Obama vs. Clinton: Did the Telegraph deliver?

What a difference a few hours makes.

With polls indicating that Barack Obama would easily win the New Hampshire primary, I left work early evening Tuesday, grabbed dinner, went home and took a nap. I awoke to the news that Hillary Clinton had edged out Obama. It was around 11:15.

Earlier in the day, editors had discussed how we would display the New Hampshire results. None of us expected a surprise, though one editor noted that the story would take on more significance if Hillary won. And because of the early Iowa results, we didn’t ask for later deadlines.

I don’t know how many people stayed up to watch the numbers come in. More importantly, if they did watch, I don’t know what they expected to see in their morning newspaper. With round-the-clock coverage on TV and on Web sites, by morning the "news" is not always the score; rather it is the analysis, the perspective, the "what's next." McClatchy's Washington bureau had budgeted such a story.

The New Hampshire results came in later than we expected. While that wasn't an issue for our Online Editor, who posted results at macon.com from home, it meant a scramble to make our press deadline. There was just enough time to get the breaking news story onto the page. There was no time to wait for the perspective piece, nor to process a photo of a wildly excited Clinton to pair with the pix of a victorious John McCain.

In this day of constant news, constant chatter, what do you expect in the way of political (and other national) coverage in the newspaper?