Compare these two analyses - one from The New York Times, the other from The Washington Post - of how things now look in New Hampshire. The Times piece, by David Rosenbaum, offers a lengthy look at the way in which Iowa’s results have historically influenced (and not influenced) New Hampshire voters - an essential piece of information for any current analysis of the race. The Washington Post story, by Fred Barbash, however, entirely ignores that issue. Oddly, Barbash devotes a good portion of his piece to the views of the Democratic race espoused by White House communications director Dan Bartlett. Any gems of wisdom from Bartlett ? Ummmm … no. (Barlett does tell Barbash that “(President Bush) is staying focused on the American people.” Now there’s a news scoop.)
—Z.R.Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.