I turned on the TV this morning and came across MSNBC and Mika Brzezinski was playing host. And she has Mike Barnicle, and later Chris Matthews on, and she wants to ask about the impact of Rev. Pfleger. Being Grade A Hillary Haters, they were not bothered by Pfleger's comments about Hillary Clinton and did not want to talk about Pfleger, treating Brzezinski with a disrespect that was simply of a piece with the nasty sexism that MSNBC has generally fostered. A sad but expected episode in a long litany of sexism from MSNBC. They just have embraced their inner pig. And NBC is fine with it. But here is what gets me - they pretended as if they wanted to talk about something actually important - like Michigan and Florida.

This is what burns me up - there is not a NBC newsreader or bloviator - I know for sure Mike Barnicle and Chris Matthews have not - who has taken the time to actually learn the facts about the Florida and Michigan situation. NOT one. Now NBC has one of the sharpest guys around as political director in Chuck Todd. Chuck knows the whole story. I KNOW he does. But either Chuck is not imparting his knowledge on the Michigan and Florida situation to the NBC newsreaders and bloviators or they do not want to hear it. [More...]

Pinball Wizard by the Who.

This letter from the Michigan Democratic Party to the DNC Rules Committee explains the history of what happened very well.

Update: Hillary picks up superdelegate from Washington. The state total now stands at 7 for Obama, 6 for Hillary and 4 still uncommitted.

This is an open thread.

Via Suburban Guerilla and Reuters:

During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama.

He'll overturn laws? What about the separation of powers? How can a President overturn a law passed by Congress?

Presidents issue exective orders. It's Congress that passes and repeals laws. Our courts decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

[More...]

Washington Post reporter Paul Kane had an online chat today. He was asked a few times why the Post didn't report on Rasmussen daily tracking polls and the recent Gallup poll showing Hillary doing better than Obama against McCain in the swing states.

His answer: He's covered the superdelegates extensively and he knows they don't care.

Question 1 on the topic:[More...]

Colorado will be a hotly contested race in November. It's considered a toss-up, a red state that has trended bluer in recent years, although Bush won it in 2000 and 2004. How will this affect voter turnout, and which way?

In November, Coloradans will be asked whether they favor amending the state constitution to include a provision that defines a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

Colorado for Equal Rights, the grassroots group seeking a measure to extend constitutional protections to the earliest individuals, fertilized eggs, succeeded in submitting more than enough valid voter signatures, the secretary of state said Thursday morning.

Not surprisingly, the group believes this amendment could result in legislation reversing Roe v. Wade:

[More...]

All of us old, low information voters remember Harvey Korman. He passed away today. He was 81.

This is not his best scene in Blazing Saddles, a movie I love, but it is funny and somewhat political:

Harrumph! RIP, Harvey Korman.

CNN is doing a big segment tonight on how Barack Obama won his first state senate seat by booting Alice Palmer from the ballot. (Article here.)Palmer now supports Hillary Clinton.

Shorter version: How did Obama win his first Senate seat? By challenging his opponents' right to be on the ballot and succeeding, so he could run unopposed.

I wrote about this in detail in April when Palmer campaigned for Hillary in Indiana. Here's the back story, from the Chicago Tribune: [More...]

The Detroit Free Press reports that former Congressman and campaign manager for John Edwards, David Bonior and FL Rep. Robert Wexler will argue for Barack Obama at the Florida Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting Saturday.

Who is arguing for Hillary? The article doesn't say.

The hearing is televised and BTD and I will be live-blogging from our respective locations while TalkLeft commenter (and attorney) BackFromOhio will be TalkLeft's credentialed blogger at the meeting and live-blogging on scene.

Should be a big day, I hope you'll join us.

I've just been notified by the DNCC that TalkLeft will be a credentialed as a blogger at the Democratic Convention in August. From the e-mail:

Congratulations. The Democratic Convention staff has completed its review of blog credential applications and I’m writing to let you know that your blog will be credentialed at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

We’re excited to welcome so many blogs to the Convention (about 3 times as many as 2004). And we know you’re eager to make travel plans for August. We’ll contact you next week with logistical information regarding housing, credential distribution, and other key details. You probably have several questions. Please be patient – as our goal is to distribute this information to all credentialed blogs at the same time.

I'm very excited TalkLeft was selected. As one of the credentialed bloggers for the Boston DNC in 2004, I know how exciting it is to cover the convention live and to be in the hall during the evening speeches. [More..]

As a general rule, I do not like to judge an entire group of people by the e-mails that get sent to me. For that matter, I do not like judging an entire group of people because of comments from a select few.

That is why I like to name names when I criticize. I am criticizing the person I name, and no one else.

For that reason, I disagree with what Duncan Black chose to do in this post and in this post.

This is an Open Thread.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

Update: Grits for Breakfast has a news and blog roundup and some commentary.

The Texas Supreme Court has upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that found there was no valid justification for seizing children at the compound of a polygmamous religious sect.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed with a lower court's ruling, that Child Protective Services did not present ample evidence that the children were being abused. The high court ruling could possibly clear the way for the children to be returned to their families. They were removed in April from the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, near Eldorado.

"We are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision," the ruling said. "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."

Via How Appealing: Today's ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consisted of a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. The majority opinion in a second, related case can be accessed here.

It's time to return these children to their parents. Background on the Court of Appeals ruling is here.

Great letter from Michigan to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee:

. . . .While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the pre-window contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process, and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock on the process. We notified the DNC that we would abide by the new calendar and its sequence provided that other states did the same. To be clear – the key issue which the new rule resolved was the sequence of the pre-window states, not just the number of pre-window states.

More...