This is what Bill Clinton must mean when he talks of the anti-Hillary bias in the media: the number of state delegates each Democratic candidate received has been widely reported; while the number of national delegates each candidates will get from Iowa has been massively under-reported. Why? Because otherwise the story would no longer sound as a crashing defeat for Hillary Rodham Clinton. In fact, Clinton got one more national delegate than Edwards (15 to 14), and only one less than Obama (16) – even though she got way less state delegates than Obama and a few less than Edwards, thereby giving raise to the embarrassing percentages that have been all over the news in the past two days. With the national delegates’ numbers, that are the only actual numbers in terms of who will be nominated, it looks a lot more like a race split three ways than the Obama triumph reported by the media (apart from the obvious fact that, counting national delegates, Hillary came second in Iowa and not third).
One more reason why it is unfair to report only the state delegates is, obviously, that while for Republicans we know the actual number of votes, for Democrats we only know how those votes translate into state delegates. So it is possible that, just like the number of national delegates is very close, so is the actual number of votes, which we are not going to find out. In the absence of the sheer number of votes, there is all the more reason for reporting both state delegates and national delegates.