I was a little hesitant to do this post at first because I'm sure I'll be accused of doing a pro-Hillary post. But stay with me here. Looking at this strictly on the level of media bias--and irrespective of the actual candidates--Dan Abrams asks if the media is creating a horse race that does not really exist by downplaying the lead of one candidate and playing up the rise of another just to create a media narrative. And again, irrespective to the actual candidates, there is some truth to what Abrams says (and Rachel Maddow's point that Obama is gaining as well, if you look at the trajectory of the polling data), and we can see it in many other ways, such as the death knell of McCain's campaign four months ago and the presumptive lead of Rudy Giuliani at the same time. Now that actual votes are being counted, who has the delegates and who has gotten out of the race? And let us not forget the media blackout on Edwards and how that impacted his ability to gain traction nor the pundit-declared victory for Obama in New Hampshire before a single vote was counted. Huffington Post's Roy Sekoff, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell chime in as well.
So what do you think? Is the media deciding the terms of the race for us? Tom Tomorrow thinks so.
Jim Booth at Scholars & Rogues takes a slightly different--but related--look at it as it relates to Edwards leaving the race.