A somewhat disappointing analysis, although its basic premise is accurate. What the analysis should have also included is that Obama needs better counsel. His praise of Republican Reagan as the “president of change” ignored the fact that most of Reagan’s change was to take from the poor and give to the rich–something Cheney and Bush have refined to perfection. It was Reagan’s administration that began the regression of entitlements which go all the way back to the New Deal days of the Great Depression. Contemporary opponents described Reagan as throwing a party for the rich and failing to invite America.

Another fluff piece mostly based off no facts.

It's fine, so far as it goes. That Obama needs to add more substance is a given. But this story, like most of the MSM coverage, suffers from two-candidate myopia. John Edwards, as just about everyone concedes, has been the leader, for at least a year now, in promoting ideas and programs of real substance. But his ideas get no coverage (until they're adopted by one of the "two candidates"!), with the result that 25 percent of respondents to last week's NY Times/CBS poll said they "didn't know enough" about him to make a choice. (The corresponding numbers for Clinton and Obama were 2 and 8 respectively.) It takes ideas, yes. It also takes somebody paying attention.

Since when does one lose an election for the delegates in a state primary when one wins more delegates than one's opponent? The story claims that Obama lost by six votes in the popular race but won one more delegate than Clinton. So why does the headline indicate that he lost. This is more of the bad reporting that has left the electorate so poorly informed. Actually at this point Obama has more elected delegates than Clinton. He won more in Iowa, They tied in New Hampshire and he won one more in Nevada. If one counts superdelegates Clinton is leading but those are not discussed in this article. Nor do they always stay with a candidate as John Dean learned four years ago.