Without commenting on Clift, I do think the general spirit of vindictiveness, dishonesty, and backstabbing that surrounds Clan Clinton deserves wider media play and discussion, because it's sure as bloody hell how she/they are going to govern.

Well, that's the thing - why don't people actually write that story, the how it's going to affect how she'd govern story? B/c that'd really be meaningful and news. Much more so than simply point-out backstabbing and never engaging the political implications of it.

at this point, i'd like to know why the media, following pennsylvania, is painting this as a fair / close fight. how did we forget that the story hasn't changed in terms of delegates from the week before the pa. primary when the media seemed to be acknowledging that only a full blown insurrection of party insiders could net her the nom? the story's the same, but the coverage has seriously changed, and even the times has drunk the kool-aid, as every inch of its coverage in today's paper made abundantly clear.

she can't win. she can steal, or hijack. but she can't win, in any proper, democratic sense of that word. and that's an objective fact at this point that should never be omitted from the coverage.

at least it sounds close in indiana. obama needs to win the next two outright. and if that doesn't shut her down, then we know, well, what we already know. so depressing.

Armand: because the major media figures who are in a position to do a story like that don't want to get hit by the career-limiting backstabbing/vindictiveness/etc if she manages to get herself elected?

Scott Lemieux has an answer for you moon.