Speaking from London earlier today, Michael Bloomberg said the deal for the West Side rail yards was still alive, and called on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to work out its differences with Tishman Speyer and come to an agreement. The M.T.A. said it reached an impasse with Tishman Speyer yesterday.

“These projects are phenomenally complex—they have lots of different layers of government involved,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking to reporters. “My hope is that the state government, really the M.T.A. in this case, can get together and solve the problems that they have and that Tishman Speyer has so that they can come together. But I don’t think it’s the least bit fair or accurate to say that anything’s dead.”

One of the sticking points, he said, was Tishman C.E.O. Jerry Speyer’s concern that the 1.5-mile extension of the No. 7 subway line would not be completed, leaving the site without transit access. Many have questioned whether the M.T.A. has the financing for the line, as the $2 billion budget has remained the same for years despite rising costs and only modest scale-backs.

On this issue, however, Mr. Bloomberg seemed to side with the Speyers.

“They want to be able be sure that we are going to build that line,” he said. “I talked to Jerry last week or two weeks ago, and I said, ‘If I were you, I would make absolutely positively sure that we are going to build that subway before I put one dime of my own money.’”

Mr. Bloomberg also praised the new nominee for the executive director position at the Port Authority, Christopher Ward, whom we profiled earlier this week, and suggested the prior director who was forced out, Tony Shorris, should have another role in government.

"I saw the Port Authority appointed a very good executive director, Chris Ward, who as you know used to work for the city," Mr. Bloomberg said. "That’s a big step forward. Tony Coscia is a great chairman. Shorris was a pretty good guy. Hopefully he’ll survive in some other capacity here."

Usually, we wouldn't encourage any Americans to heed President Bush's advice, but in the case of tax rebate checks we’re all for a little indulgence. Here are some ideas. [NY Magazine]

The Amstel beer bike will pedal into the Upper West Side this weekend to celebrate the Dutch settlement of New York. [Gothamist]

Meanwhile... the beer will flow a little less freely in Dublin in the future since the owner of Guinness announced plans to lay off half of its brewery workers, close two breweries, and shift production to the suburbs. [Huffington Post]

When "MePa" institution (actually its not even a decade old, but that’s practically ancient for the neighborhood) the Hog Pit closes next January, a Steve Madden store will move in. Earlier reports said Ralph Lauren was eyeing the space. [Racked]

We don't know if this Hamptons shuttle flier in Stuy Town is funny ‘ha-ha’ or ironic, but it’s amusing regardless. [Curbed]

More on Brooklyn's reining celebrity couple and the trials of owning a spacious brownstone in the outer-boroughs. [Daily Intelligencer]

There are actually some places in the world that do not sell I-phones (legally at least). Gasp! [Gawker]

Farewell to Chinatown's Mei Lai Wah Coffee House and "the best pork buns in the world." [Pour]

At first glance, the potential (likely?) demise of Vito Fossella's political career makes for a timely boost for Democrats, who are now in prime position to claim the 13th District congressional seat he has held since 1997.

But it may be more trouble than it's worth.

The district certainly is winnable for Democrats, especially if Fossella opts to seek re-election despite the scandals exploding around him. But even if he doesn't – and there is word this afternoon that his resignation is now imminent – either of the Democrats now running, Steve Harrison and Domenic Recchia, would probably have a better-than-even chance against the Republican-to-be-named-later in the fall.

The 13th District is easily the most conservative in New York City and traditionally sends a Republican to Congress, but Democrats actually enjoy a slight partisan advantage. Largely because of 9/11, George W. Bush carried it by 10 points in 2004, but a more accurate expression of the district's leanings can be found in the 2000 election, when Al Gore won it by eight points over Bush. Moreover, the political climate strongly favors Democrats in 2008 (just look at the party's string of special election wins in GOP bastions this year), which figures to boost the Democratic nominee in the 13th by a few potentially pivotal points.

But winning the 13th this fall would cause a headache for the Democrats because it would eliminate what has been their logical solution to a redistricting dilemma now just a few years away. When the lines are redrawn for the 2012 cycle, New York is certain to lose at least one of its 27 House seats, and more likely two. This will necessitate merging existing districts.

Having Fossella – or any Republican, for that matter – in the 13th actually positions the Democrats well for redistricting, since they could propose merging the 13th with one of the Democratic strongholds in Brooklyn, pitting Fossella against a Democratic incumbent in a new, solidly Democratic district. But if a Democrat takes Fossella's seat (and holds it in the 2010 cycle), this option won't be nearly as attractive.

What's worse for Democrats, they probably won't have many other options. Call it a consequence of success: There are now just six Republicans left in the state's Congressional delegation, a number that could shrink much further this year. Fossella was a perfect target for redistricting.

The situation is somewhat analogous to one across the Hudson, in New Jersey's 7th District, which cuts across the north-central part of the state. Mike Ferguson, a four-term Republican incumbent, is giving up his seat this year in what has been a marginally Republican district. The fall race will be competitive, but victory for the G.O.P. is possible.

But if either of the two leading Republicans vying for the seat – Leonard Lance, the former state Senate Minority Leader, and Kate Whitman Annis, the daughter of former Governor Christine Todd Whitman – ends up winning it, redistricting will probably make it a pyrrhic victory. That's because New Jersey, like New York, will be on the short end of reapportionment in 2012 and will lose one seat. But if a Republican wins Ferguson's seat (and retains it in 2010), expect Democrats to push hard for the district to be merged with the neighboring 11th District, a suburban Republican stronghold that has been represented since 1994 by Rodney Frelinghuysen. That would pit either Lance or Whitman Annis against an entrenched incumbent in a G.O.P. primary in 2012, one in which the demographics would probably favor Frelinghuysen.

Both districts just reaffirm the old truism that the biggest threat to a member of Congress often isn't re-election – it's redistricting.

Saturday

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Municipal Art Society's annual Livable Neighborhoods Program seminar on community planning; Hunter College, 695 Park Ave., 6th floor.

10 a.m. Caroline Kennedy helps kick off annual Madison Avenue Gallery Walk; Neuhoff Gallery, Fuller Building, 41 East 57th St., 4th floor.

11 a.m. Elected officials announce legislation to reform M.T.A.'s disability service; City Hall Steps.

11 a.m. Tony Avella calls for community facilities reform outside construction of a St. John's University dormitory; in front of 172-10 Henley Road, between Kendrick Place and Mayfield Road, Queens.

11:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Center for the Urban Environment celebrates grand opening of its new green building; 168 7th St., Brooklyn.

Noon. Obama campaign supporters kick off registration drive; Mother AME Zion Church, 140 West 137th St.

1 p.m. U.F.T. presents award to Bill Thompson at its annual Spring Education Conference; New York Hilton, 1335 Sixth Ave.

Sunday

3 p.m. Kevin Powell officially announces his bid for Congress; Five Spot Soul Food ; 459 Myrtle Avenue in Fort Greene.

Monday

6 p.m. Fund-raising dinner for Carolyn Maloney; The Princeton Club, 15 W. 43rd St.

In 1944, Lieutenant-Commander James Michener was serving as a general go-to guy for the Navy on the tiny South Pacific island of Espiritu Santu when he was confronted with an unusual problem: A sailor had been officially discharged from duty but refused to leave the area and return to his family home in Alabama. It turned out that the young man had fallen in love with a local island girl, and she was bearing his child. The sailor had no problem serving in combat against the Japanese fleet, but the idea of telling his parents in L.A. (Lower Alabama) that he wanted to marry a "nigger" simply terrified him. The enemy on the other side of the world was by no means easy to fight, yet confronting the enemy within was considerably harder.

This was the germ of one of the 19 interconnected stories that Michener wove into his Pulitzer Prize-winning Tales of the South Pacific, which in turn inspired Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Pulitzer Prize-winning musical, South Pacific. On the occasion of the show’s first-ever Broadway revival (nearly 60 years after the fact) comes Laurence Maslon’s The South Pacific Companion, which details the entire history of this classic work of the American musical theater. Though it hasn’t been seen on Broadway since the original run closed in 1954, South Pacific has been produced all over the world and made into two successful films.

Most making-of show and movie books are little more than glorified souvenir programs. Yet just as South Pacific cuts deeper than most frothy Broadway musicals (it was decidedly not directed by Roger DeBris), so too does Mr. Malson’s oversize and profusely illustrated Companion. He shows how Oscar Hammerstein and Joshua Logan carved a concise and coherent story out of Michener’s sprawling saga, then recounts the difficulties in casting it with a musical comedy star (Mary Martin) playing opposite a bass-baritone from the opera, and the courageous decision of all involved, following the lead of the producer-composers, to use the show as a protest against racism—something unheard of in popular entertainment at the time, and which could have easily gotten all of them blacklisted.

