‘Super Tuesday’ results are in, and Sen. Barack Obama won Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah.

 
Sen. Hillary Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

 
Three of Obama’s states—Alaska, Idaho and Utah—go Republican in general elections. So do three of Clinton’s states—Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

 
Each candidate won over 7 million votes (rounding votes tabulated to the nearest thousand). Clinton received almost 200,000 more votes than Obama, her net plus coming entirely from California and New York. (Take California and New York out, and Obama leads Clinton by 400K+ votes overall.)

 
So that’s 14 to 8 for Obama, in states won, or 11 to 5 for Obama, in Democratic states won, a statistical tie in votes won, and a win in votes outside of the two mega-states where the Clinton camp was strongest.

 
The lead in the Washington Post about all this today could have come straight from the Clinton campaign:

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won victories over Sen. Barack Obama in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York last night, giving her presidential campaign a crucial boost. But Obama countered by winning a string of states, including the general election battleground of Missouri, in the seesaw race for the Democratic nomination.”

 
The front-page article, titled “Clinton, Obama Trade Victories,” is subtitled “N.Y. Senator Withstands Push By Surging Rival in Key Battlegrounds.”

 
So there’s your MSM narrative, in case it had not already been established. Just as she has been, in pages of the Post, for the past year—more than a year before a single vote was cast, for those of us who can remember—Mrs. Clinton is the ‘front-runner.’ Barack Obama is somehow an insurgent, a challenger. This even though, of the two candidates, it is not Barack Obama who is a former first lady, not Obama who is saddled with Bill Clinton, not Obama who voted for the Iraq war, and not Obama who has been campaigning for the presidency on the basis of personal notoriety since 2003.

 
Typically, the article dwells on race and understates Obama’s draw among white voters:

“Still, he won nearly four in 10 white voters in Georgia and fared better among white men there than he had in an earlier racially polarized race in South Carolina, giving his campaign a chance to claim that he had broadened his support in the intervening weeks. Victories in Connecticut and North Dakota bolstered that claim.”

 
Obama actually won 44+ percent among white men.

 
As usual, this major paper is boosting—hammering home--two Clinton talking points: that women are supporting Clinton, and that Latinos are breaking for her. There is a grain of truth in both these propositions, but they are both oversimplified—and self-fulfilling. As ever, this article in the Post omits to mention the vote anomalies in New Hampshire. The Latino vote is split, according to informed commentators, with a divide along generational and language lines: English-speaking Hispanics who read English-language periodicals go more for Obama, Spanish-speaking Hispanics who rely on Spanish-language television go more for Clinton.

 
The common denominator linking the groups who break for Clinton—seniors, Hispanics, women—is their statistical reliance on the MSM for their news and information. People who are Internet-savvy enough to broaden their access to a much larger pool of information break for Obama.

 
In a parallel trend, if you notice, Obama is “surging,” as even the MSM report. In other words, the more the Democratic voters find out, the more likely they become to break for him.