Her false mailers make me unsympathetic.

False claims about Obama's pro-choice record:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/ hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php

Rove-style attack politics:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/ ProHillary_mail_Be_very_afraid.html

DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/ 2008/01/clinton_heighte.html

Those polling numbers look kind of funny, hah?

Just wondering if these polling firms skewed their methods to fit the theme which was Obama is on his way.

It was absolutely not The Tears!!!!!

...okay, maybe the tears were part of a larger story...that was the point of the post...

Camp Obama had obviously not anticipated this result.

Carrie Budoff Brown reports that immediately after Obama's speech, "every press secretary and close Obama aide vanished. They are letting the speech stand as the last word for tonight. There's nobody here to even answer our questions."

I think it was the tears, the negative and false) mailers. There's a definite opening here for Barack to spring board from this. It will be interesting to see if the campaign exploits it to the fullest.

However it happened, Sen. Clinton pulled out a win which caught all of us by off guard.

It's well deserved, especially because of the CW. Clinton earned a NH win that Bill Clinton never won.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-wins-nh-against-all-odds-and-conventional-wisdom/

Well, after sixty years and a 12-month campaign, I'm glad she finally found her voice.

Seems to me Obama has known his all along.

That is the most generic quote in the history of campaign spin. It's mind-boggling that you would try to interpret as actually having some definable content.

Greg: we know you're a Hillary supporter. we get it.

but don't try to dilute the effect of the tears.

DemAC:

The Hillary Campaign was predicting an 11 point loss tonight. No one predicted this.

This race is far from over.

DTM wrote on January 8, 2008 11:43 PM:

In a roundabout way, I think Greg just admitted it WAS the tears, although only as part of a broader strategy.

Anyway, I agree the Clinton campaign has defined a new path forward, which is exactly what they needed to do. The question, of course, is what happens next--and I for one can't wait to find out!

Please let's lay off the "tears" canard. Hillary is a human being and it showed, unless you thought that that was yet another planned move. After Obama won IA, most of us who support Hillary did not make excuses. We just congratulated Obama and readied for the next battle. So, please have the decency to be as gracious when your candidate loses.

We heard a lot about the Independents, but they did not do it for Obama tonight. As for the rest of the way, I believe that Clinton is now favored due to her appeal among the rank and file Dems, a preview of which we just saw in NH:
NYT News Analysis:
Registered Democrats preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton to Barack Obama.

I still believe that Super Tuesday would still be mostly Hillary's, and SC could become competitive even with expected large African American turnout if she wins NV.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 12:22 AM:

dcshungu:

You can forget South Carolina.

It is what we were told about NH...

Some men are not big enough to vote for a woman. Both blacks and women face discrimination. Yes, the Bradley effect occurs. Yes,some little men choose not to vote for Sen. Clinton because she is a woman. The real difference is that racial bigotry is now considered to be so shameful that people hide it. Bigotry against women is considered to be an example of not being biased.

To wit, when voters are asked whether they are going to be voting Democratic or Republican and then subsequently told who the Democratic candidate is women stick with all the candidates while some men drop off when the candidate is Clinton. This is not about her abilities or her positions -- this is about being unable to assess the quality of a candidate of the opposite sex.

This same type of sexist voter has indulged in demeaning discussions of Hilllary's appearance and mannerisms. To turn the tables -- do you really want to spend the next eight years watching John Edwards blinking, Obama's ears, or Richardson's jowls? (Offended? You bet women were offended when this was done to Hilllary.)

Do your homework -- watch the debates, look to see whether the politician (yes, Obama is a skilled and vicious politician) is consistent, examine their positions and assess how well their skill set matches what is needed for the job at hand. See how much they are trying to spin you.

When you do those things you learn that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate out there.

To quote a classic feminist line -- Feminism is the radical idea that women are people.

dcshungu:

True, but that reality cuts both ways (no one really knows what happened tonight and I suspect folks will be hesitant to make any predictions based on the polls going forward--at least until we understand the discrepancy).

I just know what I'm hearing from my side of the aisle. She crossed the line with her comment and I'm doing my best to make sure as many African-Americans see her for who she truly is in the coming days.

Southpaw:

You have your spin. I'll take her comments at face value. It took a president. I mean, if it's okay, for her to lie/distort his record with impunity, then I'm within my rights to hold her to her exact words.

Remember LBJ was a doer. Apparently Kennedy and MLK were talkers.

Surprise.

Surprise.

Senator Clinton wins in New Hamshire and the O-Bomb-A fluffers try to pull out the race card.

What a bunch of losers.

Southpaw:

Sorry, she's not getting a do-over. She let her supporter make the comments first and said nothing. Then she made the comments. Only AFTER she caught flak for it did she try and clean it up. And the clean up was a damn lie. Obama never compared himself to MLK or JFK. The last few days demonstrated who HRC is at her core: a liar who is willing to say anything to draw a contrast.

As they say, you reap what you sow.

RobbyLove wrote on January 9, 2008 12:08 AM:

Anyone who tries to quote the Bradley effect here is basically saying that the hicks in Iowa are the non-racists because they voted for Obama, and the white-collar workers in New Hampshire are closet racists.

