I was just reading an article by Albert R. Hunt on Bloomberg.com. I really hate to beat him over the head because the article was reasonably fair. That is a very diffuclt thing to find in the media these days since everyone seems obsessed with trying to keep the Democratic primary going. I suppose I can see their point since no one will be paying attention to these guys and gals once the nomination is settled.
So here's the part of the article that made my skin crawl and my blood pressure increase to an unhealthy level. This was Mr. Hunt's statement about the Obama campaign.
This is a campaign that hasn't won anything in some eight weeks; it's a candidacy and message that seems tired.
Eight weeks ago was March 10th. Since March 10th there have been three contests. Those contests were Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Guam. Senator Obama won both Mississippi and Guam. Is the point that he should have also won Pennsylvania or that he should have instructed the DNC to invent other contests in those 8 weeks for him to win?
By the way, if the 8 weeks is extended back to the beginning of March so that we include Jr. Super Tuesday, Senator Obama also won Vermont and Wyoming and he got more delegates out of Texas. Senator Clinton has won the "bigger" states since March 4th, but she’s gained exactly 7 pledged delegates in that time. In fact, Senator Obama has picked up 41 super delegates since then while Senator Clinton has picked up 20. If my math is correct Senator Obama is 14 delegates further ahead than he was when March started. He may have had a bumpy couple of months, but he’s in better position to win the nomination.
Again, I hate to beat Mr. Hunt over the head about this since the article was very fair, but the quotation I included here is absolutely ridiculous.