contrapositive

TIMES DECEIVES READERS The headline: Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio.

The sixth sentence?

And the result there allowed her to cast Tuesday as the beginning of a comeback even though she stood a good chance of gaining no ground against Mr. Obama in the hunt for delegates.

(Emphasis added.)

The currency of the nomination process is delegates. How a candidate could have a "win" that's "big" without gaining delegates goes unexplained.

From the twelfth paragraph:

Given the way the Democratic Party allocates delegates, it remained unclear whether Mrs. Clinton would close Mr. Obama’s lead on that front.

But to reiterate: That is the only front.

The New York Times could use its prestige and influence to correct a misleading bit of conventional wisdom that has cropped up in the last several days. Instead, the paper sacrifices accuracy so that it can stick with the crowd.

UPDATE: From the sixth paragraph of an article--also touting Clinton's "victories"--that The Times gives less prominence:

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, appeared likely to accumulate enough delegates from Texas and Ohio (as well as from his victory in Vermont) to strengthen his mathematical edge for the nomination.

Stunning.