Could you map that out in a spreadsheet or something? I can't keep track of it all! :)

Don't you feel better now that you've come clean?

I knew it... I knew your were a sexist, racist bigot, right wing nut republican sent to infiltrate our ranks... you're a clever one you evil bastard.  ;-)

Ok that was quite the funny posting... made me laugh my ass off.  It does put things in perspective; although do remember that those passionate about politics sometimes take criticism personally, not because you are criticisizing the candidate but they transfer that criticism upon themselves... so in other words, they feel that when you unfairly criticize their candidate you are instead attacking them... its irrational, but it might give you a bit of perspective in dealing with the Mob on Mydd.  

Nice post Matt!  Keep up the good work.

I don't think you have a secret agenda.  I think you write from the heart and your beliefs.  I agree a lot with your positions but not always and even when I don't I think they are thought provoking which is good.  We need more of this in our discourse.  

Very funny Matt,

I needed a good laugh, especially since I just finished my taxes and I owe a hellva lot.

This entire thing reminds me when Carville is on CNN going to an extreme to criticize Obama and acting so surprised when someone complains that he is to close to the Clintons and should state he isn't really nuetral.

was to make commenters mad at you...

Thanks for the lightness of your dark instincts. I was before all the candidates before I was behind them.

FYI - I am undecided. All the power-hungry jerks have pluses and minuses in terms of how good a President they may make. I reserve the right to criticize them all so they can improve.

look Matt, I think you raise a bunch of good points about all the candidates, and as an ardent Obama supporter, I'm happy that you are challenging my candidate to clarify some of his stances, especially on the war.

but my concern is that you criticize Edwards less than Obama, which I think is a measure of how strong Obama is, but I wish there would be a little bit more equal time given to criticizing all the candidates. also, when you criticize Obama, and your criticisms are certainly valid and substantive, you tend to subscribe motives to Obama that he is fake and disingenuous. Just because he hasn't called for all troops out of Iraq while he calls for withdrawal doesn't mean he isn't sincere in his beliefs. he didn't just let consultants tell him what to say on foreign policy, he's thought about it long and hard and weighed all the different factors and believes this is the right course for our party and our country. i wish you would criticize him on policy and not on selling out to the "War on terror frame" as though he looked at a poll and decided what to do about Iraq, you and I both know Obama is better than that.

I like the things you write, normally, and while even I have clashed with you on a few occasions, I think you're a smart guy who is a worthy contributor here.

Still, I think you're a little too hot-headed and that you've become too concerned about what people think about you. Some time away from the blog might do you some good, IMO, for what its worth.

I never said you had a secret agenda.  I don't think you have an agenda.  I just thought you were wrong.

But, you said nothing about your man crush for W, especially when he wears that special flightsuit with the codpiece.

I think most of the criticism headed your way really comes from oversensitive Obama worshipers who really cannot under any circumstances take the slightest criticism of their candidate without going unhinged. Most of what you write is based on fact and statements made by him or the campaign...there is no bias in what they themselves say.

I would just tell people to get a thicker skin and not take an attack on your candidate's positions as an attack on you or that a secret liberal blog cabal is out to get you.

Who really cares about all the stuff you listed? It comes down to this - is it "tastes great" or "less filling"? Come on, 'fess up.

the heat from the secret agendas, is getting to hot.

I hope the fresh air helped.  No time for a melt down until after, November 2008!

Can't... stop... laughing...

I don't think your agendas are all that secretive. You've made your position pretty clear: Agree with me or you're not a real progressive.

It's not about any particular candidate, and those in the comments you say you bash "Obama more" or "Edwards more" misunderstand. You bash everyone who doesn't agree with you. You're equal opportunity that way.

You are the conscience of the internet Matt. Oftentimes when I find myself starting to make excuses for a candidate I like, you help keep me in check.

You support Gravel and also hate puppies.

now we need one of these frank and candid admissions from jerome.

More Dada please!
.

Damn you Matt Stoller! You stole my secret agendas.

And no, I'm not referring to your painful sarcasm. Just a couple posts down from this one you have a post entitled:

The Obama Plan: Residual Troops in Iraq

Lazy readers who only look at the title, but don't read the text will assume that this position is uniquely Obama's. You don't think that shows bias? You don't think you could have come up with a more accurate title?