This is hardly the usual Broadway backstory. Mr. Maslon does a fascinating job of interconnecting the lives of the four key creators, Michener, Hammerstein, Rodgers and Logan, against the backdrop of the Pacific theater of operations in the Second World War. He shows how Tales of the South Pacific was neither novel nor short-story anthology—and, at the same time, neither purely fact nor purely fiction. Many of the situations and characters were directly taken from Michener’s personal encounters: "Emile de Becque" had his origin in a copra planter Michener knew well in Espiritu; "Bloody Mary" was the actual name of a Tonkinese woman who had led a local revolt.

South Pacific has always triggered powerful reactions: In 1957, it nearly inspired a race riot at the Westbury Music Fair in Long Island, of all places, when heroine Nellie Forbush announced that she was from Little Rock—a few weeks earlier, President Eisenhower had sent in troops to Little Rock to enforce integration.

In 2005, a concert version was staged at Carnegie Hall starring the Broadway baritone Brian Stokes Mitchell as de Becque. In the audience that night was the singer’s father, a World War II veteran who had been one of the legendary Tuskegee Airmen. At the time, I remember thinking how incredible it was that Mr. Mitchell’s father had had to fight a war on two fronts: against the Luftwaffe over Europe, and against deeply entrenched racism at home.

Seeing South Pacific again at Lincoln Center and reading Mr. Maslon’s book reminds us that all Americans were, to a degree, fighting two wars at once—and the battle continues.

Will Friedwald is the author of Stardust Melodies: A Biography of 12 of America’s Most Popular Songs (Chicago). He can be reached at books@observer.com.

Ted Kennedy tells Al Hunt he doesn't "think it's possible'' for Barack Obama to pick Hillary Clinton as a running mate.

Rahm Emanuel's spokeswoman says that it was "selective quoting."

John Edwards says it's tough to make the math work for Clinton.

Obama nets seven superdelegates.

A California superdelegate is selling his vote for $20 million.

A pro-Clinton blogger labels links to what she calls the "Hillary Clinton Defense Fund."

A local education blog moves on to Clinton '12.

Obama says the race isn't over.

Jonathan Martin doesn't think support for Republican candidates other than John McCain is that big a deal.

Here's the R.N.C.'s anti-Obama web site.

Democrats note that, while here, McCain is passing by some New York landmarks he didn't want to fund with federal dollars.

Rasmussen thinks the race is over.

Clinton as the Iraq War?

Obama stands up for the autonomy of the Cherokee Nation.

Jay DeDapper thinks a quick exit by Vito Fossella followed by a special election victory could give Republicans at least one thing to brag about heading into November.

In what The Hill calls Fossella's "only break" so far, he he will not have to be in court on Monday.

The Staten Island Advance is "comparing political bad boys": Eliot Spitzer, Vito Fossella and Bill Clinton.

Commenter mom2weatherkids watches Azi's Fossella video and notes that he is not numerically specific when saying he is "blessed to be the father of some very, very beautiful children."

Kirsten Gillibrand promotes her opposition to Eliot Spitzer's drivers license proposal.

David Soares is raising money.

A pro-development blog takes issue with today's New York Times story about Willets Point.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wrote back to Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito about a proposed giant power line.

Regulated rents are going up.

Con Ed wants to raise rates again.

Richard Brodsky has a new plan for the West Side rail yards.

Arizona Cardinals quarterback Tim Hasselbeck and his wife, Elisabeth, the blond, slightly annoying Survivor star-turned-View co-host, just bought a four-bedroom, 2,349-square-foot apartment at Ariel West, the new tower developed by Gary Barnett at Broadway and 99th Street. According to city records, they spent $3.25 million.

The floor plan says that two of the bedrooms, the 30-foot living/dining room, the family room, and the master bathroom are all lined against a massive wall of windows. Of course, that means there will be a nice view for the View co-host, which would have easily made for a nice pun-dripped headline—but there are times in every real estate writer's life when the opportunity to write genuinely idiotic double-entendres must be resisted.

In any case, it's not the first Upper West Side place for the couple. They spent $999,000 in 2005 on an apartment 20 blocks south, city recoreds show, which they haven't sold off yet. That place probably didn't have Ariel's über-condo bonuses like a 51-foot indoor pool, an outdoor basketball court, a pet grooming salon, billiards parlor, and an "elaborate" childrens' playroom, which will suit Ms. Hasselbeck's elaborate tastes.

Arizona Cardinals quarterback Tim Hasselbeck and his wife, Elisabeth, the blond, slightly annoying Survivor star-turned-View co-host, just bought a four-bedroom, 2,349-square-foot apartment at Ariel West, the new tower developed by Gary Barnett at Broadway and 99th Street. According to city records, they spent $3.25 million.

The floor plan says that two of the bedrooms, the 30-foot living/dining room, the family room, and the master bathroom are all lined against a massive wall of windows. Of course, that means there will be a nice view for the View co-host, which would have easily made for a nice pun-dripped headline—but there are times in every real estate writer's life when the opportunity to write genuinely idiotic double-entendres must be resisted.

In any case, it's not the first Upper West Side place for the couple. They spent $999,000 in 2005 on an apartment 20 blocks south, city recoreds show, which they haven't sold off yet. That place probably didn't have Ariel's über-condo bonuses like a 51-foot indoor pool, an outdoor basketball court, a pet grooming salon, billiards parlor, and an "elaborate" childrens' playroom, which will suit Ms. Hasselbeck's elaborate tastes.

Did Jerry and Rob Speyer dive into a project too big for the real estate giants to handle?

When Tishman Speyer Properties was announced winner of the West Side rail yards development rights in late March, the scene was a cheery one, with the governor and mayor on hand at the yards to hail the Speyers as victors. Now, with the deal apparently dead, the mood has changed substantially [background on the deal collapse here].

In the weeks since the March announcement, Tishman Speyer appeared to grow unexpectedly wary. What was ultimately the sticking point in negotiations—the firm wanted to wait an extra year or so before closing on the eastern rail yard, until the western rail yard was rezoned—was a point that Tishman accepted a few weeks back when it was selected.

The official line from Tishman to the M.T.A. was that the needed rezoning posed too much of a risk, as the community or City Council could force the firm to alter its plans.

But perhaps the huge real estate firm was just unsure about the project, as it wanted more time to ponder and more time to walk away without penalty. After all, it faced the major challenge of having no tenant lined up; it needed to find financing for a platform and then the buildings; and the completion of the No. 7 subway line is uncertain as the city and state have not yet reached an agreement on the overruns.

Had Tishman been successful in delaying the signing of the long-term lease for the eastern rail yards, it would have had many extra months to walk away without having to go into default. Under the terms the M.T.A. was pushing, Tishman would have been in default if it abandoned the project before the western yards were rezoned, owing well over $100 million to the M.T.A., according to M.T.A. documents.

It is unclear whether Tishman is entirely out of the picture. CEO Jerry Speyer met with Mayor Bloomberg in London today, and the firm is meeting with the M.T.A. on Monday to try to salvage a deal.

Should the deal be fully scrapped, the M.T.A. still can go back to the other three bidders, only one of which, a joint venture of the Durst Organization and Vornado Realty Trust, had a tenant, Conde Nast, lined up. However, it seems highly unlikely that the price offered by Durst-Vornado—just short of $1 billion after raising it to compete with Tishman's—would remain the same should the Tishman deal fully collapse.

As for the crucial task of finding a tenant, the Times today noted that Tishman was searching, though failed in its attempt to woo numerous firms to the site.

Given the rough economy, real estate executives note that it’s not an ideal time to be looking for a major tenant as the large companies are preoccupied with the financial crisis and are putting off decisions about expansion or moving into a new building.

“For the most part, everybody has made growth their secondary issue right now,” said Barry Gosin, CEO of real estate brokerage Newmark Knight Frank. “People for the moment are busy trying to figure out what’s happening in these uncharted waters.”

Mayor Doug Palmer of Trenton, a loyal Hillary Clinton supporter, doesn’t think much of the dust-up over Clinton's comments about how exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina showed Barack Obama's "support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Palmer, one of Clinton’s highest-profile black supporters in New Jersey, refused any suggestion that she was trying to be manipulative, and said that she was only pointing out a fact that a whole host of pundits and analysts had already observed.

"She doesn't have to say that because people already see it and know it. And her saying it is not going to make it more important," he said, adding. "People need to step back and take a breath."

