Analyzing the Analysis

How to explain the bizarro article coming out in Thursday's New York Times, titled "Analyzing the New Hampshire Surprise"?

Jacques Steinberg and Janet Elder ostensibly set out to answer one question: how could so many "pollsters and news organizations... have not seen it coming?" Oddly, the daring duo finds no "specific evidence" for any answer that might embarrass anyone even remotely connected with the mainstream media.

No sign of bias. No laziness. No group-think. No careerist urge to regurgitate conventional wisdom. No failure on the part of reporters toreport rather than merely repeat the commonly accepted narrative. Nope, everything was just hunky-dory with all the reporters.

There is this, however. Steinberg and Elder say that WaPo reporter Joel Achenbach wrote on his newspaper's blog:

“You had to see the crowds! Feel the energy!”“O.K., so in retrospect a lot of those people were probably college kids on break from Massachusetts or Maryland,

Well, all right! Now we're getting somewhere! Turns out it wasn't the failure of the mainstream media! It was the fault of all those crafty college kids who horned in where they didn't belong!

We're not buying it -- and here's why. Deep into the piece, Steinberg and Elder selectively quote from retired NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw. We say "selectively" because they seem to have deep-sixed the most important thing Brokaw had to say.

See if you can tell what in his remarks the New York Times reporters didn't think was newsworthy. (Hint: It's identified below in boldface print.)

In the telling by Steinberg and Elder, this was Mr. Brokaw's comment:

“Well,” responded Mr. Matthews, “we must then stay home, I guess.”

Mr. Brokaw said, “No,” adding a moment later, “but we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed, and trying to stampede, in effect, the process.”

In the original transcript, this is what Brokaw really said:

BROKAW: We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. No, no we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede, in effect, the process.

What we think is, some editor at the Times bet Steinberg and Elder two beers that they couldn't write a horse-race piece about how rotten the New Hampshire horse-race media coverage was without touching on at least some substance, somewhere; perhaps an "issue" that has "not been fully explored."

Steinberg and Elder said, "You're on!" And they won.

John McCain's Disqualifying Speech

Last night, John McCain delivered what is surely one of the worst written, most apathetically delivered speeches in American political history. McCain might have been sleep-walking for all the enthusiasm he showed.

But it was the scripted speech itself that deserves closer attention. It was, in a word, execrable. Chock-full of banalities, adolescent bromides, and loosely associated clichés. The speech was completely unsuitable -- either as an inspirational call to his followers as McCain prepares to march forward, or as a vehicle to introduce himself and his vision to the rest of the nation, or as a compelling recitation of what he stands for. It didn't even rise to the common, low level of a toastmaster's fawning introduction of his family and key supporters. In the unlikely event you have nothing better to do, you can inflict the whole thing on yourself here.

The speech simply made no sense. Worse, both the text and the delivery give a dispiriting, if not downright frightening, foretaste of just how bad John McCain would be at using the "bully pulpit" of the presidency.

Almost as remarkable was MSNBC's coverage of the event. Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman, and even (so it seems from the audio) the stage hands couldn't stop laughing.

We don't particularly object to derisive reviews of politicians who spout nonsense and call it policy. In fact, the nation could have used a lot more derision in the past seven years, especially when covering serial liars like this guy and that one.

Still, it would have been a service to viewers if the boys in the studio had sobered up long enough to explain why John McCain's victory speech last night virtually disqualifies him for national office.

New Hampshire Effects

So, how to explain the New Hampshire surprise? Some posit the "Bradley effect."

White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate.

Digby, channeling Pam Spaulding, says it might be the "Tweety effect."

where the misogyny of a talking head in the MSM so enrages a demographic that they go out and vote in a manner that will put egg on the face of the talking head.

Jane Hamsher wonders if it the unexpected vote surge was due to what might be called the Edwards effect.

Clinton took them from Edwards. Did his pivot against her during the last debate and his comments yesterday contribute to what happened?

Brad Friedman is worried it might be the Diebold Effect. It seems three quarters of all paper ballots in New Hampshire --

are counted on hackable Diebold op-scan systems, with completely hackable memory cards, all programmed and managed by LHS Associates.

We don't have enough facts to form a useful opinion, other than this: There is much to be thankful for in seeing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama take their erudite, informed, and important dialog on the issues of the day out of the cornfields of Iowa and New Hampshire's woods into the heart of the nation.

An early end to the Democratic primary season, as the mainstream media was predicting, would not have been in the public interest.