There's a lot to dislike about the media's coverage of the elections, but here's a particularly annoying example. Every media outlet is reporting that Hillary Clinton "won" New Hampshire by getting more votes. But this is the first article I've seen that explains that, due to the closeness of the race, Clinton won the same number of delegates -- nine -- as Barack Obama. In other words, in practical terms they tied New Hampshire. Given how much criticism there is over media hype and the extent to which it can unduly influence the elections, it's frustrating that so few outlets are explaining up front how the primary process, which most Americans don't fully understand (myself included), actually works. And this comes on the heels of what I thought was some pretty solid coverage of the Iowa caucuses -- coverage of both the complicated caucus process and all the drawbacks contained therein.