Running Against the Media

"But we in the press have to be smarter too. We were wildly stupid in the days before the New Hampshire primary, citing Clinton meltdown after Clinton meltdown -- the tears, the flash of anger in the debate -- that never really happened. We really need to calm down, become more spin-resistant, even if our sleep-deprived sources tend to overreact to every slip and poll dip in the campaign."

Holding your breath? Neither am I.

Yet another line of criticism against the media, in this Pew survey:

"There are signs that some Americans are growing weary of the coverage. For the first time since the campaign began, about as many say the press has devoted too much coverage to the campaign as say the amount of coverage has been appropriate (40% vs. 43%). In previous surveys, sizable pluralities said news organizations were devoting the right amount of coverage to the campaign. More Republicans (45%) than Democrats (32%) say that the press is devoting too much attention to the campaign; a finding that has been consistent throughout much of the campaign."

I suspect many of the people complaining about coverage overload are really unhappy with the tone and breathlessness of the coverage.

And not everyone is paying attention: "Only about half of Americans (51%) could name Mike Huckabee as the winner in Iowa on the weekend following the caucuses. Many more people (71%) could name Obama as the Democratic victor in Iowa. Overall, only 49% of Americans could correctly identify who won both Iowa caucuses."

Here's one of the rush-to-judgment guys, Jonathan Chait, owning up in the New Republic:

"A year ago, I wrote an article making the case that Hillary Clinton was not the inevitable Democratic nominee. Unfortunately, the link is not available. Then last week I wrote a blog post saying she's toast. Unfortunately, that one is available . . .

"The odds of a Republican presidency suddenly got a lot higher. There's really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP a better than even chance of winning: John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. McCain is a popular personality who can attract the support of voters who aren't inclined to support his party. Clinton is an unpopular personality who loses the support of voters who are otherwise inclined to support her party. If she wins the nomination, it will be because she's a polarizing figure who rallies Democrats as the object of Republican attacks."

Talk about discounting her victory in advance.

At the Washington Monthly, though, Kevin Drum isn't losing sleep over McCain:

"There are two things that keep me from being worried about a Clinton vs. McCain matchup. The first is that this simply looks to be a Democratic year. Tick off the reasons: Americans don't like to keep a single political party in the White House for more than eight years (it's only happened once in the postwar era). The war in Iraq is unpopular. The economy is sinking. The 9/11 effect has worn off. Conservatives are tired and plainly lack new ideas.