MARK HALPERIN says that pro-Obama media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history. "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war . . . . It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage," he added.

Now this is a lame explanation:

New York magazine's John Heilemann, one of Halperin's co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.

"The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness," said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.

"We love things that are smart."

Because Obama's campaign was generally so well run, he argued, the press tended to applaud even his negative tactics.

"We'll scold you for being negative," Heilemann said, "but if it seems to be working, the tone of your coverage becomes more positive."

So, taking this to an extreme jsut for the argument's sake, it means that if the Obama campaign had managed to round and execute all Republican-registered voters before the election, the tone of the coverage would have also "become more positive" because it'd have worked since there would be no one to vote for the GOP, right? Because what counts is not whether the tactics are right or not, but whether they work. Nice.