On Monday evening, Big Head DC pointed to a blog post by ardent Hillary Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh, accusing left-liberal Talking Points Memo of carrying out a
Classic hit job
against the New York Senator. Over the last 24 hours, I’ve seen a few more examples of this Clinton-Obama feud playing out across the leftosphere. For exampe, here’s Big Tent Democrat (aka Armando of Daily Kos) on TalkLeft:
Josh Marshall seems incapable of taking Hillary Clinton’s words at their face value. It seems clear that TPM is intent on ignoring the important part of this story, the pattern of sexism at NBC. This remains a very disappointing episode for TPM, both as a question of journalism and simple decency.
But Marshall isn’t the only progressive blogging entrepreneur taking friendly fire; here’s former Edwards staffer Melissa McEwan at Shakesville:
Dear Arianna, I know you hate Hillary Clinton and everything, but do you—mother to two daughters—really believe that the best way to undermine her candidacy is by giving Stephen “Mickey’s Brother” Kaus space on your pages to unleash a misogynistic tirade against Hillary, that manages to simultaneously dismiss the concerns of women everywhere who have raised red flags over the sexist treatment of Hillary by the media?
And then there is the extreme difference of opinion over Paul Krugman’s latest anti-Obama jeremiad, wherein he accuses the Obama campaign of being like “Nixonland,” after a 1956 Adlai Stevenson quote. Ironic, considering not just the Clinton campaign’s duplicity (say, campaigning in Florida) but also the existence of the term Hillaryland.
From Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Kevin Hayden and Susie Madrak agreeing with Krugman to Hilzoy, State of the Day and Ron Chusid pretty much going WTF, the left is split along Obama-Clinton lines, and they are split almost evenly.
But are they split so badly they cannot put their differences aside once the nomination has been decided? I doubt it. Their ire is not directed at the other candidate as it is directed at the other candidate’s supporters. Rifts may persist among the bloggers themselves, but it’s difficult to see how that translates into weaker support for the eventual Democratic nominee.
I see your point, and while I don’t see the anti-X reporting in most cases, there’s little doubt in my own mind that Huffington Post has been steadily, consistently, and to some extent outrageously anti-Hillary Clinton and doing its best to knock her at every possible opportunity. That’s the reason I stopped visiting that site.
I have, at my own teeny blog, been accused by a somewhat irrational Obama supporter of doing some sort of dirty deed by offering a criticism of Senator Obama, so I agree that there is a bit of craziness going on, but there are two points I want to make in conclusion:
1) Not every accusation of this sort is off the mark. In the case of Huffington Post, it is fairly obvious that the site is very partisan.
2) This division will not damage the chances of the Democratic candidate when he or she is finally determined. There may be division in the primaries, but there is no division over the ultimate goal and Democrats will come together to support their candidate, whoever that may be.