objectivity went out the window, and everybody's personal axe was brought out to be ground in public.
Shockingly amateurish.

Not a professional, balanced reaction among them (except for Rev. Al, bless 'im). They seemed to play off of each other's hysteria.

"The Hack Gap Rears It's Ugly Head, Yet Again"

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/hack-gap-rears-its-ugly-head-yet-again


Joan Walsh's Salon article, linked in the OP, is actually in reply to it. Walsh tries to sneakily take both sides of the argument. How do a few pundits influence so many more viewers than they have, Joan asks? Very simple -- by jumping on the bandwagon with Repub pundits, they create an appearance of a CONSENSUS of opinion. ("Everybody agrees... ", "everybody knows... ", "everybody says... &quot . Then that is re-reported wider and wider. Which she knows damn well.

Chris and Ed in particular just went nuts. I have always been skeptical of both of their real
political positions. At times, they appear to be very supportive of the Democrats, but, just when you need support the most, wham!.

"Even the liberal media thinks he did terrible!" I knew these supposedly liberal pundits are not the same as the ones the right has.

Instead it was, "Obama not aggressive enough."

most of the 'liberals' on MSNBC are moderate republicans.