By Big Tent Democrat

When an A-List progressive blogger can write that Chris Matthews is right in his sexism and misogyny, via digby, then something is rotten in the Denmark that is the progressive blogs.

Jamison Foser explains why:

Matthews lashed out at the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton should "get rid of the kneecappers that work for her," referring to her communications staff who go "after the press." Matthews added, "The kneecapping hasn't worked. Her press relations are lousy. ... If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians -- and in all fairness, the press -- human reaction to intimidation is screw you."

For the record, Matthews' overt hostility toward Hillary Clinton cannot honestly be described as a reaction to how her presidential campaign has treated the press: More than six years ago, Matthews said of Clinton, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." More to the point, Matthews' apparent blaming of the Clinton campaign for his own sexism is the clearest indication yet that he doesn't "get it" and that MSNBC doesn't care that he doesn't get it.

(Emphasis supplied.) And a lot of A-List male bloggers do not get it. Do not hold your breath waiting for any of them to comment on this . We have a malign acceptance of sexism, and it extends well beyond the Media.

U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer in Wyoming has overturned a state death sentence and ordered a new trial for inmate James Harlow who was convicted of murdering a prison guard in 1997. Among the myriad of reasons:

In a 230-page ruling, Brimmer stated that Harlow was denied a fair trial in state court because conflicts between his original lawyer, Keith Goody, and the former state public defender Sylvia Hackl. The judge said that Goody was made to fear he would be fired for doing his job and insisting on more resources to defend Harlow.

[More...]

Two men in Mississippi, wrongfully convicted of murdering a child, have been released from prison after a decade, thanks to the work of the Innocence Project and local lawyers.

The cause of these wrongful convictions: fraudulent evidence. Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project says:

"You have a local forensic dentist who fabricated evidence in both these cases to get two innocent men convicted."

Here's more from the Innocence Project on the clearing and release of Kennedy Brewer and Levon Brooks.

Update: Radley Balko at Reason has an update on Mississippi's woeful forensics system.

Harris County, Texas (Houston) has the highest execution rate in Texas. If it were a state, it would have the the second highest execution rate in the nation.

Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal resigned amidst a personal conduct scandal yesterday. Bye, Bye Chuck.

As TChris wrote here last month:

There are many good reasons to believe that Chuck Rosenthal should not be the district attorney in Harris County, Texas ... or anywhere else. He leads the nation in his aggressive use of the death penalty and refused to change that stance in the face of evidence that the Houston crime lab was falsifying data. When a grand jury asked Rosenthal to recuse himself from the investigation of that scandal on the ground that he was up to his neck in it, he declined. He defended his office's reliance on false testimony to support a conviction although he had the good grace to apologize for one of the many wrongful convictions for which his office is responsible.

Voters like Rosenthal because of his image as a "tough prosecutor" -- they apparently think it's more important to look tough than to be right, or fair. It may not be Rosenthal's official actions, but his racist emails, that finally bring him down.

There's also his incredibly racist e-mails: [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.

- Barack Obama, February 15, 2008

In a campaign marked by news coverage unrelenting in its sexism and misogyny, especially from NBC, the last thing we can afford is sexism from the frontrunning candidate. Barack Obama needs to apologize for this remark.

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

Friday night, every cable news show I watched, mostly on MSNBC, took former President Bill Clinton to task for reverting to attacks on Barack Obama, much like he did before the South Carolina primary.

Now comes the Dallas Morning News, with just the opposite story.

Headline: "Bill Clinton avoids attacks on Obama in East Texas."

The story:

On a campaign swing through East Texas on Friday, Bill Clinton said over and over that he has nothing against Barack Obama.

"I'm not against anybody," he told an overflow crowd in the student center at Tyler Junior College. "I'm for Hillary." Later, he added: "If you disagree, you have another very attractive choice."

The former president, admitting that Texas looms as a make-or-break state for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential hopes, scrupulously avoided attacks on Mr. Obama – attacks of the type for which he was roundly criticized after the Jan. 26 South Carolina primary.

Go figure.

Here's an late-night roundup:

• NY Times: Al Gore and John Edwards are holding back on endorsements. Gore, in particular, is waiting in the wings to play mediator if the race doesn't tip soon towards Hillary or Obama.

• NY Times: Some New York City superdelagates holding firm for Hillary, even in districts Obama won.

• NY Times: McCain v. Obama on public financing. The League of Women Voters weighs in on this.

• AP: Hillary says she can beat Obama and McCain. For her, it's not "Yes, we can" but "Yes, we will."

• AP: Obama on Hillary: "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters." Here's the video. Sexist? Very, says Lambert at Corrente Wire. [More...]

It's been a contentious week in the blogoshpere and the media between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama factions. It's Friday night. Let's lighten up -- here's something for fans of each of them:

[hat tip to The New York Times' Caucus Blog.] This is an open thread.

The Washington Post lays out the problems for Obama in Texas. Shorter version: He still suffers from a lack of support in the Hispanic community.

It begins with John McCain, who does have Hispanic support in Texas:

The Latino community is a critical piece of any Democratic candidate's general election calculations. Against John McCain, who has championed comprehensive immigration reform to his detriment in the Republican primaries, the Democratic nominee will face an opponent who begins the general election with a credible chance of holding a solid minority of the Hispanic vote.

On to Hillary: [More...]

Via Jerome at MyDD:

Here's the state of the race that includes all 50 states (TL adds: in other words, with Florida and Michigan counting):

Clinton leads Obama, 1127 to 1119, in pledged delegates.

Clinton leads Obama, 240 to 140, in super-delegates.

There are 393 remaining super-delegates.

There are 1301 remaining pledged delegates.

There are another 94 remaining delegates among the uncommitted, and John Edwards delegates.

Sources: Jerome says Green Papers and DemConWatch have the best and most accurate information.

I disagree with Big Tent Democrat, Markos and every other Obama supporter on what to do about Florida. (I'm saving Michigan for another post as it's factually different.)

I don't believe that Obama suffered because of the lack of campaigning allowed in Florida. And, if he did, so did Hillary. They had television. Floridians could watch the debates and the nightly news and read the newspapers. They weren't living in a cave.

It's evident from the high turnout in the Florida primary -- 1.7 million Democrats voted in a primary that was not open to Independents-- that Floridian Democrats came out in record numbers. They voted early, voted absentee and voted on their primary day. In all, 4 million voters voted on Jan. 29, 41% of all registered voters. That's a huge percentage for a primary.

Florida Dems didn't willingly hold their primary early, the Republican legislature forced the early date on them. [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

While I think it is pretty clear that the DNC did not follow its rules regarding Florida and Michigan, I think Obama supporters make a compelling argument: why didn't Clinton fight for Florida in 2007? It does require a response.

I think the short answer is the DNC used the leverage of possible backlash in Iowa and NH to get the candidates to go along with its wrongheaded and harmful actions. Given the strength Clinton had and I believe would have in a revote in Florida, it seems they miscalculated. Clinton should have fought for Florida at least, since the Florida date change was forced by a Republican controlled legislature (see Rule 21 of the DNC Delegate Selection rules which seem to provide Florida a safe harbor to protect its delegates.)

That said, that still does not address the Obama argument that he did not get to compete for the votes in Florida and Michigan by campaigning in Florida and Michigan. A very fair point. But what are we to do? I go back to my original solution: