By Sylvia Gurinsky
OK, quick. Who remembers the pivotal congressional and governor's races of 1993?
Who remembers the headlines that they generated - that it was "bad news" for President Bill Clinton?
Media, be it low-tech or high-tech, has a tendency to overhype year-after elections. (A notable exception was 2001, for obvious reasons.)
There isn't a president in either political party in recent memory who hasn't managed about a half-and-half approval rating during his rookie year when there weren't extenuating circumstances. (Again, the first year of President George W. Bush needs to be thrown out of the equation, both because of the questionable 2000 election and 9/11.)
Today, pundits everywhere are talking about what yesterday's election results mean to President Barack Obama next year, to Obama in 2012, to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2012, to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012, to whatever in 2012.
All it means is: Pundits are doing a lot of talking. And it isn't adding up to very much.
Next year, the congressional midterm election will, indeed, be a serious barometer of how Obama will attempt to govern.
This election? Not so much.