Hard to believe the last open thread is already filled. There was lots of talk about what we're watching instead of MSNBC and cable news. American Idol seemed to be a favorite, it's on now.

BTD just signed off for the night -- until I'm done with dinner and can post some substantive stuff, here's a place to continue your discussions -- all topics welcome.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I realize that I have not watched Keith Olbermann's show for a while now. I wonder if it is still the same anti-Hillary fest? I also wonder what people who have not been watching him lately who used to be regular watchers (like I once was) are watching now, if anything. Let me know what you are watching now.

This is an Open thread.

Update (TL):Comments now closed, a new open thread is up for you to continue your discussions.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall writes about the demographics of the Dem race:

The problem is in states with substantial but not particularly large African-American populations in which you have a deep-seated and pre-existing racial politics that ends up playing in Clinton's favor. This, if the theory is right, would explain why Obama does well in the Mountain West and the South but has a harder time in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. . . . But I don't think it adequately deals with all the admittedly small set of data we have. How, for instance, does it account for Obama's victories in Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut among other states? . .

This is an issue we have explored in great detail here at Talk Left. For example here. Josh seems unfamiliar with the exit poll data. I am surprised he is pointing to Missouri as the counterpoint, since it actually is in line with the data in other bigger states. Wisconsin (with Virginia) was Obama's best results with white voters in bigger states. More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is another wrongheaded post from Chris Bowers. He evaluates the unifying effects of the Vice Presidential choice on the effect it will have on supporters of the potential Presidential nominee. Earth to Chris, the people who will need assuaging will be the losing candidate's supporters, not the winning candidate's supporters.

I have to shake my head sometimes. This is an Open Thread. Play nice. J, Chris and I will be out of pocket until tonight.

NOTE - Comments closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Mostly what Atrios said:

I've thought a lot about what Boehlert had to say about concerns about liberal bloggers channeling Drudgico type horsesh[*]t about Hillary Clinton. I think his basic point is important and correct, but he's wrong to make it an Obama/Clinton thing. One can certainly find pro-Clinton bloggers and commenters who do similar. Personally, I've tried to call media bullsh*t on both sides when I see it and as much us possible live by my basic rule of not reinforcing right wing narratives against Democrats. But I don't claim to be perfect or imagine that I always succeed at what I intend to do along those lines.

What Atrios glosses over is NBC. Because MSNBC has been the cable network that has been most fair to Dems generally for the past few years, Left blogs have given it a pass on its blatant sexist and misogynistic anti-Hillary bias. Most will not tell the truth about Keith Olbermann especially - he has become a bad joke. Most will not say that. And that is what Boehlert is talking about.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Apparently, Michael Stickings did not understand my post. More likely Clinton Derangement Syndrome took over. Stickings writes:

Indeed, the view of the media as supporting Obama over Hillary is a popular one among Hillary supporters — see Taylor Marsh and TalkLeft’s Big Tent Democrat, for example, both of whom, believe it or not, argue that Rendell is right. Here’s the latest Clintonian trend: suck up to the right-wing media. . . I’ll let Steve Benen translate: “Rendell’s argument seemed to be that Fox News is more negative towards Obama than the credible cable news networks, which therefore makes Fox News ‘fair,’ ‘objective,’ and ‘balanced.’”

Stickings denies the Media favors Obama over Clinton? Well, what more do you need to know about where his mind has gone. But it is a shame to see that Steve Benen suffers from the same Clinton hating disease. Let me explain to Benen and Stickings one more time. The argument is NOT that Fox is fair to Dems. It is not. It is unbelievably unfair and biased against Dems. We all know this. The point is that the Obama News Network (NBC) is so in the tank for Obama, and so anti-Hillary, that Fox is fair by comparison to NBC. Now they KNOW this was the point. But they ignored the NBC point of Rendell's comments. It's sad really what Clinton hate can do to once fine minds. More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

TPM wakes up to its and other Obama supporters' errors:

That Hillary is now pushing this line [that Obama surrogates have called for her to drop out] suggests that her advisers believe Obama surrogates erred in giving her an opening to galvanize her supporters and play the feisty underdog -- something the Obama campaign may recognize, too, judging by its efforts to rapidly dial back the calls for her to leave the race.

Um, duh. And Josh Marshall's own laughable attempts to retract his negative campaign against Clinton's continuing in the race demonstrates TPM "erred" in its campaign for its favored candidate, Barack Obama. More . . .

• Thanks to Paul Krugman for citing TalkLeft on his blog yesterday.

• Another Gitmo detainee has been charged with a death-penalty eligible crime.

• In Denver, an ICE agent is on trial for improperly accessing the NCIC database and providing the information to the unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign of former Rep. Bob Beauprez.

This is an open thread? You can pick the topics, just keep it civil.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Talk Left friend Kos writes today:

But aside from that, I'd be saying the exact same thing [about MI and FL] I'm saying now, I'd just swap out Clinton's name for Obama.

Kos in January 2008:

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates. So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Just sayin' More . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I highly recommend this Matt Yglesias post. The money line for me:

I think that's right, and it's a reminder that though the cliché is to say that Democrats are torn between two very strong candidates, in some ways we're torn between two very weak ones.

This will make me popular with no one, but neither candidate is very electable now and neither is what I wanted from our nominee this year - a Fighting Dem. I support the candidate I believe is the more electable - Barack Obama, but I have no illusions about his weaknesses, on electablity and on political style for governance. My expectations are low now. And yes, I strongly believe a Unity Ticket is necessary for Dems to have a good chance in November.

By Big Tent Democrat

speaking for me only

This is the type of post that burns me up. Bowers writes:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking speaking for me only

Apparently, Josh Marshall got a lot of "feedback" for his post that I discussed here. His reply to that feedback seems equally nonsensical to me:

[W]hat is this new gambit for her about? Is she really serious about taking her case to the convention's credentials committee -- which seems almost certain to have a majority of Obama supporters -- and trying to get them to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates on her terms?

. . . [F]rom my view, saying she's in it till August isn't about August. It's not even about June. It's about stamping out doubts about her viability and determination to stay in so she can still be in the game in April and May.

(Emphasis supplied.) This makes no sense to me. Clinton's viability is absolutely tied to Michigan and Florida. The reason Clinton is fighting for Florida and Michigan is because she needs them to capture the nomination. Oh by the way, it happens to be the right thing for the Democratic Party if Obama supporter Marshall actually cares. More . . .