"She just has gotten a bad rap on this," he added. "You have 92 percent of African American voters going for him. And people said that he has black support."

He argued Obama's "bitter" comments were worse because they were made in a San Francisco fund-raiser. By contrast, with Clinton, he said, "It was not like she was saying something behind closed doors. She said it to the media."

Palmer disagreed with a suspicion circulating among political observers that Clinton waited to make the explicit comments about her white support only after the states with the last significant black populations had voted because she is trying to court superdelegates "who are all colors" to win.

"She is not going to cut off her nose to spite her face," said Palmer. He then added, though, that most the black superdelegates at this point had decided to go with Obama in a reflection of the will of their constituencies.

Palmer said that he still thought Clinton could win because superdelegates would vote for her en masse after she scored well with white, working-class voters in the remaining contests.

"If you see a demographic that you have to get in states that you have to get that she can get, and Obama can't," said Palmer, "and the black vote is going to come home to her, and you pick him for fear that there would be a black backlash, then where are we? We're going to lose. Will we feel good? No."

That said, Palmer argued that Clinton—having now "found the niche of where her support is"—was the key to Democrats taking back the White House, even if she did not emerge as the nominee and wasn't on the ballot as vice president. ("I can't see him choosing her," he said.)

"If he became the nominee, she will work hard to talk about why it is important to vote for him in that demographic. Because if she is out, those people would be right now running to McCain," said Palmer. "She is the Democratic Party's hope to win this thing, either as the nominee or as the person who will reach out to those Reagan Democrats, which he is having a hard time getting."

Here’s some clarification on what exactly happened to the tape that Assemblyman Karim Camara told me was destroyed.

According to a spokeswoman for Albany County District Attorney David Soares, Albany police did not “preserve” the videotape--according to Camara "crucial" evidence in the D.U.I. case against him--that showed Camara refusing to take a breathalyser test at the police station.

Spokeswoman Heather Orth told me that, as in all D.U.I. cases, the D.A. requested a copy of the tape from the police. But, she said, they never received it. After an unspecified amount of time, the D.A.’s office made a second request for it. It was only then that they were informed by Albany police officials that the recording had been taped over.

Because of that, the judge has thrown out one charge against Camara, but the initial D.U.I. charge against him is still being prosecuted, she told me, and the videotape is not needed for that.

Camara’s next court appearance is sometime in June, according to Orth.

Last night we ventured out to the opening of the triple floored Pronovias boutique in midtown that also served as a New Yorkers for Children benefit. There were many daughters of, some socialites and models. But given all the women in the room browsing the clothing racks we thought we'd ask what they thought about the most important woman of the day.

So ladies, given Tuesday's primaries, what should Hillary do now?

Domenica Cameron-Scorsese: I have to say I have the hardest time following politics without becoming tremendously emotionally invested. There is what one wishes, what one hopes will happen and then what actually happens. My suspicion is, she is going to keep going until all other options are exhausted. I watch it and I find that it is such a tremendously tactical situation. The way we treat it is who is ahead in the chess game and I think it makes it very difficult to get the scope of who’s the best candidate because there is so much news day to day and this one’s personality and this one said this and that. The truth is, what a wonderful time to be alive in American politics. No matter what happens it will be groundbreaking and fascinating.

Ivanka Trump: I think it’s amazing, Obama will be tough to beat, but I really like Hillary—I think she’s terrific. I don’t know Barack, I find him to be inspiring, but I’ve never met him. People have been telling her to drop out for months, and she has a lot of fortitude and if she thinks she can win, I don’t think she’s delusional. I think someone is telling her that she has a chance and she does have a chance.

Alexandra Richards: Intense, right? I’m not one to talk. I think I should do some things first.

Dominique Garcia (Andy Garcia's daughter) and Rainey Qualey (Andie MacDowell's daughter): No comment.

It seems that Christine Quinn has two important factions to please. On one side are the 50 other members of the City Council. On the other are good-government groups and, particularly, The New York Times editorial board.

When Quinn began discussing the slush fund scandal at the City Council, The Times editorial board--a big voice in Democratic primaries for offices like, say, mayor--held out hope that Quinn could set things straight, writing, "[her] reformist zeal is still needed."

The first package of reforms Quinn announced, on April 11, would have stripped the City Council of the ability to determine how $20 million in discretionary money from the council speaker's office is spent, giving that power instead to the mayor's agencies. The Times called it "sensible" but added, "[S]he must do a lot more."

Then, council members objected. Loudly. Strongly.

So this week, Quinn unveiled another set of reforms that are more palatable to her members.

The major difference between Quinn's old plan and new plan is that the new plan leaves a majority of decision-making power with council members. The Times was not pleased:

“They do not pass muster as real reform,” they said. The problem, writes the Times, is that, “[I]t still allows a council member to funnel money to an organization with personal or political connections.”

To be clear, this puts liberal The Times editorial board on the side as people like New York State Conservative Party chairman Michael Long, who want not only to prevent officials from stealing money, but from deciding, without a check on their discretion, which legitimate entities get it.

"Disrectionary money leads to curruption -- I think we've seen that," Long told me. "Discretionary money leads to buying special interest groups off. The practice should be eliminated" and "it's taxpayer's money, not City Council members' money to just dole out as they see fit."

It’s a position that a number of actual lawmakers, not surprisingly, aren't embracing.

Congressman Jerry Nadler, a liberal good-government type, spoke out in favor of this kind discretionary spending, telling me, “[T]o say you’re against all earmarks is saying that no member of Congress ever knows better than a bureaucrat in [for example] the Department of Transportation. That’s insane.”

Lew Fidler, a councilman and ally of Quinn, told me earlier this week that there is no such thing as an “immaculate” council member, who comes to office without a connection to the district that they serve.

"If that’s what you think should be elected to the City Council, God bless you,” Fidler told me. “I don’t think that people want that. I would prefer that my councilman was involved in community groups, that [he or she] knows the people doing the work on the front lines in their neighborhoods. They shouldn’t be penalized for that.”

Interestingly, Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, seems to side with the lawmakers on this one too.

Dadey said his group “believes that there is value in council members awarding member items to groups that they know, so long as it is above-board and transparent."

Last night, a friend who lives on 11th Street and Second Avenue told me she keeps on getting woken up in the middle of the night by a bird that mimics the sound of a car alarm. I did not believe her, but it turns out her account of the strange urban bird call is actually a northern mocking bird adapting to New York City life, said Haley Main, the environmental educator of the Audobon Society’s "For the Birds!" program. The birds also mimic cellular phone rings, and they are “all over” the city.

This week brought a flock of notable stories of wildlife adapting and, sometimes, colliding with development here.

On Monday, Williamsburg residents were in an uproar over the spray-painting of the neighborhood’s own “Myrtle the Turtle,” which they blamed on construction workers at a nearby building site. Seen as a “symbol of the fallout of Williamsburg development,” the incident created a mini-media frenzy.

A couple of days later, the Post reported that a volunteer beekeeper from the Bronx Zoo had to be dispatched to 75th Street and Second Avenue to deal with a hive that had formed on a yellow, metal newspaper box.

Then, yesterday, came the news that squirrels were encroaching on Astoria’s Queensview Co-op and getting inside parked cars, prompting residents to hire a “nuiscance wildlife control operator” to get rid of them.

“Birds and animals are able to adapt,” Ms. Main of the Audobon Society said. “That’s why the squirrels go inside and the beehives form [on a newspaper box], but their habits are changing because of the pace of building.”

The heat and pollution push the squirrels to seek shelter, just like discarded food leads birds like Canadian geese to stop migrating.

“We create a situation where the wildlife flourishes, and then becomes a nuisance, though I hate to use that word,” she said. “Rather than changing our habits, people do things to get rid of them.”

With the West Side rail yards development deal on very shaky ground, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky today announced a bill that would chart a new course for the 26-acre parcel west of Penn Station, bringing in a new authority to follow a Battery Park City model of piecemeal development.

“Instead of selling at the bottom of the market for a price that was never really what the property was worth in the long run,” Mr. Brodsky said, “we should do what we know works.”

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the rail yards, has been trying to sell them to a private firm to develop, though yesterday talks broke down with selected developer Tishman Speyer, which had planned to pay the M.T.A. about $1 billion for the property.

Critics of the deal, Mr. Brodsky included, have charged that it makes little sense to sell the property during an economic slump when financing is very difficult to obtain, though the M.T.A. is counting on the proceeds to fill its current capital plan and the city wants to get development moving on the far West Side.

