Photo via chotda.

The media is now blaming voters — particularly women – for the fact that the pundits got it wrong.  Yep,  the media wants to tell you it is your fault that their analysis was off.   Just when you thought political coverage could not get more asinine…it does.

The psychobabble on the "crying that wasn’t" continues unabated.  Columns from Judith Warner and from Eli Saslow are somewhat insulting, since their constructed narrative – that women primarily vote with their emotions or their gender – echos the "too emotional" prejudices that womens’ suffrage advocates already fought.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be having a field day.

Here’s some truth:  there are people who will or will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman.  (Or just because she’s a Clinton, but that’s a whole other level of analysis.)  Just are there are people who will or will not vote for Barack Obama because he’s black.   Or John Edwards because he was a successful plantiff’s attorney.  Or Mike Huckabee because he’s a self-styled outspoken evangelical.  Or…you get the picture.     

But do not present a wholesale template of any one gender, philosophical or ethnic group as voting in a bloc.  Why?  Because this year, a LOT of voters don’t want spoon-fed stereotypes and pre-fab narratives from a media more interested in handicapping personalities than talking issues and substance. 

If the media is scratching their heads and wondering why, I give them exhibit A:  "Would you rather have a beer with George Bush or Al Gore?"  Look where that got us.

Obviously, racial and gender bias and superficial media reportage are problems.  Just see this from Pam Spaulding on Obama and race for starters.   Or this from Media Matters on the Edwards’ haircut press idiocy.  Or this more recent example from Dan Balz on Edwards, wherein he calls Edwards a "forgotten man" in the campaign without ever acknowledging the media’s role in not giving him coverage.  (Hello, chicken?  I have an egg for you.)   Or pretty much anything out of Chris Matthews’ mouth on Hillary Clinton, a passle of idiocy from a single source.  (If you are so inclined, Media Matters needs your help in demanding better from MSNBC.)

Or this, from the Warner column:

But if victory came for the reasons we’ve been led to believe – because women voters ultimately saw in her, exhausted and near defeat, a countenance that mirrored their own – then I hate what that victory says about the state of their lives and the nature of the emotions they carry forward into this race. I hate the thought that women feel beaten down, backed into a corner, overwhelmed and near to breaking point, as Hillary appeared to be in the debate Saturday night. And I hate even more that they’ve got to see a strong, smart and savvy woman cut down to size before they can embrace her as one of their own.

I call bullshit. Sure, some women may have been drawn to the melting of the "ice queen" narrative that the media has been peddling so assiduously for years. But not all:  the woman who asked Sen. Clinton "the question" at the coffee shop voted for Sen. Obama. And, in what may be considered a miracle by pundits, female voters in New Hampshire interviewed by the Boston Globe spent time considering…issues.  *GASP!*  To wit:

McAllister also "really wanted to hear from his lips what he was going to do about the war, education, and healthcare, and he didn’t do that." Instead of offering specifics, Obama kept his inspirational oratory at the level of Democratic generalities. And he didn’t entertain questions. And so, in important ways, he took New Hampshire’s political traditions for granted.

McAllister ultimately chose Clinton’s conversational, specifics-filled approach.

"The final struggle was between heart and head," she told me. "I chose head because I think Hillary has the best chance to bring change."

Donna d’Hemecourt, a Concord Democrat and interior designer, left a Friday Obama rally in Concord planning to vote for him. But over the next two days, Clinton "made a good strong case," says d’Hemecourt, who was particularly impressed after reading a friend’s e-mail containing some of the answers Clinton gave at a Portsmouth event. "I ended up voting for Hillary Clinton," she said. "She was very specific…."

Here’s a clue: Don’t pigeonhole voters, we have our own opinions as individuals, thank you.  And we don’t need your endless loop of Pat Schroederism redux as a means to validate your inaccurate reportage so that you can save face.   (In today’s episode, L’il Debbie executes a triple Luntz of CYA proportions.)

Don’t patronize voters — we aren’t in the mood.  This election is too important to our nation’s future — we have a lot of difficult issues to tackle for all of our sakes.  No continued trivializing with petty personality tabloid idocy without a fight.  It isn’t our fault that you historically have trouble responding to substance, but don’t paint us with your short attention spans.

But hey, according to too many media folks, we girlies only think about who we most feel sorry for when we vote. Especially if there are non -existant tears in the event in question. But I have to stop typing now. All this thinking makes my pretty little head hurt.  I’m going to go and eat some bon-bons and get back to "As The Tweety Churns." Great soap opera…