Respectfully, this seems like you are making a case for guilt by analogy. Both cases are of one party using media momentum to their advantage. That has no direct bearing on the validity of their underlying claims.

A long, detailed examination of a extremely close race in 2000 shows Gore may well have been the winner, or at least shows significant irregularities in certain counties.

Now, Sen. Obama holds the lead over Sen. Clinton by every metric, and baring any unforeseen events is considered almost certain to be the Democratic nominee (even optimistic estimates from Sen. Clinton's camp put her odds at somewhere around 5-10% at best). The remaining primaries are all heavily favored for one candidate and end up being a near perfect split. Florida and Michigan will soon be seated in some capacity and will almost certainly still place Sen. Clinton more than 100 pledged delegate behind. The super delegate movement has been towards Obama for the last month, and in the last week has accelerated rapidly.

I am happy my candidate won, but take no particular satisfaction from the fact Sen. Clinton had to lose for that to happen, and I think the sentiment, if imperfectly expressed, is the same in the Obama camp. That being said, we are passed the point where claiming Obama is the almost certain nominee of the party is empty posturing.

The Obama camp stressing this is certainly a PR move, but it is no more underhanded than the Clinton camp stressing how Sen. Clinton is a fighter and is hanging tough. It's simply the public image each has to project going forward, and as it stands I don't believe either is malicious.