Ezra,

Well said.

Now a little taste of your own medicine... time for your first substantive health care post since the switch to TAP. You've missed some pretty meaty topics over the last few weeks...

Can we add our own closing thoughts?

I think it's worth pointing out that Hillary's New Hampshire victory demonstrated what could end up being an enormous strength of hers as a candidate.

The CW says that her victory was due in large part to a backlash against the way she was being treated by the media. I think this is correct, though of course I can't prove it.

If it is correct, that means Hillary may very well be a candidate who does better when the media attacks her. Unlike Gore, who was brought down by unfavorable treatment in the media, Hillary may end up being propped up by it.

If so, this is a much more potent advantage than Obama's appeal to media types. That could go away, or be neutralized by $300M of GOP propaganda. But if Hillary actually gets stronger the more people attack her - that's a very useful trait for a candidate to have.

Ezra,
great observations, especially about how turning all politics into a campaign isn't a good thing--I haven't read it, but recently saw Chris Matthews interviewed about this recent book, "Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success," which apparently takes that bad idea even further--When I saw him interviewed about this book, it just seemed so depressing, the idea that all of life could be this sort of insincere campaign for everything from jobs to friends. He's definitely been absorbed by the whole process, but it's Chris Matthews who introduced me to you, so for that I'm glad.

Way to go, Ezra. You did a nice job, and it's good to see that you have a bit of perspective on the process, as well as both its highlights and its pitfalls (both for reporters and campaign-types).

Now, if you could get some of your colleagues to share your perspective, that'd be great. The difference in posts from different TAPPED-ers was enough to give me whiplash.

Now, welcome back! I'd love to be the one to make a "don't call it a comeback" blog-related joke, but I'm just not up to it right now...my preferred candidate didn't win!

But if Hillary actually gets stronger the more people attack her - that's a very useful trait for a candidate to have.

Interesting point, although a big caveat is that this happened in a Democratic primary, i.e. where the pool of voters was already favorably inclined toward her to begin with, for the most part. That gave her more of a potential springboard for voter backlash against media hatred than she would have in a general election.

On the other hand, being able to come back like that in the midst of literally *everyone* trying to write her campaign's epitaph is undeniably an impressive achievement, regardless of how or why it happened. And we all remember the Billster's knack for deflecting insanely overreaching GOP hatred into his favor with the general electorate. So if Hillary has developed good instincts for doing a similar thing vis-a-vis stupid media overreach against her candidacy, that would be a point in her favor.

Haven't virtually all disillusioned Bush Administration insiders come away with the complaint that the Bush team was in 24 hour campaign mode -- politics trumped all, with other considerations of policy ignored or actually mocked? What you've been inhaling is some of the intoxicant that DC insiders are all addicted to. The depressing thing is that Democrats have been smoking the same stuff.

Obama's biggest attraction is his recognition that the whole social dynamic inside and around the top of the Federal government must change. The idea that our political discourse is broken is, I think, widely held. The question is, how do you take the need for change beyond mere rhetoric? I'm just not hearing anything -- from Obama or elsewhere -- that goes beyond that yearning to actual on-the-ground solutions.

Just wanted to say I've been enjoying your coverage :D

Sometimes I think you are the only sane person near the beltway...as a regular non-beltway "outsider" it is quite refreshing and comforting...try to stay this way.

Excellent writing by the way.

Nicely put--I think the shortest summary of Bush was that he took
governing to be the same as campaigning--since only the latter interested him.

Actually I think getting the voters perspective would be a lot easier if reporters were a little more talented.

Here are things I saw this weekend in NH.
1) Reporters don't know how to ask open ended questions. Spend some time listening to Terry Gross or Tom Ashbrook if you can't find a good mentor!

2) The reporter's pad is not a shield! Don't be so afraid as you walk through the crowd. Put the pad at your side and people might share interesting thoughts with you.

3) Get away from that pack in the back or side of the room. It makes you look like a gang of losers that has to stick together for comfort.

4) Canvass...heck everyone else is doing it! We were out for Edwards and were picking up real strong Hillary support. Also, people at Obama's Pinkerton rally were buzzing about Hillary's Nashua North a bit earlier (which I'm sorry I missed)

I'm sitting in Logan Airport

I hope and assume that TAP is picking up the ridiculous $8 tab.

"Thinking this much about campaigns -- which are, in effect and content, the commercial breaks of our democracy -- naturally leaves you thinking that victories, rather than policies and change, are the end point of the process."

I have read no truer, nor sadder, words about the deplorable state of our country.

1) Reporters don't know how to ask open ended questions. Spend some time listening to Terry Gross or Tom Ashbrook if you can't find a good mentor!

I think that a lot of reporters lack this quality. Investigative journalism is missing in this country because sensalitionalism runs rampant. Well-thought out questions can often times remove skeptcism and doubt.

Ezra is completely right.

Case in point-- defenders of Hillary who cast (I think inaccurately) her vote for the Iraq War as something that was politically necessary and expedient at the time.

The correct answer to this is WHO CARES? We don't elect Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards, or Bush, or McCain, or anyone else to win the next election. We elect them to make good policy. And in the end, it doesn't matter how many elections you can win if the policies are no good.

And yet now that we have a "permanent campaign", everything seems to be geared towards winning the next election.

Quinn01:
Do you mean when Jon Stewart just hammered him?

I think we're all way over analyzing everything here. A Senator from a neighboring state just won a primary she was leading by 15 points a week ago. My own chicken littlism aside, there's really no reason for everyone to act like Clinton has won this. She barely won a neighboring state she's practically lived in since she began compaigning and where she had a virtual lock on institutional support. IF she can parlay that into wins in NV and SC, she'll be the nominee. Until that happens there's no real reason to act like anything real happened here. Other than florida and New York, it's hard to find a more favorable electorate for Hillary in NH. You can bet every racist in the state came out to vote again Obama in the open primary. He still only lost by 3%.

Obama needs to hit her hard for fear mongering though. He was a fool to let her 'What happens if there's a terrorist attack on the first day?' shit slide. He should have called her out on it rather than letting her make herself into a victim.

Rather than saying, "Et tu, Ezra?" I'll suggest what Stav said. Me thinks you're looking in the wrong place for what's interesting. If you look in the same place as the rest of the pack you'll see only what they see, and only be able to report the same useless drivel they do. Shift your focus. Look elsewhere.

i just had the courage to turn on the television set.
and there was james carville,
reincarnated like a choleric spirit from the past.
followed by, laura shlesinger.
i never thought we would choose to revisit that place again.

i felt like the train was pulling out of the station, back to the future.

Joe Klein's conscience:
YES, exactly, I couldn't place where the interview was, but it was Jon Stewart and he was on the money as usual.

That Stewart-Matthews interview was awesome. It was great to see Matthews squirm for once. Jon can be a real hardass when he wants to be.

I keep hearing from pollsters that Clinton's teary-eyed moment had this huge impact on turnout among women in NH, but I've yet to see a quote from just one woman substantiating this claim... another myth of "the pack?"

The Stewart / Tweety Bird interview was from a couple of months ago.

You have to watch it to get just what a thumping it is. Not just harsh (though it is), but dead on. Tweety could only say 'HA!' and whine about how mean JS was being.

This should be viewed by anybody with an interest ...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=104548&title=chris-matthews