I've seen at least one analyst who noted that Dean took a stand against Big Media in one interview last year, and that shortly after that negative media commentary about Dean started to pick up. Perhaps what we are seeing is the Fourth Estate trying to destroy that which they perceive would prevent them from becoming stronger.

Dean may have more delegates than the other non-Kerry candidates, but that's only including non-pledged delegates. Edwards currently has nearly three times the popular vote Dean has and more pledged delegates. Dean has also failed to carry a single state. How exactly has Dean done "considerably better" than the Edwards and Clark campaigns?

It is including non-pledged delegates, but they count too. On Edwards' lead, well, to be fair, he did increase his lead in popular vote considerably between when I posted and when you posted. :) I refuse to argue on the basis of "carrying" a state, though. It's a meaningless term in a proportional system---you can "carry" a state with 51% or for that matter 40% of the vote, or you can "carry" it with 90%; and you can "fail to carry" a state with 49% or with 5%. The numbers very much affect the delegates, though, and neglecting them makes an argument irrelevant.

I agree that the media is dissing Dean, but you're not being fair to Edwards; his campaign is currently in second, with Dean clawing at him from behind.