A very good question. Perhaps in due time...

scrawled by circ | April 3, 2008 2:38 PM

"Obama has won a big state with lots of white people in it. "

But he lost the popular vote and only won by a technicality, correct? Winning by a technicality is not really much of a plus for his side.

scrawled by Scott | April 3, 2008 4:46 PM

Hmmm. That's going to be arguable, I suspect.

scrawled by Dwight Williams | April 3, 2008 6:54 PM

Really depends on what your definition of "victory" is.

As a populist, Obama would be loathe to trumpet that he lost the popular vote, but won the TX caucuses (TX has a 2-system primary). Caucuses benefit the hard-core party insiders and faithful, more than the "general will" of the people.

Hardly something to hang too big of a hat off.

Besides, he's got the nomination in the bag - he should be in avoiding controversy mode, rather than attack mode.

scrawled by Dan Nguyen | April 3, 2008 9:54 PM

They covered this story a few weeks ago, actually.

scrawled by Mike Chary | April 4, 2008 6:10 AM

hmm... curious..

so how many more battlegrounds, I mean states, to go before things are supposed to be "settled" at the Democrats' Convention?
Oh, BTW-- looks like Michigan still gets no love on a re-do...

scrawled by christopher currie | April 4, 2008 3:50 PM

The media won't report this because doing so would damper a huge portion of the dying momentum Hillary still has left in her campaign. They don't want to, and won't, risk ticking off the Clintons totally...not just yet. If the Clintons (by some miracle) convince the super delegates to give her the nomination, then the reporters and bosses still want to have access to her during the general election and possibly the presidency. *shudder*

Even though Texas' caucuses tipped the delegate count, and win, in Obama's favor, I still don't think his caucus victory(ies) should be looked upon in a lesser light. Actually, caucuses are the most "HONEST" form of voting we have in the states right now. The results are nearly tamper-proof because each precinct's participants leave the caucus knowing EXACTLY what the vote tally is. You can't change the final tally in favor of a losing candidate without the winning candidate's supporters knowing of the change.

But caucuses can still be tampered with, as in the case of Nevada when HIllary's supporters who were in charge of some caucus sites gave out voting forms with Hillary's name already "pre-marked" on the form. Thousands of complaints subsequently arose, albeit too late to reverse the outcome (especially from Latino voters who overlooked this until later).

scrawled by TY | April 5, 2008 4:46 AM

"I'd figure the Obama campaign, if no one else, would be shouting this from the rooftops.
Why aren't they?"

The primary is a smokescreen. Clinton and Obama are secretly engaging in a Fecklessness contest. Loser serves the winner lunch at the senatorial dinning room dressed as Limbaugh.

scrawled by greg zywicki | April 7, 2008 9:18 AM

HEY, PRIEST'S BACK! I woke up today and decided to check up for the first time in a while since you hiatus, and it looks like you've been busy! It was great to see your interview with CBR recently (I think Rich Johnson also said something nice). Hope you stick around for a while!!!

As for Obama, that is strange it wasn't better covered. As a 23 year old college student, of course I'm a pretty big supporter of Obama and anxiously wait for November 4th when I can (hopefully) cast my vote for Obama and then the very next day walk into my local comic store and buy the newest Priest written comic hot off the stands.

scrawled by Jp Pollard | April 7, 2008 10:38 AM

See, this is what you get when most of your news comes from progressive sources like Olbermann and AM760 here in Colorado...I thought it was being covered by the press.

It's a strange and likely dangerous bubble I've put myself in - I see the news the mainstream news doesn't cover, but I'm not aware that they're not covering it.

scrawled by Scavenger | April 7, 2008 11:34 AM