Everywhere you look major media outlets are somehow not counting Caucus victories for Obama... particularly in Texas.

For example:, this article by Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

QUOTE

Clinton supporters say the slow pace of commitments is because of concerns, after Obama's March 4 losses in TexasSen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), a Clinton backer.

and Ohio, about whether he can win in November -- doubts they have
aggressively sought to stir in their private lobbying efforts. "If you can't win it in the primary, how are you going to win it in November? That's our pitch," said

UNQUOTE

If you read that carefully, it is clear that this framing is being taken straight from the Clinton campaign.  Why?

Is the Obama campaign strategically deciding not to contest this framing for some reason, such as to avoid seeming petty?

Are the media embarrassed to admit they called Texas too soon?  (And is it the editors of the Post, or these particular reporters... or some kind of institutional embarrassment that holds that the paper cannot admit error once a story is committed to print?)

Do Washington Post reporters actually have a pro-Clinton agenda?  (And why would they?   I mean seriously, can't they do the delegate count and reach the obvious conclusion about where there bread will be buttered in the future?  (... by either Obama or McCain... and probably not by Clinton.)

Or do they have a McCain agenda that leads them to have a pro-Clinton agenda?

Or are they simply careless with fact checking?   I mean anyone can go look up a delegate counter and find out what the actual count is:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

Anyone, including Post reporters can look up the total vote count too: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

I realize that the quote above about Texas is just a direct reflection of Clinton camp framing, but wouldn't responsible reporting point out that the claim of a Texas victory is open to dispute?  

Why don't Obama campaign people point this out to reporters? 

(To answer my own question, maybe they think it doesn't matter... only delegates matter... and let the world think what they want about Texas.  Maybe.)

----

Media framing question 2

Where do people get the idea that the nomination race between 2 Democrats tells you much about how a Democrat will perform against a Republican? 

Most Obama voters will vote for Clinton and most Clinton voters will vote for Obama... if the alternative is McCain.

Obama's inability to defeat Clinton in those (in Sirota's terms) middle states with an AA population between 6% and 17% says nothing about his ability to win those states when he is running not against a good democrat like Clinton, but instead against an evil war mongering Republican like John McCain.

Unfortunately the reverse is not exactly true... insofar as Clinton's ability to win in red states is much more in doubt.  But even there, the efforts Obama and Dean have made in some nontraditional states that Obama has won in the primaries could well lead to some surprising Clinton victories.

No, the purpose of these primaries is to assess the preferences of Democrats and the outcomes of those assessments say little about the likely strength of the candidates against Republicans.  

The strengths of the candidates against Republicans have a little to do with policy and a great deal with personality.  When you listen to each of these people, how do you feel about them in comparison to how you feel about that old guy... John McCain.  

I think when you line up the personalities of Obama or Clinton, you can see one potential victory... and one potential defeat.  It has nothing to do with primary victories... everything to do with how personalities play as observed on the TV screens of America.  I give the Hawaiian the advantage in that subtle contest.