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.

Some good news for Mumia Abu-Jamal today -- but not enough. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled he either has to get a new jury sentencing trial or his sentence will be life without parole, rather than death.

"The jury instructions and the verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from finding a mitigating circumstance that had not been unanimously agreed upon," wrote Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica in the 77-page opinion.

One of the judges on the panel would have granted a new trial in the guilt phase as well: [More..]

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Move On, unfortunately and disappointingly, backed by Open Left, has chose to circulate a false petition defending Nancy Pelosi's outrageous behavior. Move On falsely states that:

A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.

This is false. Nancy Pelosi stood against the will of the people as expressed by the popular vote. Let's remind Move On and Open Left what Pelosi said:

Political prognosticators give Clinton more of a chance of catching, or even surpassing, Obama in the national popular vote but Pelosi argued that super delegates should follow the pledged-delegate, not the popular-vote, leader.

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos. "But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

But Move On's contempt for the will of the people and the popular vote is not new, nor is it new for the Pelosi family:

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Glenn Reynolds and PW, Jay Cost of RCP explains that pundits bloviate and voters decide:

I agree that Clinton is more likely to lose than win. I also do not necessarily disagree with these low estimates. However, I disagree with the way these estimates are occasionally presented. There is sometimes an implication that these are precise predictions - when in fact a prediction like this must be very imprecise. This is why I was so vague in offering my own estimate last week.

There are reasons to expect imprecision in this kind of situation. Precision depends in part on the number of variable factors that create that which we are predicting. The more things that must happen for the prediction to come true, the less precise it is. . . . We can make a prediction of what will happen, and we should predict that Obama is more likely to win than Clinton. However, there are so many factors that will go into who wins the nomination that speaking more precisely than this becomes quite problematic.

Exactly.

Bumped BTD

I'll be at the dentist most of the day and I'm tired of moderating race-baiting comments. Here's an open thread with a caveat....no Rev. Wright, no race talk. Those comments will be deleted when I get back.

In other news:

• Terry Kindlon has an op-ed in the Albany Times Union, Bush's view of war an insult to all

• Ann Althouse writes about Obama pitches to Texas delegates, including those like her son who are Hillary delegates, encouraging them to vote for Obama at the county convention.

• Via Instapundit, Quick as a Link, You're in the Clink

More...