By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum writes:

I'd say that some of the worst posts I've written (this one, for example) have come when I noticed that a lot of other people were writing about something and I felt like that meant I had to weigh in too. But, really, it's just the opposite: if everybody else is already writing about something, what's the marginal value of one more opinion? Unless I have something genuinely new to say, pretty small.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think that the part of Kevin's statement that I emphasize is true for most of us bloggers. I think some of the clearinghouse blogs really can't ignore big viral stories, but the rest of us can avoid "me tooism." That said, lots of times it is important to blog about a much blogged story when you believe, as I very often do these days, that most of the Left blogs are wrong and wrongheaded.

Heck, I think that is the bigger problem, a real hesitance to state disagreement with the prevailing Left blog wisdom.

When the government wants to take away our rights, it conceals its intent with the assurance that it simply wants to make us safe. The Boston Police Department's "Safe Homes Initiative" sounds unobjectionable -- who doesn't want a safe home? -- but it's important to look behind the marketing to understand what's really motivating the Boston police.

On the surface —- as with virtually all government actions diminishing liberty —- the initiative appears benign. The program is “designed” to help parents who have so little control over their children that they cannot —- or do not want to —- search their rooms to discover if their young charges are hiding firearms in their homes. Boston’s police chief, Edward Davis, graciously has agreed to fill this parental void by sending teams of officers to the homes of parents with children the police or other “community members” believe might be harboring hidden firearms. The “search teams” would then ask the parent or “other responsible adult” (whomever that might be) at the home for consent to search for guns.

What's the problem with "asking" for consent to search entire homes on the basis of unfounded rumors? Bob Barr explains:

After several starts and stops, Civil rights leader and long-time Hillary Clinton supporter has switched positions and will vote for Barack Obama.

Why? It's the movement. "He's transformational." The country has been swept away.

Nothing about whether or why he would make a good President. As to Hillary he says:

....the decision to switch his support was a difficult one, a choice between a longtime friend and a little-known black man.

"I did it because I felt I had to support Mrs. Clinton because of our friendship," Lewis said. "But also I thought she was ready to lead.

Update: As a commenter points out, could this have something to do with Lewis's support of Hillary earning him a new primary challenger?

In 2004, the Democratic ticket carried 20 states with 252 electoral votes. Obviously, it wasn't enough. What other states are most likely to play a role in 2008? Which of the Democratic candidates would be the Party's most successful candidate in the general election?

William Arnone, a long-time Democratic Party activist who worked with Robert F. Kennedy in 1967-68 has updated his July, 2007 analysis of "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election."

The ten states are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

With his permission, I reprint his newest analysis below:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Debate Transcript:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since -- in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let's begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your -- (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

More . . .

A new Quinnepac poll on Pennsylvania is out. It shows Barack Obama cutting into Hillary Clinton's lead there, but she's still ahead, 49 to 43%.

The increase for Obama is attributed to the youth vote.

This biggest movement is among younger voters who went from 52 - 41 percent for Clinton February 14 to 58 - 41 percent for Obama today, a shift of 28 points.

The other numbers show:

Among likely Democratic primary voters, women back Clinton 53 - 39 percent, while men back Obama 50 - 43 percent; white voters go with Clinton 56 - 37 percent while black voters support Obama 69 - 23 percent. Democrats with a college degree favor Obama 53 - 41 percent, while voters without a degree back Clinton 52 - 39 percent.

More...

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Bob Somerby:

Let’s hope last night is the very last time. Let’s hope the Democratic Party never lets NBC run another debate. In a word, the first half hour of last night’s debate was stunning. To understand why, let’s think back to October 30, when Tim Russert and his trophy wife, Brian Williams, hosted an earlier Dem debate [an all out assault on Clinton.]

. . . Afterwards, pundits lined up to say something baldly inaccurate. We always treat the front-runners this way, a long line of fantasists said. . . . We Dems have a new front-runner now; we thought he was frequently brilliant last night. But the first half hour of last night’s debate was a virtual replay of October 30. Jack Welch’s “Lost Boys” were at it again. They were choosing our nominee for us.

And as Somerby further points out, they will be trying to choose our President; NBC's (Jack Welch's Boys) choice is Saint John McCain. Will the Obama supporters in the blogs be so pleased with NBC then?

Germany's highest court today struck down a law authorizing searches of personal computers to see what users had accessed online.

The law authorized the state of North Rhine-Westphalia's intelligence agency to access personal computers, networks and Internet communications. Online searches could comprise access to hard drives, monitoring what a user is typing on a keyboard and listening in to telephone conversations via the Internet.

.... The Karlsruhe-based Federal Constitutional Court said that the law ``violates the right to liberty which also guarantees the constitutional protection of the integrity and confidentiality of information technology systems,'' according to an e-mailed statement.

More....

Sean Wilentz, writing today in the New Republic, argues that it is Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, who has played the race card in this campaign.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters.

Readers are welcome to weigh in, so long as they don't call anyone, candidates or other commenters, racists. This is about playing the race card, not whether either candidate or anyone on this site is a racist.

I've got some things to attend to this morning, so here's an open thread where you can pick the topics, politics-related or not while I'm attending to them.

Our server maxed out last night from the number of people trying to access the site. We're adding another one, but it won't be fully set up for a day or two.

If you are having problems accessing the site or commenting, please know we're working on it.

By Big Tent Democrat

Digby:

The country wants change. They want Washington to stop all the partisan bickering and they want a different tone. They want their government to be serious and deal with real problems.

Can someone please explain to me how that can possibly happen until something is done about the reprehensible political press? . . .

Judging by their silly questions tonight, Russert and Williams obviously know nothing about health care policy, Iraq, Islamic terrorism, economics, global trade or any other subject that requires more than five minutes study to come up with some gotcha question or a stupid Jack Bauer fantasy. It's embarrassing.

During our live-blog of tonight's debate, Big Tent Democrat thought Hillary should have praised Obama when she had a chance to respond to his answer about whether he would reject Lewis Farakhan's support and endorsement. I didn't think she needed to do that. I thought he was trying to have it both ways -- not alienating his Jewish supporters or Farakhan's.

While many think Hillary's distinction between denouncing and rejecting was artificial, Don Frederick at the LA Times disagrees. I think he makes a good case that Obama was waffling. Hillary just called him on it. See below: