Dave,
Yes, it is interesting to see the explanations as to why things happened last night the way they did. The phrase "retrospective coherence" kept flashing into my brain! Even folks like Tom Brokaw said "Maybe we should wait and see what happens rather than try to insist on some inner knowledge that allows us, as news people, to predict the future".

Of course, this doesn't fit with the current role of popular news media. Not sure about the comparisons of Obama and Blair (knowing little enough about Blair), but Obama is a stunning speaker. I love watching him perform. The comparisons with Kennedy are appropriate I think, in that Kennedy was big on words and weak on follow through. Even the civil rights legislation that everyone remembers him by was not passed by Kennedy. Johnson was the one that rammed it through Congress. Another story - the northern, young, well-spoken, liberal war hero (self proclaimed) son of a rich man is given credit for the work done by a self-made, Southern, slow talking (and fast thinking) successor who had Viet Nam as his legacy and so couldn't possibly be responsible for civil rights legislation!

Oh well. I'll take the person who will have the ability to actually accomplish something versus someone who will make me feel good during a speech.

Wayne

Dave,

An interesting piece of writing, indeed. One thing I find fascinating, almost disturbing, when thinking about how women are depicted in the news media is the continued use of the expression, "including x number of women and children", as in "twenty people died in the explosion, including 12 women and children." Women are, if not explicitly then implicitly, relegated to an inferior position, specifically mentioned as victims because they are obviously too weak to take care of themselves. Kind of hard to think of women as capable leaders if this is how they are consistently portrayed.

Also, Steven Johnson has some thoughts on how Edwards and Obama ganging up on Clinton may have affected women voters' choices that you may find interesting.

Dave

You refer to decisions being made based on the most attractive story rather than what is best for the country. Related to this is George Soros's characterisation of America as a feel-good society that elects a feel-good presidents. In this regard I watched Oprah Winfrey's entry to the stage with amusement - the feel-good queen in Obama's corner. I've just started a blog, Occam's Donkey, and I've also reflected on these issues in a recent posting.

I snorted at this when I originally read it in The Times - as anyone who has lived in the US (unlike Aaronovich) knows, racism is much more prevalent than misogyny - and was unsurprised by his silence after New Hampshire.

The more interesting thing - which ties in with your correlation/causality theme elsewhere - is how Clinton's win there was aligned with the crying episode. A case of pundits thinking that as the polls were "wrong", some event must have shifted voters' minds in the interim between poll and caucus. I prefer to sugest that, since the quick and dirty polls tended to have a 5% margin of error, a 10% lead was statistically illusory.

I am not so sure John. From the perspective of an outside who spends a fair amount of time in the US I would say that in respect of elections misogyny is up there with racism.