Fire David Shuster

After being previously suspended for his sexist remarks, it is clear that David Shuster has no remorse. Shakes and Media Matters have the story:

During the April 22 edition of MSNBC Live, guest host David Shuster said to senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson: "Before we get to predictions, Tucker, I want to present you ... It's a pen. It's 'Jabber Jaw Pens.' And when you listen to it here." At this point, Shuster pressed the top of the pen -- a likeness of Sen. Hillary Clinton's head -- and the mouth began to move as the pen began audibly laughing. After the pen stopped, Shuster continued: "[I]n honor of being on the air with you for the first time in a little while, I present to you with a Hillary laughing pen." In response, Carlson stated: "I can't tell you, David, how much I appreciate this, how much I appreciate your going through Chris' mail while he's gone and how much I'm really going to miss that cackle. I hope it goes on forever. It's brought light to my life." Carlson also pressed the pen.

Shuster then said: "As we -- to the refrain of Hillary cackling, let's start with predictions tonight. What's going to happen?"

How could NBC possibly think this outrageous sexism could be acceptable? Fire David Shuster. NOW.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

I am no fan of Rev. Wright, and for the sake of the Democratic Party, I wish he would keep quiet until after November, but I agree with this:

MOYERS:Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago. Wanted to know about the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion. He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led him to the faith. . . . You were, for 20 years, his spiritual counsel. He has said that. And, yet, he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about you. How did those words...how did it go down with you when you heard Barack Obama say those things? . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

TINS:

They just don't get it. . . . [T]here's a big problem with the whole "electability" argument, anyway. Let's . . . say that Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose. . . .

I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.

I. Do. Care. Anyway. And so should you.

It so happens that I think Obama is more electable than Clinton. But I must say there is really something wrong with the argument that I should not care that, for just one example, John Paul Stevens has just turned 88. I can not fathom how any progressive could write what TINS wrote. I really can't.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me.

Remember this?

Now whatsay the Netroots?

Barack Obama is going where his campaign has never gone before: Fox News, where he'll be interviewed by Chris Wallace this weekend on Fox News Sunday.

For the record, I support the boycott of Fox News. I think Hillary Clinton was placed in a terrible position because of the extreme bias of NBC and the unwillingness of the Left blogs to criticize the anti-Hillary bias in the Media.

I also understand why Obama is dissing the Netroots now. They will never criticize him anyway. Why should he pander to them then?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

For this post, I am going to pretend that NBC's Keith Olbermann (and the normally fair and astute Chuck Todd) are hardworking journalists who are just misguided. I am going to offer a measured critique of what I think was wrong with their news reporting last night. Join me on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

As a Brown grad, I must denounce and reject this:

Seriously. I know it is funny to see The Moustache get pied, but it is just wrong. h/t Ezra Klein.

By Big Tent Democrat

The stupidity of Dem "Party Elders" is a remarkable thing sometimes. But this bit takes the cake:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that he may try to force undecided superdelegates to make their decisions in the Democratic presidential race if it stretches into June. Reid said he would consider writing a joint letter with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) demanding that superdelegates make their endorsements public.

“The three of us, we may write a joint letter [to superdelegates],” said Reid. “We might do individual letters. We are in contact with each other.”

Here's a thought, let Obama defeat Clinton, if he can, instead of angering the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. Are they incapable of just being quiet?

By Big Tent Democrat

Barack Obama is the #1 Media Darling right now. Credit to him and if he is the nominee, let's pray he stays the #1 Media Darling. But, as Kevin Drum and Bob Somerby show, the Dean's Endless Love has not diminished:

David Broder says John McCain "is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest." Bob Somerby is pissed:

The Dean doesn't tell us who assumes this — nor does he say if their assumption is warranted. And this is odd, because let's be frank: John McCain basically lied through his teeth all through his last run for the White House. . . .

The Media's love for McCain will not wane. Right now, it's love for Obama is stronger. As I have written, Hillary Clinton will always be the target of the Media's attacks (cheered on by the Left blogs now, would that continue if she were the Dem nominee? Even the VP nominee?) no matter what. It is why Obama is more electable.

(By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.)

I am rather perplexed by Todd Beeton's excitement about the Democratic candidate in MS-1 (and I understand Beeton sees this as a sign McCain might be vulnerable in Mississippi, an absurd thought imo):

[T]he Republicans' hold is being unexpectedly tested by a self-described "Mississippi Democrat," a gregarious local courthouse official whose positions on social issues -- guns, abortion, same-sex marriage -- are indistinguishable from those of the other party. . . .

I am for the Democrat in EVERY race. And a "economic populist," anti-Iraq Debacle Democrat is better than a Republican of course. Heck, I infamously had nice words for Gene Taylor. Buuut it seems to me the Left blogs have lost their way on the "better" part of the "more and better Democrats" formulation. The 50 State Strategy seems to require, unfortunately, anti-choice, anti-gay Dems in Mississippi. Hopefully, that will change one day. But let's not think that this potential gain in Mississippi is going to move the Democratic Party to a more progressive position. There is a "more" component here, but not a "better" one.

I'm at work today and our threads are filling up fast so here's an open thread for you to pick the topics.

Yesterday, Obama supporter and UCLA Prof. Mark Kleiman and I debated the PA primary results on Bloggingheads tv. We had tremendous technical difficulties, not only couldn't I hear Mark well through his headphone, but we had to do the hour debate three times -- my computer crashed at the end of the first one losing the video and then his did at the end of the second. By the third time, it felt like a cross between being a broken record and forgetting to repeat our best arguments. But, if you'd like to watch it, it's broken down into segments and here it is.

Next time Mark and I are going to debate crime issues.

Indiana's largest newspaper, the Indianapolis Star, has called for a Democratic debate:

[T]he candidates need to engage Indiana voters and one another in a forum that stretches beyond glossy TV commercials, showy campaign stops and rote speeches delivered in city after city. In short, the candidates need to meet for a debate in Indiana in the next few days.

Why another debate toward the end of an exhausting campaign? For starters, the last debate, in Pennsylvania, was heavily criticized for delving into side issues rather than centering on topics such as the economy, health care and foreign policy. Well, then, let's have a debate here that digs into the many serious issues facing the nation and this state. . . .

I, for one, would love to see further discussion of Hillary Clinton's "umbrella of deterrence" proposal.

By Big Tent Democrat

One of the more infuriating pieces of "head in the sand" syndrome that I see is the denial of the obvious - Hillary Clinton, right now, looks to have a better chance of winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (which is NOT to say Obama can not win those states, well, except Florida) than does Barack Obama. Of course she does. But Obama has more appeal in the West, some midwestern states (Iowa, Wisconsin) and in other reddish states (Virginia, etc.). To re-coin a phrase, he "expands the electoral map." These are two competing electability arguments that are perfectly consistent.

Josh Marshall plays the ostrich game and then strangely cites Peter Hart in support basically contradicting him:

Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn't go as wide. Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats.

Hart is right. And Hart understands that there are two competing electability theories. Not inconsistent theories. Just different. Is this that hard to understand?

By Big Tent Democrat