(Sigh) I sent a letter to the New York Times this morning asking them to correct their article regarding Hillary's win in Nevada yesterday in which they state:
Mrs. Clinton scored a clear victory measured in the number of people attending the caucuses on her behalf. But Mr. Obama’s campaign was successful by another measure — in the allocation of delegates to the national nominating convention, a result of a complex formula that gave more weight to votes in some parts of the state.I directed them to the Nevada Democratic Caucus web site and party chair Jill Derby's statement regarding the allocation of national delegates:
"The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."I also pointed them to the Delegate Selection Plan and asked them to READ it (am I asking too much?)
I just don't get it. The press swoons over Obama, but every victory Hillary chalks up somehow doesn't really count. They've always got something to say to discount or minimize what she is doing across the country. Oh well, we're used to it. We keep soldiering on.
On edit: John Edwards graciously congratulates Senator Clinton. Barack Obama does not and continues the lie.