The Washington Post reports today from Indiana, where the political mechanics of the state -- next door to Obama's Illinois stronghold, but a political apparatus aligned with the Clinton machine -- make for a close race. Writes Anne E. Kornblut:
Something unusual appears to be developing in the Democratic presidential race in this state: a fair fight.
What on earth does that mean? That primaries in states where demographics are favorable to one candidate or the other are unfair? That voters who pay attention and weigh their options early in the process are being unfair compared to those undecided voters who tune in during the final moments? That a state only counts if the press gets to write breathless "too close to call" stories? That the previous primaries and caucuses that put Barack Obama in the lead were somehow unfair to Hillary Clinton?
Honestly, I've written stuff like this before for the magazine: A lead that just sounds so good you miss the fact that it's fundamentally senseless. Usually a fellow editor or writer saves me from myself. Too bad someone at the Post didn't do that for Kornblut here.