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...

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Daily Kos, the latest negative attack from the Obama campaign:

Senator Clinton’s claims about her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia—and the footage disproving her account—have created quite a stir. And with good reason. . . . Unfortunately, Clinton’s fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances in which she has exaggerated her role as First Lady, particularly with respect to domestic policy.

Any words of reproach for these negative attacks from Obama supporting blogs? Of course not. I hope that we can at least hear no more about how negative Clinton has become from these same sources. If you are pleased with negative attacks by Obama, you can hardly condemn them from Clinton. Me, I condemn them from both sides.

Hilarious postscript on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Remember when Obama famously declared that he could get Clinton's voters but she could not get his? Time to rethink that proposition. The Gallup Poll has Obama losing 28% of Clinton supporters against McCain (19% of Obama supporters defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.)

Too many in the Obama campaign, Obama supporters and Obama supporting blogs believe that their demonization of Hillary Clinton has had no ill effects on Barack Obama's image among the half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton. They are wrong. At this point, without the active and sincere support by Hillary Clinton of his potential Presidential run against John McCain, Obama has no chance in November. And vice versa of course.

We Democrats will need unity in November. I believe a Unity Ticket is the only way to achieve this.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The pro-Obama blog Huffington Post (with an assist from the Obama campaign?) appears to have taken Hillary Clinton's bait on the Wright issue. Sam Stein reports:

[T]he pastor at the church that Clinton did once attend has recently expressed public support for Wright. He's even proclaimed it a "grave injustice" to make a judgment on Wright based off of "two or three sound bites," and criticized those who would "use a few of [Wright's] quotes to polarize."

Not sure what the point of this story is (that Hillary's ex-pastor disagrees with her on Wright? So what?), but I do know this is the LAST story Barack Obama wants to have driving the news narrative today. Now Hillary has a good excuse to continue discussing Wright. She gets to be anti-Wright while Obama gets reinforced as being pro-Wright.

I imagine Hillary Clinton is thrilled that Huff Po detests her so much that they will push this anti-Obama issue in order to try and get at Hillary Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

When the Media and the Left blogs deplore the negativity of the Democratic presidential campaign, especially from the Clinton campaign, they ignore that they are a major reason why it has happened. Why? Because they attack the Clinton campaign no matter what it does while ignoring or defending every negative attack and questionable tactic of the Obama campaign.

The examples are legion. There is not an ounce of doubt that it was the campaigns challenging Hillary Clinton last fall that first engaged in negative attacks. The Media and some of the Left blogs were imploring the Barack Obama campaign to do that and certainly not a single word of reproach was written about it.

Led by Tim Russert and Brian Williams in the October 2007 debate, and followed eagerly by the entire NBC network and many Left blogs, the attacks on Hillary Clinton, especially on her character, were applauded on a daily basis. More.

Apropos of former NYC Mayor Ed Koch's op-ed today on Barack Obama's comments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his race speech. Koch notes that Obama's young daughters attend the church. Hate is taught. Are Wright's hate-filled sermons something he thought it was okay for them to hear and learn?

Why subject your children to the politics of hate?

This is an open thread. Please remember to be civil and respect the comment rules.

Update: Comments at 200 and now closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

In my humble opinion, Hillary Clinton makes a grave mistake wading into the Wright waters:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made. "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Previously Clinton has steadfastly avoided discussing the Wright issue. Rightly in my view. Of course it was no doubt frustrating to her campaign that she did not receive any credit for taking the high road here, but it is still is a grave mistake to now discuss the issue. I am disappointed that she chose to discuss it. Bad show Hillary.

Update (TL): Comments now closed, there's a new thread on Wright up.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Does anyone believe this is a persuasive argument about the Florida/Michigan situation?

[T]he main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race. . . . Only the fact that Hillary Clinton is trying to use the seating of the improperly selected delegates to actually overturn the results of the legitimate nominating process is creating a crisis situation that threatens Democratic prospects in the fall.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yet again an elitist blogger tells us that the problem is that Florida and Michigan Dems just do not understand what he understands. In the process he labels enfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida as "overturning the results of the legitimate nominating process." Whoa. I can tell you from my personal encounters with Florida Dems (I am in Florida a good deal now) that they would deeply resent what they would perceive as ignorance from this elitist blogger. I urge Obama supporters to steer clear of this argument. Adopting this argument would be digging the hole even deeper.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Kos responds:

[I]f the supers overturn the popular will by siding with Clinton, they will spur civil war ("up in arms", as Armando says) -- not because they broke a rule in pulling off their coup, but because they will have subverted the will of the party electorate.

Here Markos and I agree. If Obama is the pledged delegate leader and the popular vote leader (as me, Kos and a cast of a thousand bloggers, NBC, etc, expect), then any action by the super delegates to subvert such a result would be outrageous and wrong, imo of course. But as Kos acknowledges, NOT against the rules. It won't happen. More . . .