Shedding Light On Differing Delegate Totals

Confused about how many delegates Barack Obama has so far compared to Hillary Clinton? Wondering why Obama has 993 delegates according to the New York Times, but 1270 according to RealClearPolitics.com?

So are we. Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal that helps shed some light on the subject: "Obama Gains, But Delegate Counters Still Disagree."

One reason for disagreement is that some outlets don't include caucus delegates until they're officially allocated at a state convention, which is often many weeks after the initial caucus with its "straw poll."

Likewise, some outlets don't include so-called "superdelegates" since they are unpledged and can easily back out of any commitment they've made to a candidate.

Even so, the outlets that count superdelegates don't agree on how many have committed to each candidate, nor do they agree on the number of pledged delegates, as shown in the very helpful table contained in the WSJ article (which Blogger is not letting us put here for some reason).

The one thing that makes NO sense is the New York Times methodology: it excludes caucus delegates, which artificially reduces Obama's numbers because he has won all but one caucus so far, while including superdelegates, which increases Hillary's numbers because she has more of the party faithful who comprise these delegates. Come to think of it, the Times methodology does make sense: it favors Hillary.