Context? We don't need no stinkin' context!

Eric Boehlert has a long post that's well worth the time it takes to read it. The gist of his argument is that the story which has dominated media coverage of the DNC -- will Hillary dominate the convention? will her supporters steal Obama's thunder? is it a sign of weakness that Obama allowed Hillary to speak and have her name put in nomination? yadda yadda yadda -- would not be a story had any of these pundits and journalists provided the slightest historical context It's really rather shocking that, in a world in which so much information is just a few keystrokes away, reporters and analysts don't bother checking the most basic historical facts (or, in some instances, even consult their own memories). Read Boehlert. He's spot on.

clipped from mediamatters.org Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab. Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.