THE MOST unequivocal and sustained applause for the Clinton victory in the American media came in New York's Daily News, which plastered its front page with a picture of a grinning Clinton and a headline "The Big Sweep".
Most media outlets, even those that had endorsed the Clinton Gore ticket, were, at best, circumspect in their congratulations. The Daily News simply said across its editorial, "America makes the right choice". The traditional voice of Big Apple Democrats said that Mr Clinton's victory was a victory for all Americans.
"Economic growth, prosperity and peace. They are the real achievements and, when the political smoke and innuendo are cleared away, they are the hallmarks of the last four years. They are now the promise of the future as the nation advances to the brink of a new century," it said.
The New York Times, which had also endorsed Mr Clinton, said it hoped that the second term President was a very different politician from the one elected four years ago: "If he wants to avoid being remembered simply as the most investigated President in the modern era, Mr Clinton must first do something dramatic about ethics."
The Boston Globe was among the majority of US newspapers that saw the result pointing to a new bipartisan approach and warned the President that he had only a limited number of tasks that could be accomplished in a second term. It also warned that a rising Al Gore for President campaign would take on its own momentum within two years.
The Washington Post offered advice to the new President and suggested a number of areas that should be looked at. They included reforming the election system, which the paper said had become corrupt: "Both parties this time around defied the law to raise at one remove enormous sums of money to which they would not have been entitled had they raised it directly."
Those who make election investments, the Post said, expect a return in the form of policies, a system which could only taint politicians.
USA Today spoke of Mr Clinton having only a fragile mandate, saying that having angrily tossed out incumbents in two consecutive elections, "the voters seemed to have found a government they are willing to try a little longer. One that is divided".
The Wall Street Journal decided to remain above instant analysis. It loftily told its readers in an editorial that given the reality of newspaper deadlines and the journal's preference for thinking about what it says it would wait before offering its opinion.
However, it did suggest that the media's constant reliance on the latest polling results had come to look like a substitute for thinking about politics.
The Murdoch owned New York Post was grudging in the extreme. "They're back" it splashed across a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton as if referring to troublesome children. In its editorial it acknowledged the scale of President Clinton's victory and added: "We remain convinced that unresolved scandals - from Whitewater to Travelgate to Filegate to Indogate - will paralyse the executive branch."
In this media obsessed country there will be days and weeks of analysis on how the media itself performed.
Already, the major networks are congratulating themselves for keeping to their promise not to call the election before the polls had closed on the west coast.
However, throughout the election night coverage as anchors repeated that they would not call the election and exhorted those who hadn't voted to get out and do so, exit polls made it clear from about 8 p.m. in New York to any one with half a brain that Mr Clinton was going to win.