You're full of shit, Matt,  and you've clearly jumped on the bash Obama bandwagon. Subtlety will not save you on this one. I'll call you biased AGAINST Edwards as soon as I see you post something unfair against him. I won't be holding my breath...

The unfortunate thing here is that people are actually buying this.  If you make it all a joke, we can laugh and forget about everything.  The truth of the matter is that you are biased.  Everyone is biased. If you follow politics closely enough to blog about it, you have preferences.  You can try to operate under the pretext that you haven't made up your mind, but the truth of the matter is that you have leanings at the very least.  

Over the last few weeks it's become clear that you take pleasure in criticizing Barak Obama.  That's fine.  Maybe you like Edwards.  Maybe you like Obama and thus hold him to a higher standard.  Maybe it gets people upset and increases readership.  Only you know the real reason.

The only time it bothers me is when you claim you criticize equally.  You don't.  Go read the front page for the last few weeks and then honestly tell me you dish it out to everyone.  I couldn't find a single entry where you singled out Edwards for criticism.   Yet you'll find some obscure blog post written on Obama's site by an anonymous poster and put that on the front page?  Come on.  Who are you fooling?    

 

Oh mah gawd!. Yer an alien! You ate the eggs! The invasion from space musta done started!

I'm glad I got that out in the open.

That's it, I'm telling. You were supposed to keep our work a secret. You are weak , Matt and you shall be punished at our next meeting.

;p

Whichever canddiate you are obsessed over they should beware.

You may pick winners, but you are obsessed by losers.

Just ask Lamont.  Got that was sickening. I had no love for Lieberman and figured he was a Republican anyway.

But you were way far gone with your man crush on Lamont.  

I think it proved how useless the netroots can be. To obsess over one race, and have maybe a line a week on others.  Now you have a pretty deadlocked Senate that can't overide a veto.

And you may not be obsessed by Edwards, but you and your boy toys are getting pretty scary.

Did you hear, Edwards burped today, and he said excuse me.  What a great man.

You and your boy toys are actually lying hypocrites, if that is possible.  You call Edwards the anti-war candidate, when he had kneepads on blowing Bush through the whole run-up.

And now the polls tell him to change so he does.

I'm sure the hundreds of dead in Iraq are so happy.

How msny will die for his next mistake?

And when will you tell us what Edwards is paying you to be a hypocrite.

Well, this certainly did nothing to dissuade me from my ususal practice of picturing Matt blogging from a dark subterranean bunker.

  Oh yeah?!  Well, I have a secret Joe Sestak agenda!  I'm a Sestak partisan.  I'm also evil.

    I see that there are still a lot of commenters who take an attack on their favorite primary candidate as if it were an attack on their limb.  It's getting pretty old.

I am really hoping that you don't get too snarky--
 and that you let it go all together after this post.
  Your primary audience is not questioning and criticizing you.  If you really let it get to you, you are reacting to the fringe.
 Keep the rest of us in mind.
We have enough trouble with the MSM reacting to one fringe view after another and losing sight of the reality -- the vast majority of us now are on the same page.  But the MSM is nowhere near -- they are off on a fringe, distorting reality as best they can.
Perhaps this post shows that you can see how that happens.
You are right on and seeing clearly.  Keep doing it, please ...

You forgot to add at the end, "Mwa-ha-ha-ha!!"

Anyway, those are my various secret agendas.  I figured I'd air them in the name of full disclosure, which, by the way, I don't believe in.

Just sort of rolls off the ol' tongue after a coupla Bud Lights, don't it? This is hilarious. My goodness, if you can't poke fun at yourself and your detractors on occasion, what the hell good are ya? And from the comments it becomes immediately evident to whom this precious  soliloquy is so eloquently directed.

/set soapbox=ON

This is is exactly why I believe the push & pull hustle-bustle teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling over the Dem candidates is already OLD. It is 20(?) months to the %#^%@^#&!! election, and this is what we have to show?
Slings and arrows, a heinous river of cash, and an endless tug-of-war that reminds me of an NFL combine that does ... not ... end ...

/set soapbox=OFF

You just keep doing what you do, Jerome .. er, uh, Chris ... oh, sorry, um, MATT. ;)

-GFO