redblueamerica.com

Recently I emailed NPR with a complaint for the first time ever. I admit, stereotypes be damned, that I love my NPR. Many a day I have a "driveway moment" where I sit in the car waiting for a fascinating news item or a particularly clever Prairie Home Companion bit to finish.

The media have been repeated that Obama's momentum was "thwarted" on March 4, citing as evidence Clinton's "wins" in Ohio and Texas. But CLINTON HAS NOT WON TEXAS. She won the primary. But 1/3 of the delegates are from caucuses, which show Obama leading, and projections indicate that he will win the delegate count (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23589967/). Which is what really matters. And yesterday, I heard NPR repeating this falsehood. Maybe you'll hear my comments on Talk of the Nation today.

Is the Texas system fair? Would Obama have his lead if all states held primaries? I don't know the answer. I see arguments on both sides of the first question. In one sense, a primary is more equitable -- people can show up anytime during the day and vote, so it doesn't penalize those who have to work that day (usually) and is usually convenient. A caucus is at a set time in the evening, so if you're on the night shift, too bad. But it rewards those who are especially motivated (and able) to participate in the electoral process. Texas tries to capture the best of both worlds by doing both. I kind of like that idea. But I am hoping for an Obama win, so maybe I'm biased.