This story had one oft-repeated rush to judgment -- that Hillary won Texas. Actually, later caucus returns pushed Obama into a delegate lead in Texas. Yet most media scorecards continue to say Clinton 3, Obama 1, even though each likely won two states that day. All Things Considered got it right, and I've come to expect the same from On The Media. You missed a good chance to illustrate how this narrative device -- momentum -- can get skewed if reporters move on too quickly. I believe the narrative device we're looking for here is called "follow up."

Thanks for a useful discussion of how reporters organize their stories. What I really want them to do is ask the two remaining candidates to explain WHY they are asserting particular points in their positions, i.e., why OBama has insurance companies at the table in health care reform, what five steps Clinton would take first after she got the 3 a.m. phone call, and how long would she expect to have to figure things out before speaking to the public, etc. etc.