Who's in the Lead?
James Robertson, ranting on the professional media:
So... the hours of analysis over the meaning of the race is kind of silly - it's barely begun, and something like half the total delegates are at stake on February 5th. This is what passes for "professional" media, on a topic that is fairly important in the US.
What's funny is that for all the hand-wringing over Mit Romney's showing, he's 2 delegates behind Huckabee, and he'd be in the lead if the GOP restored the half of WY's delegates they took away for moving the WY primary up w/o GOP approval. It's entirely possible that Romney could take 2nd in every contest through Feb 5 and go into Super Tuesday in the lead.
Is it just me, or does CNN's primaries coverage really stink? Watching the CNN coverage last night made me think that the CNN anchors are simply talking and not listening to each other: a reporter in the field makes an observation, hands off to Lou Dobbs who makes a comment on a totally different subject, hands off to Anderson Cooper who immediately changes the subject again. It's no wonder they get no depth to their coverage; they have no continuity. The other day, I watched a panel on the NH results that included Jesse Jackson, who went on unabashedly shilling for Barack Obama. Jesse Jackson made a pretty big splash in 1988 - he took roughly 1/3 of the delegates in the convention and should have been given serious consideration as a VP candidate, but was basically shut out. He could have, should have, given some insight on what happened in '88, and the CNN interviewers should have tried to get that out of him. Meanwhile, over on Fox at roughly the same time, Juan Williams had some extremely insightful comments on the Obama campaign. CNN is making Fox's ironic "Fair and Balanced" mantra look pretty good.