By Big Tent Democrat

File this NYTimes article under Duh. But there are two especially disturbing parts in the article. First the NYTimes publishes a falsehood:

[T]he Clinton campaign . . . only a few weeks ago released a letter signed by Mrs. Clinton calling on MSNBC to fire a reporter who had made an off-color reference to her daughter, Chelsea . . .

That is blatantly false. No such letter exists except in the mind of biased observers. And among the Media whining that they are too fair, is this statement that even if they were not, it is the Clinton campaign's fault":

“Part of it is her campaign’s fault,” Andrea Mitchell, the longtime NBC political correspondent, said backstage at the MSNBC debate in Cleveland in Tuesday. “They started with this notion of inevitability. And they were very arrogant.”

Excuse me, Mrs. Greenspan, there is NO excuse for Media bias ever. Your duty is to your readers. Not to your need to be treated with fawning love. What a reprehensible statement from Andrea Mitchell.

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Turkana, Dana Milbank reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts was pained. Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court. The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people." The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

The strange thing about this is this is precisely the rationale for punitive damages. The Chief Justice's concern is a curious one for a judicial minimalist. I'll explain why on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias get it. Kevin writes:

Why is it somehow OK for John McCain to run on the basis of being the guy who can protect America while Hillary shouldn't? Why are we often so eager to practically concede to Republicans exactly the stereotypes they want voters to believe about us? Seems to me that Democrats ought to get used to the idea of competing on this dimension regardless of whether ads like this are precisely the right way to do it.

The funny thing is Obama did not shy away or shriek in fear of this ad. He responded forcefully. All the fearful shrieking came from some Left blogs. Pretty funny really.

By Big Tent Democrat

I have always loved Gail Collins. Her column today is a good reminder why:

Is it true that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in shambles, awash with second-guessing and back-stabbing?

Well, let’s hope so. If they were chipper and confident at this point, you’d worry that they’d turned into some kind of cult.

. . .

Is there any chance Hillary can pull this out?

It looks hopeless, which was exactly the way it looked in New Hampshire right before she won. So, sure.

Paul Lukasiak continues his number crunching analysis at Corrente Wire today, and concludes,

Based on available exit polling from states that held primary elections, while Obama dominates the “Independent” voter, Hillary Clinton actually does slightly better among “Moderate” voters— and this is even more true in crucial swing states. The data suggests that a more comprehensive review of all such “electability” factors is required.

Paul's prior analysis on the vote is detailed here and explained here.

Could we finally be done with the Ashcroft-Gonzales era of seeking the death penalty even in the face of opposition from federal prosecutors? We might actually be doing better than that.

Today, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey showed he might be taking a different tack. North Dakota U.S. Attorney Drew Wigley announced today that Mukasey had rejected seeking the death penalty against several defendants in a drug conspiracy case involving an alleged murder:

The decision was announced Friday by U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley, after he received a letter from U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Wrigley said it was a short statement by Mukasey.

"He now sets the record for the most direct of the three attorneys general I've worked for. I'll leave it at that," Wrigley said.

The latest decision came in the case of defendant Martin Avila, age 21, accused of being a fugitive and a meth trafficker who used a firearm to kill Lee Avila of East Grand Forks, Minn. Avila is one of "more than 60 people charged in the case known as Operation Speed Racer."

Mukasey also rejected death filings against three other defendants accused in Avila's death.

"The facts are obviously well-known to them," said Wrigley, referring to the Justice Department. "We put together an entire synopsis with every possible aspect of the case and they considered it very thoroughly (in the death penalty decision)."

From a New Yorker interview, Testing the Waters with Barack Obama, November, 2006.

Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

That was before Barack Obama decided to vote for President. Which Obama do we believe now? [Hat tip to commenter Pavaoh}.

A newly released Fox News Ohio poll (pdf) of likely Democratic voters in Ohio has Hillary ahead of Barack Obama 46% to 38%. The margin of error is + or - 4%.

CNN takes a look at the "poll of polls" in both Ohio and Texas.

Two "poll of polls" calculated by CNN show competitive races in both Texas and Ohio. The Texas "poll of polls" of likely primary voters shows Obama at 48 percent, Clinton at 44 percent, and 8 percent unsure. In Ohio, Clinton has 47 percent, Obama has 40 percent, and 13 percent are unsure.

The "poll of polls" includes: [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

I sometimes wonder if I am watching the same election as some people. While it seems clear that the main function of the Left blogs these days is to make fun of the Clinton campaign, I expect some people to have a better sense of the Clinton argument. Some one like Marc Ambinder. But this tells me he is not straying from the Left blog role:

Hillary Clinton will be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Monday, March 3, at 11PM ET. Here's the press release.

And check out her new ad on national security that began airing in Texas today. Big Tent Democrat wrote it up earlier but comments came in so fast, the thread had to close early. Here's a place to continue the discussion.

The ad says:

It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep

But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world

Your vote will decide who answers that call.

Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military - someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

By Big Tent Democrat

So Jay Rockefeller endorsed Obama.

Good for Obama. But my real question is so will Rockefeller follow Obama's judgment on telecom immunity? How about Iraq funding and withdrawal? Think Obama can lead him on THOSE ISSUES? Please?

mcjoan has a good post on it.

By Big Tent Democrat

The Left blogs are in an uproar over this ad:

Not sure what offends in it. It raises a critical question for the Presidency. I think Obama has handled the ads better than the Left blogs: [More...]