At the risk of offending, I note Paul Krugman's column on the division in the Democratic Party, the risk it is causing to winning the Presidency and what can be done about it:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent. . . . [MORE]

Bob Somerby writes:

Readers! It may be hard for some Dems to believe, but an increasing number of mainstream scribes are now hacking away on your side! . . . Something else happens when hacks take your side—Josh Marshall rushes to praise their hackistry.

Somerby's mistake is that the Media scribes are taking Obama's side, not the Dems' side. Obama is the Media Darling. Not "a Dem." I think this lasts through his probable battle with McCain, which must come as a great shock to the "Straight Talk Expresser." But there it is.

Is it enough for Obama to win in November? I do not know, but it sure don't hurt.

Discussing the same Somerby piece, Digby worries the love affair won't last.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

Since it's a holiday weekend, let's go off politics for a bit. Has anyone seen the new Indiana Jones movie? I'll see it, but only because Karen Allen is in it. Here's what she's been up to in real life these past years.

It has been 27 years since Ms. Allen, 56, played Harrison Ford’s rugged romantic interest in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Following breakthrough roles in “Animal House,” “Manhattan” and “Starman,” and more recent work in “The Perfect Storm” and “In the Bedroom,” she moved with her son, Nick Browne, to Great Barrington, Mass.

Today, she owns a knitting shop there and teaches acting at Bard College at Simon’s Rock — but a call from Steven Spielberg, inviting her to join the newest Indiana Jones movie, thrust her back into the spotlight.

The Times article leaves out omits my of two favorite films with her: "The Wanderers" and "A Small Circle of Friends."

Everyone's probably seen The Wanderers, about a Bronx "gang" in 1963, but I'd bet virtually no one remembers Small Circle of Friends. I do, because it came out when I was very pregnant and I ended up naming the TL kid Nic after one of the characters. Turns out Ms. Allen named her son Nick. Probably a coincidence, since her son is now 17, but...[More..]

It turns out that Hillary Clinton said something similar regarding RFK and the 1968 race in a Time Magazine interview in March 2008, but there was not an uproar then. Here is what she said in March:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

More . . .

You will be hearing about this meeting tonight because of an unfortunate, inappropriate statement by Senator Clinton regarding the length of the contest. She invoked President Clinton's 1992 fight for the nomination and most regretfully, the fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s fight for the nomination was cut short the night of his win in the California primary in 1968 as well as the fights in 1980 and 1984.

But her mention of the RFK assassination is simply is an indefensible remark, and in very poor taste. I believe Clinton's point was that the fight for the nomination was going full bore in June 1968. But the statement was a terrible mistake. Indeed, a politically damaging mistake. Senator Clinton should apologize and I imagine will apologize for it. Her enemies will of course use it against her and accuse her of hoping for something bad to happen to Senator Obama. And that tells you about them. But there is no getting around this - Senator Clinton made a terrible statement and she needs to apologize for it immediately.

The DNC has blogger credentials available for the May 31 hearing on Florida and Michigan. The hearing is at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C.

If you are a lawyer who shares Hillary's view on Florida and Michigan and will be in D.C. that day and would like to live-blog the hearing for TalkLeft, I'll apply for credentials and front page your posts. You can do it anonymously or using your real name (Obviously, the DNC and I will need to know who you are.)

Just e-mail me and if you are a commenter here, let me also know the name you comment under.

The hearing will be telecast on C-SPAN and online and I'm sure BTD and I will be blogging it, but having someone in the room would add a lot of flavor and context to the reporting.

Jonathan Alter tops himself with this one, Popular Vote Poison. Alter's premise is that it is "pernicious" to care about who the voters actually voted for:

While [Clinton] knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. . ..

More...

Via Corrente, the UK's New Statesman US correspondent notices the sexism pervasive in our Media as manifested in this campaign:

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. . .

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. . . . [More...]

Ezra Klein joins the legion of ridiculous Obama bloggers with this gem:

[Clinton's] now pursuing a political strategy meant to defeat Obama and ensure the party regrets his nomination. She will do this by convincing voters in Florida and Michigan that his campaign has wronged them and should be severely punished. It's an attempt to poison the well, to deny his campaign 44 electoral votes, or about 1/6th the total needed to win.

Suppose you were silly and stupid enough to actually believe that [More..]

While the Obama blogs are having a conniption because Hillary Clinton is talking about counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, it remains striking to me that these same blogs have never expressed much concern about the Media's disgraceful behavior in this campaign. Indeed, any mention of the sexism and misogyny in the Media and elsewhere makes them look down at their shoes, or worse, even defend the perpetrators. I think it is no coincidence that it has been almost exclusively women bloggers who have discussed these issues. Take Digby for instance: [More...]

Just so I understand the Obama blog argument, they say that calling for counting the votes is the most vile, most outrageous, most heinous act in the history of politics. Did I get that right?

But now for the $64 question, does Obama agree?

comments closed

Can people get more silly than this?

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think [Florida and Michigan] was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign. [This is obviously false by the way. she was using this politically since the beginning of January. Ask Markos.]

Now, that's politics. One day you're on one side of an issue, the next you're on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that's not what Clinton is doing. She's elevating it to a level of principle . . .

More...