Yo morons, it was a tie!

A quick note on how idiotic the media is. Can we clarify that nobody "came in third" in a meaningful sense at the Democratic Iowa caucuses? Wolf Blitzer's synapses were visibly firing off the charts at the idea of a "battle" amongst the Democrats (and the desperation from Edwards camp isn't much prettier). The CNN site tells us how the fight for "second is razor close". At least MSNBC had the class to call it a "virtual tie".

Listen, morons. There's no bonus for coming in second rather than third in Iowa. When you consider how messed up the system is, and the machinations ahead of us at the county and state level in Iowa, the difference of 14 delegates isn't much. The gap between Clinton and Edwards is a whopping .49% of the stake. FoxNews, this isn't a "slim lead". It's static. .49% of the stake is a flu outbreak at a nursing home, it's a couple families leaving the house late. It's a good movie on tv that night. But guaranteed, we'll hear ad nauseum about how "Edwards came in second" and "Hillary fell to third". Best of all, this completely ignores the once-vaunted entrance poll, which shows Hillary's clear hold on second place in the minds of Iowans, before the byzantine process got underway.

To all the hypercompetitive type A's in the media and pundit world, there was a tie for second. Clinton and Edwards tied. Deal with it.


PS: Any doubts about the surreality of CNN on politics were clarified by Bill Schneider -- the whitest guy outside a line dance -- telling us how African-Americans in the south will think.