By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I never thought it was possible, but according to this dkos diary (and credit to the Dkos community for bringing this information to the table. I criticize them a lot, but I think they are ahead of everyone on this story), Donna Brazile was wrong about the makeup of the Credentials Committee and Clinton can actually gain a majority on it, and thus seat the existing Florida and Michigan delegations:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

While it is true that Super Delegates can change their mind at any time up to the Convention, I have always supported counting the announced super delegates based on their stated public preference. Thus I think Chris Bowers' post on that is helpful. But I would be remiss if I did not note that Chris flip flopped on the issue of counting superdelegates:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

ABCNews' Mary Bruce Reports: Clinton supporter Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell backed this morning Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo's proposal to guarantee a "dream ticket". Cuomo has suggested Obama and Clinton agree now that whoever does not win the nomination will become the vice presidential candidate regardless of the outcome. "Well, I can't speak for Senator Clinton, but I would love that," Rendell said in an exclusive "This Week" interview. "I think that this duo, regardless, is a history-making duo. They are both tremendous candidates. They both would make great executives, and I'd love to see that happen," Rendell said.

Obama supporter Kerry? Not so much:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On George Stepanopoulos' show, Ed Rendell represented the Clinton campaign and John Kerry represented the Obama campaign. Here is the video.

It seems clear that the Obama camp has completely backed down from the "Hillary should quit" campaign. That's good. Now they are engaging the the winning metrics. Especially the Michigan and Florida issues. Frankly, I think Kerry did as well as he could with a tough hand. Rendell has become quite adept at this though and he talked "popular vote," the will of the people and MI/FL. For me the Clinton argument is better than the Obama argument. But I have been for revotes forever. An aside, Rendell does a great job asking for a positive campaign when asked about Bosnia. Well done Rendell.

By Big Tent Democrat

MYDD has brought on an old blog friend of mine, Carnacki, the proprietor of West Virginia Blue, to blog the May 13 West Virginia Democratic primary. It will be must reading.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The concept of appearance of impartiality seems to be a difficult one for some in the DNC to grasp. Not surprisingly, Josh Marshall is oblivious to how bad this looks:

An ostensibly "neutral" member of the DNC has just taken a side in a fight that could be before the Convention. I can only hope no one plans to appoint her to any committee that has to make a decision at the Convention.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via commenter white n az, a report from the Eschacon Media criticism forum (see also Susie Madrak's own report, she was the moderator):

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert. . . . [T]here's a new phenomenon ... it goes back to Gore's press in 1999 which was "really unfair and really weird." What's happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, "gotcha," and so on -- there's a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there's a portion that has encouraged that. It's dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can't very well say, "You can't go after our candidates ... except this one." I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, "You can't treat Democrats this way." When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

[Susie] Madrak: the rule of thumb is that if you read or hear something that makes you hate another Democrat, you need to dig down further because there's more to the story. The real enemy is the media, and they see themselves as the only superdelegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) BTW, Eschacon sounds great, Krugman will be discussing DFH economics with Duncan. MORE . . .

Barack Obama's campaign has acknowledged Sen. Obama made a factual error in stating the Kennedy family paid for his father's emigration from Kenya to the U.S. in 1959.

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his "very existence" to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Research subsequently revealed the Kennedy family didn't make a financial donaton until 1960.

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

The Obama campaign has acknowledged the error: [More..]

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Obama supporter Josh Marshall:

Sen. Clinton gave a pretty astonishing interview to the Washington Post in which she appears to say she will stay in the race till the convention in August, where she will take her fight to the credentials committee to have the delegates from the non-sanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries seated.

(Emphasis supplied.) What did Clinton actually say?

Who is gonna make it?
We'll find out in the long run

....Well, we're scared, but we ain't shakin'
Kinda bent, but we ain't breakin'
in the long run

This race isn't over. 12 million voters will weigh in between April 22 and June 3. Hillary will go the distance, until the votes are in and Michigan and Florida are resolved.

This is a late night open thread.

Via John Heileman at New York Magazine:

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat.

Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

The take-away: [more...]

Much is being made of PA Senator Robert Casey's endorsement of Barack Obama. Some got so carried away they suggested Casey be Obama's VP nominee. Others saw through that pretty quick. Where does Casey stand on issues? Here's some of his positions:

• He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and opposes embryonic stem cell research.
• He supports Bush's warrantless NSA spying program and thinks the Patriot Act is a vital tool and a necessary one.
• He supports the death penalty and opposes legalization of all drugs.
• On the war in Iraq, he's been against a deadline for withdrawal.
• He supported the Defense of Marriage Amendment and opposes gay marriage.
• He supports teaching "abstinence plus" in schools and the posting of the Ten Commandments in government buildings:

Some specifics below the fold: