Well I think the important thing to take away from this is that major media has such a vested interest in getting a hot sell-able story out as soon as possible that it would not be in the papers best interest to not print a decisive story even if the facts on the ground turn out to be quite different then the headline. I heard the returns and read the blogs to see the comments on the caucus process at other locations throughout the state and it seemed universal that most election locations were rather unprepared for the large number of voter's. That couled with many crossing the lines for whatever reason left the process with a lot to be desired in terms of proficiency pr efficiency. The story should have been Hillary wins the primary but it looks like Obama will win the Caucus but they printed Clinton wins for the sale. We have to insist on better local reporting but many of the major papers in our state simply print whatever the Ap is putting out and have good local sports coverage while their other stories lack insightfulness, investigative questioning and a community based rationale which would give the paper the flavor and identity in sync with the community it covers.

"Half of those results are from the state superdelegates I believe. They won't be counted until June. "

Exactly. And how better to delay the full facts than to slow walk this thing.

So maybe a few Clinton sd's are deliberately not reporting in until June?

It seems easy to do, and it seems in the Clintons interest to do so.