Obama wins in Texas (is this news?)

I thought everybody knew this, but I forgot that the instinct of the media are to "never let the facts get in the way of a good story". That, by the way is what journalists say about themselves, but the phrase originated in Texas.

It was known already on March 4th that Senator Obama had won the caucuses by such a substantial margin that an overall lead in delegates from Texas was to be expected. Still, it was reported as a win for Clinton. And an important one, too: Bill Clinton the night I saw him here said that winning Texas and Ohio was key to his wife remaining in the race. So the perception that she won trumped the fact that she lost.

Why? The mainstream media in every recent national race has built up the underdog and torn down the front runner producing as tight a race as possible. I believe it's called selling advertising. Clinton's continuation in the race is necessary for the exciting narrative they've constructed of a 'virtual tie' to continue. 'Statistical dead heats' beat major weather as being an endless source of media distraction, and they will automatically create one any time they can. To the extent (for example) that even a nut like Huckabee is treated as a contender long after his sell-by date has passed.