But the question on the minds of many analysts yesterday was whether the traditional wisdom would hold in a race as untraditional as this one. Some debated whether Obama's victories were a sign of burgeoning support for him - a political star being born - or rather a lucky string of contests on very favorable terms: states with either caucus systems, which he dominates, or very large portions of black voters, who have rallied to his side in breathtaking numbers.
This analysis of Obama’s “luck” is not attributed specifically to any person by Canellos, nor is it articulated by any of the persons quoted in his article.
Won’t the Clinton people speak on the record?
Why doesn’t the Globe require them to be named, rather than merely printing without attribution what are clearly talking points of the Clinton campaign and calling it an “analysis”?