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 . . .

Shine a Light, Martin Scorcese's new film about the Rolling Stones opens in theatres, including IMAX, April 4. The The LA Times has a good feature article on the film.

Who's looking forward to seeing it? Hillary. [more...]

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

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

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 . . .

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.

I finally replaced my 3 year old home desktop with a brand new Dell (Windows XP, not Vista)and I'm going to be busy transferring files and loading software most of the day. I set it up last night and happily nothing was DOA.

If you're online, here's an open thread and some reading recommendations.

• On superdelegates, William Arnone, who wrote these excellent analyses of the key states in the Democratic race, has just sent me his newest analysis -- it's on superdelegates. He crunches the numbers, not just as to who's winning in the delegate, popular vote and SD race, but also which states are top-heavy on superdelegates. He also adds electoral votes into the mix and gives a concise, unbiased and in my view, accurate history of the superdelegates, their functions and their options. I've uploaded it here.

More below:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

This post proves it. Doing a mashup attack video used to be something reserved for Republicans from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. By doing an attack video on Hillary Clinton, TPM demonstrates that not only has it become an Obama site, it is one of the most virulent and unfair of such sites. The honesty is good. After all, like Nancy Pelosi, we all knew this. What was lacking was the candor to admit it. With his latest tactics, Marshall has ostensibly admitted what we all knew anyway. Pelosi should follow suit.

Now if only NBC will admit the same.

There's no need to go off topic in other posts. Here's a thread where you can pick the topics.

Please stay civil, and all other comment rules apply.

Update: Comments now closed.