For all of her complaints about news coverage of the presidential campaign, I think Hillary Clinton has done fairly well with it. Her loss of 12 straight states could well have been enough of a public relations disaster to force her from the race. Anticipating that, her campaign came out of Super Tuesday announcing a focus on the Texas and Ohio primaries, and Pennsylvania. She treated her losses in the many states between Feb. 5 and March 4 as a trifle, barely even acknowledging them. I think this strategy of diversion has worked pretty well. Reporters are charitably calling her approach a "big state strategy," but it is really a "states where 45 percent of the voters haven't already written her off" strategy. Clinton has been quite successful in steering the conversation away from such matters as the nationwide popular vote or whether her "big state strategy" will deprive Democrats of winnable seats in Congress, and especially in the Senate, if she is at the top of the ticket. And where did your paper play the results of the Wyoming caucus in today's paper?Another PR success for the Clinton campaign: Reporters have not, by and large, revisited the many Clinton controversies of the not-so-distant past. This will happen eventually. It already happened to John McCain, with The NY Times' re-examination of the Keating 5 controversy, and also in coverage of Rudy Giuliani.It's interesting to contrast the press coverage of McCain and Giuliani. My impression is that reporters like McCain personally, since he is accessible and friendly. I don't think the reporters covering McCain take glee when he runs into trouble. Giuliani, meanwhile, bullied reporters for years. There was an element of payback in the coverage of Giuliani, in my opinion. I think reporters see Clinton as inaccesible and her operation as manipulative and even arrogant. Some of that probably rubs off on the coverage, but in terms of the big picture, Clinton is winning on the points she needs most.