Mr. Brodksy’s plan [legislation here in MS Word format] would allow the M.T.A. to receive the cash for its capital plan, as the new authority would borrow money to buy the rail yards itself, then sell the land out parcel-by-parcel to developers as they are ready.

A challenge for the plan would be the construction of platforms over the yards—estimated to cost $2 billion—an infrastructure issue that Battery Park City did not have.

Mr. Brodsky denied that the platform would be a major obstacle, saying, “The platform is just part of a set of technical and engineering questions that have to be answered as they would for any property.”

The introduction of the legislation was timely given the state of the rail yards talks. Mr. Brodsky had always planned to introduce the legislation "when it was ready."

A hearing is scheduled for the bill later this month.

Representative Anthony Weiner, a devout Hillary Clinton supporter, recalls for News Forum host Jay DeDapper what it was like meeting Barack Obama on the floor of Congress the other day:

From a transcript sent over by the studio:

Weiner: He—we had a funny circumstance. I was right in the back of the room as he walked in, and I have—I've developed something of a reputation for being a Hillary partisan on the floor. And so some of my buddies said, 'Hey, we got someone you want to meet,' and brought him over to say hello, and he—we exchange—I told him I was like that skinny Chinese kid in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the tank, I might be the last one.

On a different topic later in the interview, Weiner said he wasn’t impressed with the budget reforms introduced by his likely mayoral rival, Christine Quinn.

When asked if her reforms are “good enough,” Weiner said, “I think, frankly, that they’re not,” adding that he thinks the money should be doled out not by council members, but rather through “some other mechanism.”

What mechanism?

Weiner suggests money should allocated “through mayoral agencies” with “the advice of the City Council.”

Weiner, a former councilman, seems to be making the argument that The New York Times editorial board wants to hear, which is one way to curry favor with the paper after opposing congestion pricing, a favorite topic at the Times.

The Brooklyn Democrats for Change, a reform club in Bay Ridge, held their endorsement meeting last night to decide which Democrat to endorse against Republican Vito Fossella.

The club’s decision was an even split.

According to a political operative who attended the meeting but is not actively working for either campaign, there were 25 votes for each of the two declared Democratic candidates, attorney Steve Harrison and City Councilman Domenic Recchia.

(It should be noted that there were 54 votes casts, but two were for "no endorsement" and two additional ones were invalidated because of some error made by the voter that disqualified their ballot, according to my source.)

It’s unclear what the club will do at the moment. But my source says it’s a defeat of sorts for Harrison. Recchia never spoke to the club and, although he was invited twice, couldn’t attend meetings because of (legitimate) scheduling conflicts.

It’s also worth noting that the club is located in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, and not in Recchia’s council district. So, for not having shown up and the vote not being in his backyard, Recchia demonstrated some ground-level support—or at least, with superior funding even to Fossella, is considered the favorite to win.

Donnie Darko’s little sister is all grown up and heading to LA. Or at least she will be when S. Darko, the sequel to the 2001 cult film, Donnie Darko, starts shooting May 18.

According to Cinematical, it's seven years after her brother's death and Samantha (Daveigh Chase), now 18, is roadtripping with her best friend, Corey, when they are “plagued by bizarre visions.” The fun doesn’t stop there! The $10 million picture will mix fantasy and reality just like the original, and, as Simon Crowe of sales company Velvet Octopus put it, "Donnie's not in [the new film] but there are meteorites and rabbits."

The similarities may end there. Ms. Chase is the only member of the original cast who’ll appear in the sequel, and Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed the original Donnie Darko, is not involved. Chris Fisher (a horror film vet who directed titles including Nightstalker) will helm the film.

But the real question is, can someone please travel back in time and drop a jet engine on this idea?

Rahm Emanuel says Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. [The Page]

The addition of two superdelegates this morning gives Obama the lead in support from superdelegates. [Political Radar]

He also got another superdelegate from California. [The Page]

Clinton leads 66-23 in a new poll of West Virginia voters. [Political Wire]

Peter Nicholas reports, “[W]ithin Hillary Clinton's circle of advisers and donors, the conversation has turned to how she can make a dignified exit.” [The Age]

Michael Tomasky thinks Obama can pick a better runningmate than Clinton. [The Plank]

The Jewish Press editorial board still has reservations about Obama. [Jewish Press]

Newsday writes a story about the Staten Island Advance editorial calling for Vito Fossella to resign. [Newsday]

A Staten Island Advance columnist wants people to remember Fossella’s family. [S.I. Advance]

A poll on Daily Kos says Democrats would be better off if Fossella stayed and ran for reelection. [Kos]

David Paterson’s plan to eliminate one of the state economic czars irks some business folks in Buffalo and Rochester.[Democrat & Chronicle]

The Labour Party in England, the country Michael Bloomberg is visiting right now, is doing poorly. [Bloomberg

Ben tries reading John Edwards to figure out who exactly the former presidential candidate said he'd voted for. [Politico]

Liz questions the Clinton's campaign notion that an Obama candidacy could make New York a battleground state. [DP]

A community board in Long Island City isn't voting on a greenway project yet because of parking issues. [Streetsblog]

Liza Sabater is moving. [Daily Gotham]

And NY1 obtained emails showing Gifford Miller was lobbying Christine Quinn to fund his favorite project, the High Line. [NY1]

That perspiring, uncomfortable-looking Wall Streeter you sat next to on the subway this morning might have been a Morgan Stanley banker. Dealbreaker reports that as part of the firm's new "new cost-cutting initiative, taxi reimbursement will not be provided until after 10 pm."

Morgan Stanley posted its first-ever quarterly loss at the end of last year after taking a $9.4 billion dollar write-down on subprime mortgage investments. In November, Morgan Stanley became the first investment bank to lay off a senior executive (and we've certainly seen a domino affect since then), so perhaps the other Wall Street firms will follow suit and force their employees to commute to work with the rest of us.

Looking for some depressing news to read during lunch? See below.

Gene Sperling, top economic adviser to the Clintons, argues today in a Bloomberg column that the economy may be in for double-real-estate-bubble trouble.

That's right. Not just one deflating bubble. Two.

We all know about the recently poppped residential real estate bubble, but is there a second commercial real estate bubble that is on the brink of bursting, too?

"[W]e may face double-bubble trouble for real estate and the economy," writes Mr. Sperling. "Because much of the current construction received the green light several quarters ago when the economy looked healthier, the worst might still be to come."

Read more here.

An unserious footnote to the story of Vito Fossella's mistress and love child: Technically speaking, in her home state of Virginia, adultery is still a crime.

Out of curiosity, I asked a spokesman for the Alexandria Police Department, where Fossella was arrested for D.U.I. last week, about the law, and he said off the top of his head that it sounded correct but declined to speak further about it.

I spoke with Fossella's D.C.-based lawyer, Barry Pollock, who told me that particular law "has not been enforced in years" and "it could not be enforced. I'm his lawyer and as far as I'm concerned, it's not a legal issue."

Pollock added, "Legally, it's not a viable angle. Even if the statue were enforceable, this is not the 1950s. The idea of someone prosecuting it is remote anyway."

"It's just an old law left on the books," explained Richard Dennis Balnave, who taught Virginia family law at the University of Virginia Law School for 16 years. "It's a criminal offense in Virginia [but] I've never heard of anyone getting prosecuted for it." 

I asked why it was still on the books.

"It's probably a no-win situation for elected legislative members to take a vote on repealing it or not," he said.

“We just said, ‘Let’s hang the cost because it’s only going to happen once right,'” said the British native.

His American-born fiancée’s parents have thrown in $30,000 from their 401(k) to help foot the bill for the 125-person reception. The newlyweds will cap off the celebration with a two-week honeymoon in Bali, which Luke just bought new scuba gear for.

Based on reports from about a dozen of the city's bridal retailers, the economic slump has done little to dilute the appetite for lavish weddings. Like Manhattan's luxury real estate market, the wedding industry here not only appears to be impervious to a recession, but also has been buoyed by Europeans taking advantage of the almighty euro.

The co-owner of the couture bridal emporium Kleinfeld’s—where TLC's reality show about the woes of wedding dress saleswomen "Say Yes to the Dress" was filmed—Mara Urshel said profits are up 15 to 20 percent in 2008.

“I have been hearing that bridal is flat in the rest of the country; that people are making fewer appointments, and fewer brides are getting married,” she said. “But for us, it’s not the same. We have brides coming from all over the world. With the value of the dollar, Europeans see us as a bargain now.”

Granted, Kleinfield's is an “exclusively” high-end store. Dresses run an average of $4,000 to $5,000, and you won’t find anything for less than $2,000.

