Josh Marshall over at TPM noticed something startling. To understand why it's important, however, requires a little context.

For all practical purposes, Hillary's path to the nomination requires that an overwhelming majority of super delegates decide to override the wishes of the voters as expressed in the majority of the primaries, the majority of the caucuses, and in the popular vote. Last Friday, Nancy Pelosi went on record saying such a move would be bad for the Democratic Party.  

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections," said Pelosi, "it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

So, if you're Sen. Clinton, how do you continue your campaign for the nomination without arousing suspicion that your strategy is ultimately bad for the party?

Posted at The New Republic an hour ago.

BREAKING: MI Caucus Likely, Says DNC Rules Committee Member

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

Full post below.

This is not a jab at those who expected Gore to enter the race. (Had he run, I might have supported him myself in the primaries). Rather, I'm simply interested in learning where Gore supporters have gone (or are going, as the case may be) since it became evident that Gore would not be running. I also think Edwards supporters may wish to keep this in the back of their collective mind. Here's why.

There are at least two reasons why one might think so.  

Before elaborating, however, let me first say this isn't a knock against the Hillary campaign. Congrats to them (including their volunteers) for having pulled out a primary victory which nobody seems to have expected. And, second, now that it's once again an open question who will get the nomination, a significantly greater number of Americans from other parts of the country will have the opportunity to participate in our democracy. That's a good thing.

All that aside, what about the MSM?

There's an insightful diary on the rec list by williamtriallawyer.  There, the diarist teases out of the media's coverage what looks like a conflation of two very distinct issues, namely, committing a crime versus being gay. Making this distinction is wholly in order, since (I can't believe I'm writing this) being gay is not a crime.

But it doesn't follow that it's irrelevant whether or not Craig is gay. And that's why we need to make a second distinction.

I keep seeing it in the headlines, so let’s quell the myth that Bush has taken responsibility for the disaster in Iraq.  As best I can tell, there were two statements in Wednesday night’s speech which came close, charitably speaking, to assuming responsibility, and they are these:

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." §4

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons:" §8

The casual reader will notice that, in the second statement, Bush references the failure of "our" –and not "my"— past efforts. Failure to take responsibility for one's failure is a sign of bad character; pretending to do so and implicating others is even less worthy of respect.

More below the cut.

So far so good. She seems to have missed the role her husband plays in the polarization of the nation, but we need all the help we can get in the media watch department, so we'll let that one slide.  But then she says,

How much talk was there in the aftermath of the 2000 election about voting reforms? And what have we got to show for it? And who's been in charge?

The frightening prospects of another contested, if not blatantly rigged, election are looming dangerously on the horizon. And the electronic voting planned for this November, sans paper trail, isn't helping things. So, why isn't Kerry making this a campaign issue? Here's why he should:

One reasonable response to the Post editorial is: WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? At least, if you hadn't been paying attention and had just read the latest piece by Brian Cloughley over at Counterpunch. Cloughley's piece is helpful, in part, because it's an international's perspective on the abuses of the Patriot Act (among other things).

One of the interesting things about Brooks's attempt to come to terms with what others refer to as "REALITY" is the apparent insignificance of the torture scandal for the success or failure of the Iraq campaign. People at the Pentagon, of course, speak of those "six morons who lost the war." Yet, Brooks's only reference to the torture of Iraqi POW's is one that minimizes it (e.g. "America's midcentury leaders...[had] seen Americans commit wartime atrocities that surpass those at Abu Ghraib"). This, of course, compliments an explanation of "what went wrong" that leaves only a few people noone guilty of any moral wrong-doing, whatsoever.

Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits, 24, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company, will face a court-martial May 19 in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Sunday in Iraq...

Having said that, however, it's important for us to not forget the clear-headed wisdom demonstrated by those who, unlike McCain and Kerry, from the very beginning saw Bush's war for what it was and have not wavered in their position. Below are exerpts from a piece by Sen. Robert Byrd. For all the helpful criticisms, implicit or explicit, that Sens. Kerry and McCain are making, it's good to be reminded of what all the members of congress should have been saying all along.  Sen. Byrd writes:

The story is sobering, to say the least.  Aside from the victims of the abuse (not to mention the victims of the occupation, more generally), this story will perhaps cast an unfortunate light on many of the men and women who try to serve honorably in a war waged by a President who himself could never muster such courage.

Having said that, I wonder about two things.