There is much to recommend in Evan Thomas’s “Election 2004” (Public Affairs, 209 pages, $14), an expanded version of Newsweek’s post-campaign special issue, written by Mr. Thomas and several colleagues at the magazine. It’s the first analysis of the George W. Bush-John Kerry contest to hit bookstores, and that alone is worthwhile. By April, when the inevitable rush of memoirs are released, most readers will consider the subject stale news.

More significantly Mr. Thomas’s book, probably unintentionally, presents an underlying theme of the mainstream press versus the “new media,” which is represented by the explosion of the Internet’s political bloggers in 2004 – a topic the author, a longtime journalist and accomplished author, is clearly not comfortable with.

In July of last year, Mr. Thomas caused a Beltway stir when he said on “Inside Washington,” a television talk show, that the press favored the Kerry-Edwards ticket, claiming that this was worth “maybe 15 points” in the election. In October, Mr. Thomas retracted that “stupid” prediction, telling CNN’s Howard Kurtz that “maybe” the number was closer to five points.

The Newsweek assistant managing editor was unusually frank in his assessment. He said: “Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards – I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox – as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all.”

Fox News (a subsidiary of the huge News Corporation), while not in ideological lockstep with its network competitors and the mainstream press, is obviously part of the “the establishment.” But don’t tell that to nostalgia driven writers like Mr. Thomas, who unabashedly prefers a now-ancient era when Walter Cronkite ruled the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh was an unknown, and “responsible” dailies like the New York Times and Washington Post didn’t have to compete with “the screeds” of “Internet pamphleteers.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Thomas succeeds in describing the presidential race in a manner that’s evenhanded. Because Senator Kerry lost the election, his campaign is more closely scrutinized. Mr. Thomas is dogged in theorizing why, in his opinion, the Massachusetts senator was such a bad candidate.

Senator Kerry gave “soporific” speeches that were “forgettable,” the author says. He was given to petulance, often blaming his aides for problems in the campaign. At one low point in April, Senator Kerry said to a staffer, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot.” The senator was equally arrogant about his eventual running mate, John Edwards, while the Democratic primaries were still being contested, wondering: “What makes this guy think he can be president?”

When Senator McCain rebuffed Senator Kerry’s offer of being his vice president and secretary of defense – Senator McCain said, “You’re out of your mind. I don’t even know if it’s constitutional, and it certainly wouldn’t sell” – an incredulous Mr. Kerry ranted at an “intermediary,” “Don’t you know what I offered him? Why the f—didn’t he take it?”

That Mr. Thomas and other Newsweek reporters could capture such moments illustrates what he believes was a crucial element of the President’s victory: Senator Kerry’s campaign was loose and often disorganized, while President Bush’s was relentless in its adherence to loyalty and keeping similar outbursts from the press. Mr. Thomas explains: “The Bushites looked on the Kerryites, by contrast, as a band of mercenaries working for a Captain Queeg.”

There’s also the refrain that, unlike Mr. Bush (who, at least in public, shuns his own privileged background), Senator Kerry couldn’t relate to “regular people.” Senator Kerry’s insistence on indulging in such upscale sports as windsurfing during the campaign is cited, as is his failure to recognize that ordering Swiss cheese on a Philly cheese steak was a not-inconsequential gaffe. Similarly, he introduced millionaire Bruce Springsteen at a Cleveland rally in the last days before the election as “a sort of minstrel poet, if you will.” Never mind the silly “minstrel poet” remark: How many people use the phrase “if you will” to complete a sentence?

Mr. Thomas never says so explicitly, but it’s apparent he believes a more disciplined Democratic candidate would have defeated Mr. Bush. He makes repeated references to the war in Iraq, suggesting that the continuing violence there, coupled with an up-and-down economy, was potent fodder for a challenger. He’s equally critical of Senator Kerry’s slow response to the opposition of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, implying that a more decisive politician would have acted aggressively against what Mr. Thomas, like most of the “establishment” press, considered a smear campaign.

His assumptions about the Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., show a thinly veiled contempt for the well-oiled Republican team. “The dress code was by and large Brooks Brothers drab, though there did seem to be an unusual number of young blond women whose trust funds financed snappy or discreetly elegant wardrobes,” he writes. Maybe that’s true, but Mr. Thomas doesn’t apply equal derision to Senator Kerry’s well reported number of affluent supporters and campaign workers.

Although, to his credit, Mr. Thomas attempts to hide his disappointment over Mr. Bush’s win, his sentiments aren’t difficult to figure out. He writes that Senator Kerry, after the results in Ohio were clear, “decided to spare the country” a drawn-out legal challenge. You needn’t have an advanced degree in political science to realize that if Senator Kerry – who had lawyers on the ground in Ohio and Florida ready to contest ballots – thought there was even a small chance of contesting the election, he would have.

Ultimately, Mr. Thomas is inconsistent about the role of the press in the campaign. At one point he says, “Press-bashing is an old Republican sport, more so in the George W. Bush era.” That’s simply disingenuous, as Mr. Thomas, a reporter who covered President Clinton’s frequent tirades against the press, knows. Even Senator Kerry, speaking after the election, told him: “I had laid out five specific speeches on Iraq. The problem was the media.”

As if to underscore his fealty to the press “establishment,” Mr. Thomas finally turns to David Gergen – Harvard professor, journalist, and adviser to several presidents – for an assessment of Mr. Bush’s second term. Mr. Gergen, who typifies the Beltway insider, says, “When they are first elected, presidents tend to think they’re king of the mountain. When you’re reelected you think you’re master of the universe.”

Mr. Smith last wrote for these pages on the Republican Party.