Ms. Urshel is cautious but optimistic about the future.

“I think that we’re quite insulated,” she said. “When things get difficult, people get more oriented towards family and family occasions.”

This is certainly true for wealthy people shopping for weddings at the high end of the spectrum. From florists to custom-stationers, no link in the ever-lengthening bridal supply chain has registered a dip.

“I haven’t noticed in any way that we’ve been impacted [by the recession],” said event caterer David Ziff. “The last thing people want to cut back on is the wedding of their child. We still have the same rules given to us by parents of the bride. They never say they don’t care about cost, but they get a base price and they keep adding.

“I keep waiting for that shoe to drop in the catering business, but it hasn’t happened.”

Most of caterer Marcey Brownstein's clients signed on at least six months ago, well before the economy was in the dumps. But even new clients “are not cutting back.” Coquilles Saint Jacques, Foie Gras Morels, mini-beef Wellingtons and Lobster Thermidores are a few hors d’ouvres she served up at a recent lavish city reception.

“A wedding is the one place that people can splurge," Ms. Brownstein said. "If they can afford to spend $200,000 on a wedding, they are not going to spend $50,000.”

Some caterers, however, have had to tighten their belts to cover a spike in overhead. All operating costs from rent to food have gone up about 20 percent in the past six months since gas prices started to rise, said Ms. Brownstein. The company is already among the most expensive caterers in the wedding business, so she has been reluctant to pass on the cost to her customers. She won't be able to absorb the cost forever, though.

Nicky Reinhard, the co-owner of David Reinhard Events, agreed that none of her customers are skimping, but she has noted some forgoing a few extravagances in “consideration of what’s going on.”

“Our clients are never over-the-top; they prefer a tasteful elegance, and that has been consistent,” Ms. Reinhard said. “Some people may think the caviar is a little much this year, but they still want to give their daughter a great wedding.”

In another nod to the shaky economy, fewer couples are opting for destination weddings. One bride Ms. Reinhard is working with who had always dreamed of marrying in Spain chose to host the reception in New York instead.

“It’s a lot to ask guests to fly to Europe and pay for hotels, especially with the euro as strong as it is," Ms. Reinhard said, "so we’re seeing more weddings in the States and even the Caribbean.”

Ms. Reinhard has noticed clients taking a little longer to sign on with a planner and commit to a venue; but, once they do, no expense is spared.

Aside from the Plaza since it reopened, David Reinhard does not organize many hotel weddings and throws one a year in a loft space at most. The Four Seasons is popular, and Ms. Reinhard said she is working on two upcoming receptions at the New York Public Library.

“Our clients want something different,” she said. “The Natural History Museum is a great venue. There’s nothing better than having your first dance as husband and wife under the whale,” Mrs. Reinhard said of the giant blue whale hanging from the ceiling of the Natural History Museum’s Milstein Hall of Ocean Life. The space accommodates 1,000 people for a seated dinner, and 800 for a dinner dance, according to the Web site. It says “price upon request,” though the event-planning department referred us to the marketing department when we asked for a quote.

The Public Library is “getting more and more popular,” said the woman who answered the phone at event-planning there, but refused more questions. The 70-foot-long, marble Astor Hall and the domed Bartos Forum each rent for $30,000 for a five-hour evening slot that begins once the library is closed to the public. Many couples opt for a $50,000 package of cocktails in Astor Hall, followed by dinner in Bartos Forum.

Lisa Hoffman, the owner of custom-stationer Ceci New York, said couples on a tight budget are forgoing the “bells and whistles” on their invites, as is the case every year regardless of the economy.

“It is making some people be more cautious," she said, "but at the same time it’s a once-in-a-lifetime event so there’s a strong impulse to get what they want because they’ll never have a chance again."

Invitations start at $22 and run upward of $500 per set; most couples spend an average of between $300 to $500 a set.

More Europeans are coming to the city from Europe to buy high-end designs, Ms. Hoffman said, while plenty of New Yorkers are still hosting extravagant weddings, with invites to match.

A New York-based couple recently commissioned Ceci to design the invitations for their wedding in the Capucine ruins of Guatemala recently. They are one her many recent clients who “did not hold back." The first of three mailings was a 13x10-inch, custom-silk-screened, Plexiglas invitation with two original drawings by Ms. Hoffman inspired by the island where the wedding took place. Arriving in a black crocodile case with custom stamps, the invite doubled in size when opened. A second mailing followed with a guide of activities for guests to do in Guatemala.

Another symbol of the undiluted demand for wedding excess is the popular grooms' cake. Half a decade ago grooms cakes were not a de rigueur ingredient of a New York City wedding, but now they account for about one-third of Cake Studio’s total sales, said owner Jill Adams. Wedding cakes are the only product she hasn’t seen customers cut back on lately.

“In general a lot of regular clients who never think to ask about price and used to always do really elaborate things are asking how much things cost now,” she said. “They are spending less on things like birthday cakes, but people are always going to spend a lot on their weddings. I mean we specialize in grooms’ cakes, which are totally unnecessary for a wedding, and I still haven’t noticed any impact from the recession.”

Couture bridal boutiques like Angelo Lambrou, favored by what manager Laura Calamita characterized as an “eclectic bunch” of more budget-conscious brides-to-be, are seeing signs of frugality.

“We don’t have any Bridezillas or hall-on-Long Island brides here,” she said.
“I had one bride who had a wedding planner who would have wiped her butt for her, but she cost $20,000. Most of [the customers] like small weddings or destination weddings.”

Angelo Lambrou is popular with students or professionals, most of whom earn between $40,000 to $75,000, she said, and a lot of them are engaged to “ethnic men.”

Since most of the weddings on the spring/summer wedding roster have been planned for at least a year, Ms. Calamita only recently began noticing a few signs of belt-tightening. One woman chopped the reception tab in half by gathering 10 friends for a trip to Hawaii, but she still bought a custom-made dress. Most are sticking to dresses in the $2,000 range, and compared to last year, fewer women are willing to splurge on a $3,000 to $3,500 dress these days.

Maria Martin sipped a glass of white wine at the Angelo Lambrou boutique on Seventh Street and First Avenue Wednesday evening after a dress fitting. The American-born law student fits the profile. Her fiancé is Chinese. She has a subtle nose ring.

They are getting married in July in Hershey, Pa., in an informal ceremony followed by a barbeque for 150 people (at $30 per head).

The $2,700 she spent on the dress is more than a tenth of the total wedding budget—an unheard of price tag for a Manhattan celebration.

Ms. Martin and her fiancé started planning in August and have not changed anything to reflect the recession.

“Our concern is that it will impact our guests because of gas prices or plane flights, but so far we have not had any cancellations,” she said.

Morgan Ensberg, backup third and first baseman for the New York Yankees, knows that fans don’t flock to Yankee Stadium to see him.

“For the fans, I am so overshadowed, which makes sense,” Ensberg said, sitting at his locker with a copy of a Dan Brown novel in his left hand prior to Thursday’s game against Cleveland. “I’m not that big-name guy. They get to see me if somebody is hurt, or needs a rest.”

But unlike the vast majority of players fulfilling a utility role around the major leagues, Ensberg was—very recently—a star. And he is wishful that, just as he lost his job due to a bench player’s hot hitting for Houston back in 2006, he can reverse that process to become a household name in New York.

“I’m hoping to be able to backdoor it and sneak into the lineup more,” Ensberg said. “Joe [Girardi] has said that if I play well, he’ll certainly get me more at-bats.”

The problem for Ensberg, of course, is that he hasn’t played well for the past two years—and his 2008 batting line stood at .226/.250/.274. And the unusually thoughtful 32-year-old doesn’t know why. He is, after all, just two years removed from putting up superstar numbers.

In 2003, Ensberg’s first full season in the big leagues, he hit .291 with 25 home runs in just 391 at-bats, wresting the Astros third base job from Geoff Blum. After a down season in 2004, his 2005 seemed to cement his status as a member of baseball’s elite. He hit .283 with 36 home runs. His patience made him an even bigger threat—85 walks helped him to a .388 on-base percentage, and overall his OPS stood at ninth in the National League.

Though Ensberg played in a lineup with likely future Hall of Famer Craig Biggio and elite hitter Lance Berkman, it was his offense that was most responsible for powering Houston to the National League pennant.

“Part of it was playing every day,” Ensberg said, explaining his career spike. “That gave me the chance to get my swing right, get my timing really good.”

But an astounding thing happened to Ensberg in 2006. He simply stopped hitting, as if a light switch turned off. His average dropped to .235, his home run total fell to 23, and the 2005 All Star lost his starting job to journeyman Mike Lamb.

