Good blogs should stir things up. But there is a fuzzy line between being stimulating and being hysterical. I suspect that Rachel Maddow might judge my post asking "Are Democrats on a March to Folly?" as a bit on the hysterical side.
In Rachel's segment (5/18), "Intra-party acrimony common to primaries, not a fatal flaw," she placed the current primaries, especially the Clinton-Sanders contest, in an historical context. For example, there were 17 candidates in this year's Republican primary, but, back in 1976, there were 17 Democratic candidates, some of whom were recruited late in the season to stop Jimmy Carter.
When asked about the (apparently acrimonious) relation between Sanders and Clinton, Vice President Biden was optimistic. He allowed that the numbers favor Clinton as the nominee, but believes that if Clinton wins the nomination, Sanders will be supportive. Biden insisted that there is no "fundamental split" in the Democratic party. The same point was made by Clinton in an interview with Chris Cuomo (YouTube clip, esp. at 12:55). She observed that whatever differences divide Clinton and Sanders, those differences pale in comparison to the differences between either of them and Donald Trump. (I did make the same point Tuesday in my post on political categories.)
So I will accept a little admonishment. Things may not turn out so badly as one might expect given the ramblings of media hypesters - your Scriber among them.