Did the mainstream media get it all wrong in proclaiming Hillary Clinton the winner of Saturday's Nevada Democratic caucuses?
Kos reports:
So check it out, Obama literally won more delegates in Nevada than Clinton:
A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.
Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said.
And the Obama campaign is milking it, throwing the Hillary campaign's own words against it:
Senator Obama was awarded 13 delegates to Senator Clinton's 12. As Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said, "This is a race for delegates…It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process."
Ha ha ha. As if this thing couldn't get any more absurd.
It gets even more bizarre as Kos continues:
The percentages reported for this race, by the way, aren't popular vote figures. Truly bizarre. They're based on the number of state delegates awarded. So while no one thinks Obama will win the popular vote, the percentages should be a lot tighter when the actual popular vote numbers are released.
So what WAS the media reporting in proclaiming Hillary the victor? So what was the media reporting earlier this month when Hillary and Obama got exactly the same number of delegates from the New Hampshire primary?
Do these media hounds understand what they were reporting when they proclaimed Clinton the victor even though Obama got more national convention delegates that Clinton did (on top of Obama getting the same number of national convention delegates that Clinton did in New Hampshire)?
While the erratic media reporting may not come near the grand "Dewey Defeats Truman" Chicago Tribune error of 1948, it should raise significant questions about whether the American people are getting the total facts surrounding primary election results.
__________________________
And so the erratic reporting
And so the erratic reporting continues...the MSM are now saying that Hillary won Florida, even though absolutely no delegates were awarded. By giving Hillary her ten minutes of spotlight on CNN and network newscasts the anchors and commentators are agreeing to participate in the mess in Florida in exactly the way the Clinton camp desired.
Even if we buy into the argument that there was a real election in Florida (and Michigan, which was also stripped of all its delegates for trying to move up their primary), there is a surreal atmosphere that hangs over the way it was done. Who knows how the voters would have voted if they hadn't believed the delegates were moot? Who knows how many stayed home? Who knows what would have happened if the candidates hadn't agreed to stop campaigning in these areas? Even if big numbers of voters did turn out in Florida--which appears to be the case--we've been seeing bigger than big, in fact, record numbers, turning out in all the primaries.
A good argument can be made that Hillary and Bill are trying to rig the process by asking for the Florida and Michigan delegates after the fact. And it's a fact that the two races weren't run the way they would have been without all the mess. Remember, it's about the voters, all the voters, and their perceptions--not the candidates' little agreement.
The real problem now is the
The real problem now is the MSM's refusal so far--although it may not last much longer--to report on the source for Clinton's $5 million infusion of funds into her own campaign right after Super Tuesday. Long thought by media-watchers to be the reason for the Clintons' reluctance to release their 2007 tax returns, the truth has begun to surface in the indy media, both left and right.
Turns out Sen. Clinton may have gotten the money from one of Bill's charities, and pressured people at the non-profit to cover up the unethical and possibly illegal activity.
Here's a link to the whole ugly tale: http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/904758.shtml