This Dickerson story is yet another example of how totally in the tank for Obama so many so-called journalists are -- even AFTER their supposed epiphany last week when SNL shamed them and Hillary's people knocked them. How does Dickerson begin his piece about Hillary winning three of four states including two biggies? With a long lead paragraph that seeks to bury her before he gets to the results.

No one should believe for a moment that guys like Dickerson are going to ease up on Hillary and bear down on Obama -- they are (most of them) pausing briefly before theyu begin beating drums for Obama's line again.

No question that the total popular vote is handily as important and legitimate to persuading those 800 free super delegates as a lead in pledged delegates. And the fact is that Hillary can still catch up and pass Obama in popular votes. But Dickerson devotes his piece essentially to making Obama's argument for him -- namely that the delegate lead amounts somehow to the only expression of "the will of the people" that the supers must follow, disregarding the obvious relevance of the total votes cast. I am at a loss to grasp why, if I'm a member of Congress or a state party chair with a vote given to me to use as I see fit in the best interest of my party, I have to look to who has a delegate lead, however small, and ignore all else.

What's more, what about the "will of the people" of Florida and Michigan, which so far is being tossed aside?

Dickerson is entitled to be in Obam's corner, but can't Slate find anyone to serve as a senior political writer who isn't in the tank for one candidate?

There are just

oops. as many pro-clinton columnists. the truly odd thing is that the pro-clinton columnists complain ad nauseum about how the 'press' favors obama too. what's up with that?

mostly, the press likes a good story... and this is a good story. there isn't any monolithic agenda broadcast by the news opperatti.