Last night as I sat hitting refresh to keep up with the primaries – let’s not even go into the fact I pulled out the laptop at 2:40 in the morning while under the influence of Ambien because clearly I need to scale back my feeling on politics – I was getting really frustrated with the leads on CNN.com. They kept adding states to Clinton’s total in the headlines, but not Obama’s. I might mention the first time I said something to David about it the polls in California were still open for almost another two hours. As the night wore on it sure seemed to me that CNN.com was showing a bias for Ms. Clinton. Her picture was the lead picture. Her name had the most states next to it in the header of the page – and if you had scrolled down you would have seen that at that time Obama had more states under his belt. But whatever, maybe they didn’t have the time to update the images and headlines.

Cut to this morning and I find an article about how a mere 0.4% separates the candidates. (Click on the thumbnail for a full size screen shot that should open in a new window. As an aside I took a screenshot because in the past CNN.com will put up an article full of mistakes and typos and then quietly replace it with a corrected version a day or two later.)

So apparently Super Tuesday democrats cast 14,645,638 ballots that have been counted from yesterday. The article then goes on to say that of those ballots Clinton won 7,295,400 or 50.2%. Obama on the other hand won 7,295,400 or a mere 49.8%. So even though they won the same number of votes, Clinton won a larger percentage? Um, ok. I guess we shouldn’t let facts get in the way when writing an article for a news source. Especially when the article is literally all about the numbers.