This is really directed at CNN.

I really wish the media would stop counting the super-delegates in their counts. We are in in the middle of a primary right now and they should be focused on the delegates that are already pledged as a direct result of voting.

MSNBC shows the counts as just pledged delegates(the ones who have already voted).

On the other hand, from what I've seen CNN's clutching to "Clinton's ahead, Clinton's ahead, CLINTON'S STILL AHEAD" via super-delegates like their lives depend on it.

Question for debate:

Should media outlets only show actual delegate counts at this point?

Great and timely question there Sleeper- - I think the larger question is the "kingmaker" status the media is enjoyed at this point- I think we need some hard core reform of the media is needed here- the fact that Ron Paul got more votes than Guiliani or Thompson, but was shut out, is very, well, conspiracy type fodder. I hate to say it- but it appears that they are having WAY too much influence on who get's nominated.

I think we probably need to pull all broadcasting licenses for a bit, and sort it out- have hearings, and make laws governing how debates and political coverage during campaigns are conducted.

I have seen more balanced reporting of elections in russia than this farce- seriously!

Like you said sleeper this HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY MUST WIN and then the way they "declare" a front runner and all that- very influencing in an election, maybe not biased against one party or the other- but certainly biased within each party.

I wanted to see what Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucicinich and Ron Paul had to say on the "MSM" , but I was denied that by the MSM.

This smacks of some serious ethical violations here, and we need some reform!

I agree that the media should be showing actual delegate counts. The NY Times has done this. They haven't even counted the caucus delegates for Iowa yet, because they haven't been determined yet.

I wish there were some rules that the media had to abide by in terms of reporting on elections. It would be nice if they got their numbers from the same place and didn't play this speculation game... it only serves to confuse.

Until the actual delegates are counted, I think it's only safe to say that it's a close race between Obama and Clinton.

Should media outlets only show actual delegate counts at this point?

They probably should, but I don't care. Haven't watched TV for months now and don't miss it one bit. Quick scans of newspapers online is all I've got time for any longer and a few boards like this one.

Part of this setting of priorities involves being sick of idiotic talking heads. I do believe this is a national trend.

Well they're a media outlet. The purpose of media outlets is the report the news. Speculation is acceptable, but not under the guise of "reporting." The media ought to stick with the facts and not try to interpret the data based on polls. We've seen just how unreliable they are this election season.

Even a quick scan of the newspapers online will give you inaccurate information regarding delegate counts. The New York Times appears to be the only one who is accurately reporting actual pledged delegates. They also report the AP numbers, but explain how they arrive at their own. I think I'll be using them as my guide for the moment.

Here's the thing -- I, a news consumer, I want to know how the super delegates are playing out. I have a lot at stake in this race. I've volunteered for Barack, called relatives, stood in the Atlantic Avenue trains top in Brooklyn registering independent voters as democrats so they can get out and vote. What's more important, arguably, is that I'm emotionally invested in this campaign. Intellectually invested in this campaign.

So with both candidates essentially deadlocked in a race headed ineluctably towards a brokered convention -- I want to know if I'm wasting my time, energy and heart. It would tantamount to cruelty and corruption if, after 10 months of following a dynamic, unpredictably, and emotionally taxing campaign, it turned out Hillary Clinton had 600 of the 800 superdelagtes wrapped up all along, and this high-profile spat with Obama was little more than a pony show before the real power brokers had their say. That would be shocking, and if that was the case, I would want to know now.

Fortunately, that isn't the case. Most superdelegates seem uncommitted at this point -- or at least aren't vocally endorsing either side -- and that changes the race. It makes it meaningful.

I mean, John Lewis endorsed Hillary Clinton. I think CNN can responsibly report him as a superdelegate on Hillary's side. Bill Clinton -- safe to say who he'll side with. Ted Kennedy -- think we all know who he's siding with. And so on.

Do I think the media should be careful turning the superdelegates into the components of a horse race? Yes. I can all too easily imagine a situation where the media rushes to report that governor so-and-so is endorsing Hillary based on some off-handed comment he or she made at a bar last wednesday. Or whatever. I imagine at least some of CNN's reported superdelegates have actually not committed to a candidate, and there is probably a whole lot of conjecture going on backstage at CNN.

So my point would be that the media can and should report to us what the superdelegate scene is looking like: absolutely. But they shouldn't infuse that coverage with subjective narratives of victory and defeat. They should keep the coverage focused on the state-by-state primaries as they unfold, and keep the prognostication to the CNN office pool.

For all we know, Howard Dean might issue a stern directive for superdelegates to side with the candidate who comes into the convention with the most delegates. Totally plausible.

I really have a sinking feeling that Hillary is going to use back room deals and 'steal' delegates just like Mondale did in the 80's. If this happens it will be a complete insult to democracy as we know it in this country.

As to delegate counts and the media.. You know I can't find any two media outlets that have the same counts... Is this all just a guess right now?!?

I don't necessarily mind the super delegates endorsing candidates. I wish they wouldn't, but I don't think it's accurate to count unpledged superdelegates as pledged when they aren't. They can switch in a heartbeat. Let the politics play out elsewhere in the headlines. In terms of the primaries and caucuses... just report the pledged delegates as part of the count. Keep the unpledged delegates separate.

I agree; I don't think the networks should sensationalize or dwell on superdelegates, like, whhooooop, today Barack Obama scored one more superdelegate when congressman Joe Wishywashy mused rhetorically about Obama's coattails to an undercover reporter over a pair of drinks. Nah. I think they should keep the coverage focused on the state-by-state race.

But an occasional overview of how the superdelegates are leaning is OK with me. A tasteful and informative rough estimate is probably not going to send any superdelegates into the Hillary booth.

I think that it's just ignorance rather than Clinton bias. Here are the gals of The View opining on superdelegates.


Someone go tell Joy Behar that Republicans don't have Superdelegates. It's sad that millions of ladies in America listen to these harpies opine on the political scene.

I hope that the Democratic nomination goes to the Superdelegates and we are all treated to a spectacle of Clinton v Obama. Selected not elected!