“As for the down year, I think I just played poorly,” Ensberg said. “It felt like balls weren’t dropping—I mean, clearly, balls weren’t dropping—but I hit a bad streak, and Mike Lamb played great.”

Ensberg is right, incidentally, about the balls not dropping. His 2005 was far from a fluke—his batting average on balls in play, which hitters have relatively little control over, stood at .301, roughly league average. But in 2006, his BABIP was a freakishly low .251, including marks of .211, .189 and .211 in May-June-July, when he lost his job to Lamb.

Odder still, even though his at-bats fell from 526 to 387, his walks actually increased from 2005, from 85 to 101. But Ensberg thinks that may have been the problem.

“I was thinking about this last night,” Ensberg said. “And I think that I am at my best when I am aggressive. I need to be prepared to hit anything at any pitch in the count.”

Still, Ensberg needs to do better when he does make contact. In 2007, his BABIP rose to just .259 for the season. Amazingly, despite playing much of the season in hitter-friendly Minute Maid Park in Houston, his home BABIP was an astonishingly low .219. And the Astros shipped Ensberg, a season and a half removed from his time as cleanup hitter for their pennant-winning team, to San Diego for a player to be named later.

By this past winter, his relatively recent success led a number of teams to offer the free agent a chance to start at third base. Instead, he chose the Yankees. By the time their current third baseman, Alex Rodriguez, comes to the end of his 10-year contract, Ensberg will be 42.

“I think in Houston, I was a medium-sized fish in a small pond,” Ensberg said. “I had my chance to start, I had offers from three other places—but I decided to take the chance to play here.”

Interestingly, the expectations of New York, which many Yankees seem to put up with, are what drew Ensberg here.

“Sure, I’d rather play every day,” he said. “But there’s something about being able to succeed in a difficult place that appeals to me.”

With Alex Rodriguez estimated to be at least a week away from returning, Yankees’ manager Joe Girardi has indicated that Ensberg and Wilson Betemit, who hits better from the left side, will likely platoon. And with Jason Giambi’s average a paltry .157 through 83 at-bats, should they succeed, that pairing could move across the diamond in the near future.

The light switch went on for Ensberg once before: Ensberg made a huge jump in performance as a minor leaguer. After hitting .239 with 15 home runs at high-A ball in 1999, he improved that performance to .300 with 28 home runs at AA in 2000. He said the adjustment he made then was also to be more aggressive.

“My walk numbers were high since I was 7, 8 years old,” Ensberg said. “I got into the habit of thinking I could only drive balls in a very small part of the strike zone. Maybe that’s just my lack of ability,” he added with a smile.

If the switch clicks on again, with Giambi showing no signs of recovery, Ensberg could find himself a big fish in the biggest pond of all.

Put down the merlot! Alexander Payne, director of wine-snob favorite Sideways, has signed on to direct HBO's dark comedy Hung. Apparently the main character is, um, well-endowed. "Think of him like Spider-Man," show creator Colette Burson told Daily Variety last month. "He's an average guy who gets in touch with his innate superpowers." Okay, wait maybe we should keep drinking to watch this one. Variety reports:

Payne's attachment comes as HBO has given the pilot a firm greenlight. Project's the first lined up at the pay cabler by new HBO Entertainment prexy Sue Naegle (Daily Variety, April 24), and it's been on the fast track ever since.

"Hung" would rep Payne's first directing gig for TV. Project comes from Blueprint Entertainment and was created by Colette Burson and "The Riches" creator Dmitry Lipkin.

Payne is expected to sign on as an exec producer, along with Burson, Lipkin, Blueprint's Michael Rosenberg, Noreen Halpern and John Morayniss.

"Hung" revolves around a well-endowed man who is plodding along in middle age as a struggling father and high school coach. The character was once a high school sports legend, and his luck returns when he figures out a way to use his best asset.

Adam Green of The Moldy Peaches made his comeback by appearing on the Juno soundtrack with his other half Kimya Dawson. They wrote that sacchrine-sweet song that Ellen Page and Michael Cera's characters sing to each other in the last scene, "Anyone Else But You." He answered some questions for the Gothamist blog, reminiscing about the Lower East Side, discussing his new album and telling his "only in New York story" in which a young kid tried to pay him to have sex with him. As for the Juno soundtrack, he said, "The main performance that we did was on The View. I thought the whole thing was a little displacing. General Colin Powell’s enthusiasm for our group was probably the only thing that got me through it. They gave me a year’s supply of Café Bustelo for playing. Anyways I got a check for $900 with Mickey Mouse’s head printed on it. Me and my girlfriend couldn’t figure out why Disney was sending me money. It turns out that they own The View. But I’m glad that they don’t censor what Whoopie says."

More highlights after the jump.

Please share your strangest "only in New York" story. One time I was sat on the subway in some tight pants. This little homeboy came up to me and I think he was sixteen or younger. He wanted me to come somewhere with him and kept offering me stuff. I was confused and thought he was just a really lonely kid who was desperate for company. Finally when he flashed 40 dollars at me I realized that he was trying to purchase my sex. I think only in New York would little boys try to pay me to do them.

Which New Yorker do you most admire? The greatest New Yorker that I’ve noticed is a guy named Mike G. Some people call him Mickey James and some call him Mike Jesus. He used to be in a band called Thin Lizard Dawn and now plays bass with Davey La. I find him to be the most wonderful man. He has an enormous sexual magnetism and has tapped most of the wares under fourteenth street at one time or another.

Given the opportunity, how would you change New York? First I would legalize drinking on the street. Then I would install more public bathrooms. Finally I would change President’s day to correspond with the same day that you are supposed to vote for the President.

Merle Gross-Ginsberg recalled a dinner hosted by the Real Estate Board of New York back in 1975, where she, Leona Helmsley and one other woman were grossly outnumbered by some 1,800 men—"all smoking the most enormous cigars you've ever seen," she said.

The industry's vast gender gap has slowly begun to close in recent years. Yet, even at the Association of Real Estate Women's 30th Anniversary gala at the Mandarian Oriental Hotel at Time Warner Center on Thursday night, males still dominated the crowd by about 2 to 1. Maybe even 3 to 1.

"There's a lot of dick," noted one woman attorney surveying the crowd during the cocktail hour.

In fact, two of the three recipients of the organization's outstanding achievement awards were men: Richard J. Mack of Apollo Real Estate Advisors and Kent Swig of Swig Equities.

Hey, Mr. Swig, how does it feel to be one of the top women in real estate?

"It feels lovely," he said, laughing, following the presentation, "although I don't want to tell my wife that I'm a top woman in real estate."

Charlie Rangel said the proof that Hillary Clinton can still win the Democratic nomination is that she is still pursuing the Democratic nomination. Either she has a chance, he said, or she’s nuts.

"If mathematically she couldn't get the nomination, it would mean that Obama has won and so she wouldn't be in the race," said Rangel. "And so obviously mathematically she can."

When asked how she could win the nomination, Rangel replied, "I don't know, but if mathematically she cannot win, then why aren't we declaring Obama the winner? I mean, it doesn't make sense. It is not my job to explain how, if she put $6 million of her money, the team is still together, the campaign is still going on, why do I have to explain mathematically why she can't win? If mathematically she can't win, then they are crazy. They ought to go to an insane asylum."

He added, "Anybody who really knows that they can't win and they won't quit, there is really something wrong with them."

Clinton is still in the race. So by that logic she must see some way of winning. What is it?

"I have no clue," said Rangel, explaining it wasn't his job as chairman of the House's Ways and Means Committee to chart or analyze Clinton's path to the nomination.

Then he offered an analogy: "In poker, when you've lost everything, in terms of not having any resources, and it's your hand, and you can't get all of your cards, you say 'all in.' But you don't quit. Because the game is not over."

Rangel said the New York delegation was still fully behind Clinton.

The members have "invested all of our political clout in her support," he said.

I mentioned Obama’s insurmountable delegate lead. "Your job is not to say who the hell won just because the party has some screwed-up rules in the ways we select,” he responded. “You are interpreting what could happen, and I'm telling you it's not over."

Asked whether Clinton stood in a stronger position today than she did before Tuesday and the disappointing finishes in both Indiana and North Carolina, Rangel said, "There was a time where she was the only candidate and nobody knew who the hell Obama was. And then Obama came and swept the imagination of Democrats throughout the United States of America. Now they are just two candidates. There are no strangers here. People have gotten to know Obama and they have gotten to know all sides of her. And you cannot ignore the number of delegates, the number of states, but you know people can go to who they want to listen to, and work this out."

