Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont captured the West Virginia primary on Tuesday, forcing Hillary Clinton to continue a costly and distracting two-front battle: to lock down the Democratic nomination and to take on Donald J. Trump in the general election.That's so blatantly reporting the news from Hillary's point of view. Sanders won again. He has a path to victory. If Cruz were still hanging on and had beaten Trump in a primary, I'm pretty sure the headline would stress Cruz's valiant fight and his path to victory. But here's Sanders, with all his astounding success, and he's treated like a pest. And I doubt if it even does Hillary any good. Does it make anyone like her more to portray her as distracted by Bernie and annoyed at having to spend money because of him? We're supposed to see her raring to "take on" Trump when she can't begin to shake off Sanders?
Mrs. Clinton has a nearly insurmountable lead in delegates, which Mr. Sanders’s victory, one week after he won Indiana, did little to narrow.... In Oregon, which votes next week, Mr. Sanders appealed to unpledged superdelegates, who can cast votes as they please at the convention, to rally behind him as the stronger opponent to Mr. Trump.Wait a minute. The lead is only "nearly insurmountable" because of the superdelegates, and those people can shift around, as they did in '08. Sanders isn't limited to winning over the ones who are currently "unpledged." The "pledged" superdelegates can switch if they want and are influenced by what happens in the primaries and caucuses.
Here's a CNN news report from exactly 8 years ago, May 11, 2008, "Obama narrows Clinton superdelegate lead to 1":
Sen. Hillary Clinton's superdelegate lead over Sen. Barack Obama was narrowed even more Saturday, according to CNN's latest delegate estimate. Obama closed to within one superdelegate of Clinton, picking up the support of four party leaders after a flurry of new endorsements over the past two days. Clinton, meanwhile, picked up the votes of two superdelegates but lost one to Obama. That brings Clinton's superdelegate total to 273 and Obama's to 272. At the beginning of the year, Clinton led the superdelegate race by more than 100....Given the fluidity of the superdelegates, their responsiveness to democratic results, and this recent history of shifting sides, why does the NYT forefront Hillary's "a nearly insurmountable lead in delegates," merging the superdelegates with the delegates she's won democratically and segmenting off the so-called "unpledged superdelegates"? Why is Sanders diminished as if he is only selfishly messing up the Democratic Party's winning game?