Want to succeed as a political pundit?  Just master this simple rule: take the last six months, and analyze it using the events of the last week.

I conclude this after reading a few analyses of why Hillary failed.  The problem is, they’re all based on hindsight: they look at her mistakes, real or alleged, and decide that that’s why she failed.  What’s wrong with that?  Because if she’d won, the pundits would have looked at the exact same events and used them to explain her success. 

Hillary definitely made some missteps.  She was overconfident in the beginning; she had trouble raising money later on; Bill was sometimes unruly; at the last minute she tried to change the rules (rules she’d agreed to before it mattered).  It’s not that these things didn’t matter; presumably they all helped explain why she got 1640 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1763.  But if she’d won a few more states and/or a lot more superdelegates, people would be carefullly explaining that the voters weren’t swayed by these obstacles, but appreciated her fighting spirit, her and Bill’s experience, her pioneering female candidacy, while Obama was sunk by his associates, his inexperience, yadda yadda.

The point is, it’s easy to do that kind of analysis; it just has to sound plausible, not be right.  There’s no insight in it.  To be impressive, you need to produce an article you wrote in January or earlier, correctly predicting how the race would go.

(I certainly don’t have that kind of insight myself.  I think the November election is still wide open.)