Does CNN fact check anything, or do they simply read from a script provided by the Clinton campaign?  Serious, a CNN reporter on the Situation Room just reported that a Clinton insider had described to her a scenario under which Clinton wins the nomination.  This reported said this insider told her that Clinton had won 3 of the last 4 contests, and that if she won big in Pennsylvania, as she is expected to do, and then support for the Obama campaign collapsed, the superdelegates would flock to the Clinton side. 

Now there are a lot of if's packed into that statement.  But there's also a glaring facutal error.  Clinton hasn't won 3 of the last 4 contests.  Obama has won the last two contests, Wyoming and Mississippi.  Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island before that.  Obama won Vermont.  Texas was arguably a draw, with Clinton winning the primary and Obama winning the caucus, though if a winner has to be delared in that state, it would Obama, who'll walk away with the most delegates.  So in truth, Clinton has lost the last two contests, and won only two of the last six.  Hell, even if you charitably give Clinton Texas, that's still only three of the last six.  And Obama's lead in pledged delegates is at least as big as it was before Clinton broke her losing streak.  

Personally, I'm struck by how much of CNN's political coverage amounts to nothing more than repeating the Clinton talking points verbatim.  That's laziness, pure and simple.  And what's worse, by having CNN "reporters" voice these statements, rather than running video of the Clinton surrage, they give these statements added legitimaticy, because many viewers naively assume that CNN wouldn't be saying these things if they weren't true.