3 things the mainstream media won't be reporting tomorrow

I've been reading all the coverage of South Carolina and am a bit frightened at what's NOT being said. Hopefully these things will be talked about tomorrow (doubt it). So in case they're not, here's what I think we should take away from the current situation.

1. Barack Obama is winning this election


Looking at any of the mainstream media outlets, it would seem like Hillary Clinton is winning. Looking at their nifty "charticles," anyone can see that she has more delegates than Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Problem is, 4 out of 5 of Hillary's "delegates" were not actually ELECTED. They are so-called "superdelegates." Superdelegates are party insiders - governors, members of Congress, even former presidents and vice presidents - who tend to vote for political expediency. That is, they bet on the horse they think will win, in hopes that candidate will repay them down the road.

By any measure of success in the actual ELECTION, Barack Obama is winning. He's gotten the most votes in the two official primaries so far - winning 50% to Clinton's 32% - and has won the most delegates from both primaries and caucuses. If this were being scored democratically - by the will of what the VOTERS want - Barack would be undeniably ahead.

2. Hillary is engaging in desperate dirty tricks

Hillary must realize that the voters are siding with Barack, because she's beginning to engage in desperate dirty tricks. Months ago, when it seemed like every state was in a race to hold their primary before Halloween '07, the Democratic Party said that any state holding a primary before February 5 (except New Hampshire and South Carolina) would have their delegates stripped. At the time, all of the Democratic candidates agreed with that plan and pledged not to campaign in states that held early primaries.

Now that Hillary realizes that she's losing, she's going back on what she said earlier and is asking that delegates from Michigan and Florida be reinstated. Hillary won Michigan because both Barack and John Edwards asked their names be withdrawn from the ballot (the right thing to do, in my opinion). Despite their pledges not to campaign in Florida, Hillary has spent an awful lot of time there at "fundraisers" and other events and polls show she will most likely win the state in the absence of any real competition.

Is this kind of flip-flopping and smarmy political backstabbing what we should expect from President Clinton II?

3. Barack has a better chance of winning against McCain

I've been saying it since this time a year ago: the only guaranteed lose for the Democratic party is a McCain vs. Clinton match-up. McCain is hugely well loved by western and midwestern independents, and many folk in those same areas are highly suspicious of Hillary. It's why I was so excited to see McCain's supposed "meltdown." But now that he's re-"surging" as the new front-runner, I'm even more worried at the prospect of Hillary winning the nomination.

A recent poll backs up my suspicions: Survey-USA did polls in a handful of states comparing how people would vote in a McCain-Clinton matchup vs. a McCain-Obama matchup. In the five states where who the Democratic nominee is would make a difference, Hillary lost four of the five to McCain. Iowa, Wisconsin and Washington state would go with Barack, but not with Hillary. Oregon would tie for Barack but go with McCain over Hillary. Only in Minnesota would Barack lose and Hillary win.

I grew up in the midwest and I know how we think. It's not that people love McCain. It's that they really don't like "fake" people and Hillary just seems SOOO disingenuous and insincere while McCain seems real and very likable. On a side note, I'd even say that the midwest is more ready for a woman president than a black man. It's not a woman candidate that's a problem - it's THIS woman. And there's no way a Democrat can lose the upper midwest and still win.