Rangel said he'd be most happy with a shared ticket. "That would be too good to be true, but I really think that at one time or another in the campaign they have really given a lot of thought to ‘what would I do if I lose,’ and I also know that if they talk publicly 'what do I do if I lose,’ that's a losing statement to make with the press. But it's impossible for them not to have thought about it. If that really happens, and they have a pause, they're able to say, 'Well, this would not only ensure victory, but would bring all parts of our party together.'"

Two weeks ago, I examined the officially meaningless but symbolically crucial popular-vote tally on the Democratic side.

At the time, Hillary Clinton had just won Pennsylvania by nine points and was claiming to be the popular-vote leader, positioning herself – in theory—to assert a moral claim on the loyalties of uncommitted superdelegates.

But the claim was based on some highly selective math—counting, for instance, Michigan (where Barack Obama wasn’t on the ballot) but not four caucus states where hundreds of thousands of Democrats participated but no official popular vote tally was kept—and I concluded that “under the most basic and probably the fairest criteria … Obama will finish the primary season hundreds of thousands of votes ahead of Clinton.”

That now looks all the more certain, not only because of Tuesday’s results from North Carolina and Indiana but also because some other widely accepted assumptions about turnout in the final Democratic contests may turn out to be wildly off-base.

In fact, as I re-compute the numbers now, Obama’s final popular-vote advantage will be, even under some worst-case assumptions for him, so large that he’ll still be ahead even if the results from Florida’s outlaw January primary are included. This is highly significant, since Clinton has justified pressing ahead with her candidacy in large part by tying herself to Florida’s (and Michigan’s) status. As some analyses have correctly pointed out, if Obama were to announce that he’s willing to abide by Florida’s January verdict, it would deflate much of the rationale for Clinton’s lingering presence.

More interestingly, Obama can also afford to count the far less legitimate results from Michigan, granting Clinton the 300,000-plus votes that she won with Obama’s name missing from the ballot—as long as he is credited with the votes that “uncommitted” received that day, a rather conservative approximation of Obama’s actual level of support among Democrats there. (Even without the uncommitted votes, Obama’s overall popular-vote lead will still probably survive Michigan’s inclusion, unless every worst-case scenario for him over the final six contests is realized.)

In short, Obama is quickly reaching the point where he can afford to make a concession on the Florida and Michigan vote that will be as inconsequential as it is magnanimous.

My original popular vote forecast—which stemmed from projections of the final eight Democratic primaries—credited Obama with a 156,000-vote combined plurality from Indiana and North Carolina. That was based on a somewhat conservative estimate of his support in both states. (I had him winning North Carolina by 12 and losing Indiana by six, but he actually won Carolina by 14 and lost Indiana by just two.) So his net popular-vote gain on the day was actually around 210,000. That’s no small difference with so few contests remaining.

The other major factor is a reconsideration of turnout in Puerto Rico, where Clinton is favored to win handily and which is roughly the same size as Oregon and Kentucky, the two largest states left on the docket. So Puerto Rico, depending on its turnout, can really skew any popular-vote forecast.

But scant attention has been paid to Puerto Rico and most analysts seem to have simply accepted the nice round estimate that 1,000,000 residents will participate in the June 1 Democratic primary.

The estimable election expert Michael Barone, in his much-discussed analysis of the popular-vote possibilities, attributed this forecast to the fact that “turnout in Puerto Rican elections is, as a percentage of those eligible, higher than anywhere on the Mainland, something on the order of 80 percent as compared with 61 percent in the 2004 presidential general election.”

But that fact might not have much bearing on this year’s primary vote. Manuel Alvarez-Rivera, an expert on Puerto Rican politics, told me that for several reasons “the estimate of one million voters for the upcoming June 1st primary is way too high.” He suggested a more reasonable turnout figure of 600,000, “give or take 100,000.”

With this in mind, I decided to run the numbers again, projecting the remaining six contests, with turnout estimates based on conversations with knowledgeable observers in each state. Here’s what I came up with:

West Virginia (May 13)<

Turnout estimate: 475,000

Rationale: The primary is open to Democrats and, for the first time, independents. But, as in California, independents must specifically request a Democratic ballot at the polls; if they don’t, they are instead handed a nonpartisan ballot that doesn’t include the presidential race. There is a gubernatorial election this year, but there is only one candidate for the G.O.P. nomination, so the Republican ballot shouldn’t be a major draw for independents. This should be a Clinton state, so let’s give her a monster victory:

Clinton: 65% (308,750)

Obama: 35% (166,250)

Kentucky (May 20)

Turnout estimate: 570,000

Rationale: Only registered Democrats are eligible to participate. Moreover, Kentucky’s absurdly early registration deadline was Dec. 31, before any primaries or caucuses were held. So while the enormous interest sparked by the Clinton-Obama race has resulted in massive registration bursts in the run-up to other primaries, there will be no freshly registered participants in Kentucky. Also, there won’t be any marquee down-ballot races to drive turnout, since Kentucky’s statewide contests were held last year. Like West Virginia, this should be Clinton country, so we’ll give her another best-case landslide:

Clinton: 65% (370,500)

Obama: 35% (199,500)

Oregon (May 20)

Turnout estimate: 655,000

Rationale: The turnout figure would be much higher, but the primary is closed, and only registered Democrats are eligible. Oregon’s elections are all conducted by mail and ballots were sent out last Friday. As of this Wednesday, nearly 90,000 had already been returned. There is also a competitive primary for the U.S. Senate on the ballot, with Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick vying to run against Republican Gordon Smith in what will be one of the most closely watched fall races. We’ll estimate turnout at 75 percent in what should be a strong Obama state:

Obama: 57% (373,350)

Clinton 43% (281,650)

Puerto Rico (June 1)

Turnout estimate: 700,000

Rationale: Manuel Alvarez-Rivera’s guess was 600,000, but since this is a Clinton state and these estimates are designed to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, we’ll go with his high-end projection of 700,000. We’ll also add this caveat, courtesy of Alvarez-Rivera: “I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that Sen. Clinton should prevail easily in Puerto Rico, but I don't rule out an Obama victory: sometimes voters deliver a totally unexpected outcome, as they did in 1988, when Jesse Jackson won the Puerto Rico presidential primary to everyone's surprise.”

Clinton: 60% (420,000)

Obama: 40% (280,000)

Montana (June 1)

Turnout estimate: 210,000

Rationale: Turnout was 37 percent the last time around, so we’ll bump it up to 50 percent for what will be the state’s first consequential presidential primary in decades. There is no party registration in Montana, but the state obviously tilts toward the G.O.P. However, the same can be said for Indiana, where about 75 percent of all primary participants opted for the Democratic ballot, partly because there was no action on the Republican side. There isn’t much more going on for the G.O.P. in Montana, but we’ll estimate that only 65 percent of primary voters take a Democratic ballot. Like every state around it, Montana should be a lay-up state for Obama:

Obama 61% (128,100)

Clinton 39% (81,900)

South Dakota

Turnout estimate: 90,000

Rationale: Why the big drop in turnout from Montana? Because South Dakota is a closed primary state. There are about 200,000 registered Democrats in the state, and we’ll go with 45 percent turnout (again, trying to err on Clinton’s side here, since this should be Obama country).

Obama: 61% (54,900)

Clinton: 39% (35,100)

So where does all of this lead us? Working off of these projections, Clinton will win about 295,000 more votes than Obama in the remaining primaries—just about half of them from Puerto Rico. And keep in mind, this is all based on Clinton-friendly projections. If Obama can hold her to 60 percent in West Virginia and Kentucky, he’ll shave more than 100,000 votes from her edge. And just three extra points in Oregon could trim another 50,000. And don’t forget that the turnout estimate for Puerto Rico may be high, to say nothing of Clinton’s projected margin there.

But let’s stick with the original projections, with Clinton gaining nearly 300,000 votes between now and June 3. What does this do to her effort to claim a popular-vote victory?

Under the most basic, logical and fair popular criteria—only counting the states and U.S. possessions that held official contests in which exact popular-vote totals were maintained—Obama’s lead would be 414,278 votes. In other words, his lead under this criteria is now iron-clad, even based on projections based on what should be worst-case data.

Now let’s look at Florida, Michigan, and the four states (Washington, Maine, Iowa and Nevada) where caucuses were held but no official popular-vote tally was kept.

If we just count Florida, Obama’s final lead would shrink to just under 120,000 votes.

