Let’s take a cool, hypeless look at what has happened so far in the race for the presidential nominations.

As of last month, Iowa was considered to be a tight three-way among Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. New Hampshire was expected to go for Clinton by a healthy margin, with Obama a competitive second and Edwards a distant third.

So what happened? I could almost say ditto, but not quite. Obama broke out of the pack to win Iowa by a convincing (though hardly overwhelming) 8-point margin, with the other two in a near-tie for second. New Hampshire went exactly as projected, except that Obama came a little closer than expected.

Of course, all this was presented as a wild set of gyrations back and forth. Now we are told that McCain and Clinton have the momentum, Romney is on the ropes, and Edwards — well, he was too anti-corporate for the corporate media to have conceded him much chance to begin with, and they certainly don’t give him any now.

Here are the pledged delegate totals (i.e., those awarded for success in caucuses and primaries — not counting the undemocratic “superdelegates” that the, ahem, Democratic Party uses to make sure it doesn’t risk being too democratic):

Source: CNN

Can you imagine how different both of these races would be if the standing of the candidates was actually presented in proportion to these results? Supposing, for example, the media portrayed Romney as the most consistent Republican candidate so far (which he is), but (to be fair) facing some doubts over his failure to win a big one yet. (Of course, he did win Wyoming, which is the only Western state polled so far and, though low in population, has two fifths as many folks as New Hampshire, but I digress.) Supposing McCain was portrayed as flush with victory, yes, but also only 4 delegates ahead of Fred Thompson, well behind the two leaders. Supposing the Democratic race was portrayed as a competitive three-way race, with Edwards a little behind the other two. Can you imagine how much differently voters might behave in subsequent contests, with these emphases and options placed before them?

And that’s exactly the point. Read the rest of this entry »

1. Hillary Clinton scored a surprise victory in the New Hampshire primary yesterday in the race for the nomination of the Not Very Democratic party. John McCain won the primary of the Banana Republican party.
2. The corporate media “objective” spinmeisters wet themselves in their eagerness to declare the monumental nature of this change in momentum and how it totally transforms the Not Very Democratic race. These are the same paragons of wisdom far beyond what us ordinary grovelling readers could hope to know who, until shortly before the Iowa caucus, had repeatedly proclaimed Clinton’s invincibility — and then, in the few days between Iowa and New Hampshire, proclaimed Obama’s invincibility. As John Edwards tartly noted, 98% of the public has yet to be heard from — but even 2% is a lot more of the population than is represented by those with content-producing jobs in the corporate media, let alone, more importantly, the owners and sponsors of said media.
3. There is reasonable room to doubt that the New Hampshire results are actually correct, although there is as yet not sufficient evidence to conclude one way or another whether the primary was stolen for (not necessarily by) Clinton.
4. Philip Agee, a hero of the fight against the American national security state, has died at the age of 72.