Example A-Z: last Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries.
By the day of the voting, newspaper opinion columns and political talk shows were absolutely rife - rife! - with pundits trumpeting the impending downfall of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The tears she shed in front of her supporters the day before the vote are sure to do her in, they noted.
The polls are tracking hard against her, they said.
Obama's momentum seems unstoppable, they claimed.
Her campaign team is due for a shakeup after this loss, they said.
And, of course, she won. Which leads to my two main points here: First, and most obviously, no pundits in America really know what they're talking about. The people who really know what they're talking about are highly paid consultants who don't go shooting their mouths off for free on Hardball.
Second, punditry is PR disguised weakly. And that PR is for - the pundit! The difference is, the strength of a pundit's "brand" is not based on silly things like how "right" they are in their predictions. It is based on what really matters: physical proximity to Chris Matthews.
The depressing truth is that not a single pundit will lose his or her job for being grossly wrong about the Granite State's primary. They'll just have to wear more makeup
for the cameras.