But if we’re going to count Florida, there’s really no justification for not counting those four caucus states, where generally accepted popular-vote estimates have Obama generating a plurality of 110,222 votes. Factor them in and Obama’s final advantage—with Florida—almost doubles.

Now let’s look at Michigan, a deeply flawed contest where turnout was exceedingly low and Obama’s name was absent from the ballot. Clinton “won” the primary there with 55 percent, while “uncommitted” netted 40 percent. Polls, though, have shown that Obama would have run even with, and very possibly ahead of, Clinton in a legitimate primary.

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s award Clinton the 328,309 votes she claimed in Michigan back in January and give Obama zero. When you factor that in with Florida and the four caucus states, Clinton would take a slim 98,000-vote lead in the overall popular vote. But, again, this is based on worst-case data for Obama. If he holds Clinton to 40 percent wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, he’ll end up ahead in the popular vote even when only Clinton’s Michigan votes are counted (albeit by just a few thousand votes).

Of course, only counting her votes is unfair. A reasonable compromise for including Michigan would involve giving Obama credit for the uncommitted votes, many of which were intended for him anyway. Again, since polls have shown him running even with Clinton in the state, this is a conservative expression of his support. But if we give Obama the “uncommitted” 238,168 votes, he pulls ahead in the overall popular vote by almost 140,000 votes.

So even if we assume the worst about how Obama will do over the next few weeks, Obama will still lead the popular vote even in Florida is counted. And he’ll lead it with Michigan too, as long as he’s credited with the uncommitted votes there. And even if he’s not, he’ll still probably win the popular vote, if he outperforms my meager forecasts for his totals in the remaining primaries.

After Pennsylvania, the Clinton campaign was quick to talk about her supposed popular-vote lead. It’s not an accident that they’ve been so quiet on the subject this week.

Earlier this week, New York Times reporter Felicity Barringer filed an excellent story on San Francisco’s successful waste management strategy.

The story discussed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s zeal for keeping garbage out of landfills. Currently, his city keeps 70 percent of its disposable garbage out of landfills.

You might think that would be enough, but it’s not. He is about to propose legislation to mandate recycling of cans, bottles, paper, yard waste and food scraps. If you don’t recycle, the city won’t pick up the rest of your garbage.

How much of New York City’s waste is kept out of landfills? About 30 percent. Of course, that puts us ahead of Boston at 16 percent and Houston at less than 3 percent.

For some reason people on the West Coast are more serious about waste management. Despite Mayor Bloomberg’s forward looking PlaNYC 2030, New York’s waste policy is to get the garbage out of here to some place else as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Waste management was excluded from PlaNYC 2030 because the city already had a comprehensive waste management plan. That plan was proposed in 2006 and enacted in 2007. The city’s waste plan is to build marine waste transfer stations and barge the garbage to any place that will take it. Water-borne and train transport of our garbage will reduce pollution from trucks and is better than our current system. Currently we dump the garbage onto the floor of huge warehouses and then scoop it up and truck it out of state.

But whether its trains or barges or trucks, our policy is to pray that our garbage goes to solid waste heaven. More likely its toxic components will leak out of landfills into groundwater in rural Pennsylvannia.

PlaNYC 2030 focuses on land, water, transportation, energy, air and climate change. It’s a terrific and important initiative, but it leaves out waste. Why are we so ashamed of our garbage? Why no consultant-driven, PowerPoint-laden, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff-produced multimedia show in the park for waste management? Why isn’t waste reduction, recycling and enhanced waste management part of the city’s high-visibility sustainability plan? Is garbage just too negative a subject to get excited about?

Mayor Bloomberg has taken on traffic, smoking, crime and countless other challenges facing the city. The city’s waste management plan is an improvement over current practices and so the people who developed it deserve credit for a job well done. Still, it lacks the boldness and vision of many of the mayor’s other initiatives? Why?

One wants to find a psychological explanation in our unwillingness to deal with this issue. Tokyo burns most of its garbage in clean-burning incinerators that generate electricity. Barcelona has a facility that does that and also sorts garbage for recycling and creates compost. San Francisco is heading toward a 75 percent rate of landfill waste diversion. I guess New York is the city that’s too busy to manage its waste.

In the long run, we will need to do something different. Just like we own our water system and control that vital resource, we will also need to control the place we put our garbage. The price of disposal is only going to increase over the next few decades.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that as the planet’s population grows, and finite natural resources become more scarce, the economics of recycling will continue to improve. When we develop low-cost renewable energy, one of the main cost factors in recycling will be reduced.

Today’s garbage will be tomorrow’s raw materials for manufacturing. New York City’s population density will make the city an excellent place for “mining” waste.

Maybe it’s too late for this administration to develop a vision for our garbage. The clock in the City Hall bullpen is fast counting down to zero. Just like the failed congestion pricing program was a missed opportunity of historic proportions, so too has been the failure to focus attention on the city’s waste. What a waste.

Tenant advocates claim they have begun to see a pattern of "predatory equity" and harassment of rent-stabilized apartment dwellers. [NY Times]

For the time being Cipriani's won't be serving Bellinis until the family resolves a dispute with the State Liquor License Authority. [NY Times]

Business owners in Willets Point charge the city with neglecting to provide basic services like sewers and snow plowing in an effort to devalue their properties and ease the path to redevelopment. [NY Times]

US retail performance was mixed in April, with discounters up more than expected. [NY Times]

West Hampton residents are up in arms over a local synagogue's plan to erect a symbolic plastic boundary. [NY Post]

A new school is coming to Chelsea. [NY Post]

The city is planning a crackdown on limos and livery cabs that illegally pick up fares. [NY Post]

Governor John Corzine wants New Jersey to be first state in the US North East to build an electricity generating wind farm off the coast of the Atlantic. [Bloomberg]

Flower retailers get a boost from Mother's Day. [NYDN]

The Brooklyn Borough President refuses to accept Mayor Bloomberg's plan to move the city's main intake center for homeless men from the East Side of Manhattan to Crown Heights. [NYDN]

Rudin Management is building a new public school in the East Village. [NY Sun]

Rupert Murdoch was standing in a deep corner of the Rose Hall at about 7:30 p.m. last night to toast his fellow influencers: It was the Time 100 celebration, an event that drums up publicity for the magazine's decreasingly influential list of the 100 most influential people in the world.

The day before, Mr. Murdoch had promised investors and reporters listening in on a News Corp. investors' call that he'd prevail in his purchase of Newsday over rival bidders Mort Zuckerman and the Dolans.

Sam Zell, he said, was a man of his word and had agreed to sell; if hurdles like the Federal Communications Commissions rules about media monopolies got in the way, he'd sue to make them go away.

Last night he tempered his bravado.

"Yeah, I might have gone a little too far saying it was a certainty," he told The Observer. "I was telling the truth, but you don't know until ..." He trailed off. "[Mr. Zell] has a great reputation with the banks and the financial circles everywhere," he said a moment later.

But the big buzz around Rupert originates from his purchase more than a year ago of The Wall Street Journal. Has The Journal really improved since he took it over?

"Yes," Mr. Murdoch said. "But it's got a long way to go. It's breaking more news and it has a lot more news in it—political and international."

He said they'll hire Mr. Brauchli's replacement in "a couple weeks, maybe three."

At that moment, fellow influential-type Martha Stewart interrupted to say hello to Mr. Murdoch.

"I wanna get a picture!" she called out generally. A photographer scurried over and obliged.

"I have a great picture of your mother!" Ms. Stewart said to Mr. Murdoch. "Is she still alive?"

"Yes," Mr. Murdoch replied.

"I'm so glad," said Ms. Stewart. "My mother, she lived only to 93. It's my first Mother's Day without her."

Ms. Stewart remembered the time a few years ago when Mr. Murdoch's mom made her a salad in Australia, using vegetables from her garden.

"Delicious! It was amazing. But she didn't want to talk about her son at all!"

Mr. Murdoch was with his wife, Wendi, and eventually worked his way to Paul Steiger. In the Time 100 issue itself, which adopts an Interview-magazine-like conceit of allowing subjects to be interviewed by non-reporters, Mr. Steiger, the former Wall Street Journal managing editor, is Mr. Murdoch's interlocutor. It was not, how do you say, a hardball.

And it didn't go over very well inside The Journal either. Staffers weren't too happy when Mr. Steiger took a multimillion-dollar parachute out of his job from Mr. Murdoch; imagine how they felt when they saw this interview, which was conducted ages before Mr. Murdoch dispensed with Mr. Steiger's successor, Marcus Brauchli, but hit newsstands just as the newsroom was cooling off from that blow.

"I love the people [at The Journal]," he said. "I don't think they'll