Hmmmm....I'm not buying it. Women came out strong for Hillary because of the beating she was taking. It put her over the top.

No, you're totally incorrect.

The definition of the Bradley (or Wilder) Effect isn't racism, it's SECRET racism. Because of this, it simply couldn't have happened in Iowa.

In Iowa, there was no reason to lie to the pollsters, because the Iowa caucus voting was open and public. A voter's friends, relatives, and neighbors would all knew exactly whom everyone voted for.

But New Hampshire wasn't a caucus, it was a primary. Which is just a normal election with a SECRET ballot behind a private screen.

Because of the secret ballot, a New Hampshire voter could tell friends, relatives, neighbors and pollsters whatever they want. No one will ever know who they really voted for. Their latent racism would be a safe secret.

We'll have to go over the exit polls to be sure, but as of now, it's looking very likely that the Bradley Effect was a big factor in tonight's vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Keith-

FWIW, I'm not the biggest HRC supporter in the world and frankly agree more with Angry Vet...but, I just don't see HRC as denigrating MLK. I think she was trying to one-up on Obama's experience and try to associate herself w/ LBJ's legislative skills. I don't think she is in his league yet and what I think we will see is a shift in her message and tone to that of something closer to the inspiriational type that JFK and Obama have in abundance.

Southpaw:

LBJ only passed the Civil Rights Act because of MLK (and others) efforts and JFK's assaination. LBJ wasn't a champion of change; he was an opportunist.

Either way, she was trying to frame Obama as all talk and false hope, and her as a doer. You draw your own conclusions, but like I said, the Clintons went dirty over the last week and I'm judging everything they did during that week in that vein. You can't be the best most disciplined campaign and most experienced candidate (Ready from Day one) and say that this was a slip of the proverbial tongue.

MS, if you only knew how idiotic you sound. You really think that white racist Iowans were "peer-pressured" by other white racists into voting for Obama? That's what you're implying, and it doesn't make any logical sense. It would be hilarious if it wasn't such a ridiculously incompetent analysis.

I don't know what Kool-aid you're drinking but you need another flavor, bud. The exit polls show very clearly that the younger generation didn't show up and women did. Clear advantage to Hillary.

But hey, thanks for pulling out the racism card and polluting the debate.

Keith-

LBJ was definitly an opportunist and knew he could cement his reputation by hitching his wagon to martyred JFK's programs. Hey, LBJ had Hoover wiretap MLK! Still, when LBJ said "we shall overcome" and gave the imprimatuer of a Southern president on civil rights, that was just as crucial for middle America.

Oh, definitely HRC was trying to paint Obama's hope as being false and this was crappy and he got in several good digs against her in his speech tonite.

I think she has learned her lesson though, but Obama has the moral high ground as far as that's concerned right now.

Keith wrote: The Hillary Campaign was predicting an 11 point loss tonight. No one predicted this.

But you must admit that the image of Obama’s communication people all scuttling away, like so many fugitives, from the canceled would-be coronation is mighty funny.

Dean, Clarke and now Clinton . . . Three great Presidents . . . Chosen by the folk in New Hampshire . . . Oops . . . Not so much.

Obama had Illinois invade Iowa and had the great and grand goddess of estrogen throw him parties to eek out a win in Iowa.

Corporate money won the first two races.

Everyone needs to stay in. There is plenty of time to choose the DEM that will kick the REP nominee's ass in November.

To Obama's credit, his response to the tears was spot on. Many others' responses I'm sure stuck in the craw of many women, including both Edwards'. Hillary did a pretty good job of the comeback story, which people like. Her putdown of Chris Matthews was great, not that many people saw it. The only Bradley Effect I see is the "Bill Bradley Effect" - the press trying to choose their own candidate over the public. [I didn't like the abortion mailer as strategy, but as Jane Hamsher notes, Planned Parenthood with supporting Lieberman on Alito, etc. is no longer a good indicator of whether something's true or not]

The margin of victory wasn't big, and some small shifts from McCain and Edwards would have changed the outcome. I don't know that the youth vote was as high a percentage as in a small caucus. Remember, all the polls are based on "likely voters" - if something changes who shows up or they make an error in their assumptions, the poll is highly inaccurate. Now we'll see how Hillary handles South Carolina and if she gets a faster-on-their-feet organization for the Nevada caucus and whether Obama has to adjust his message to gain traction for Super Tuesday, less than a month away.

And fortunately we can all rely less on the goddamn polls for the foreseeable future.

I think Obama didn't run like he was 10 points down--he was believing his polls. I don't think he'll do that again.

I agree with this. I also think that MLK/LBJ comment will completely haunt her. It's impossible to explain away. It is a reading of history that quite literally says the African American heart of a movement isn't enough without establishment, White backing. You couldn't pay me to go into a Dem primary in the South with that comment on my record.

I have a hunch it may hurt her with Hispanics as well, but that's speculation on my part.

Keith,
Thank you for your kind words. I’ve enjoyed this night immensely.

(PS: At the obvious risk of me coming off as totally anal retentive, I do think you’ve confused the respective numbers and their corresponding campaign. At least that’s what NYT suggests; if you click on my link in the posting above you’ll get their take on MSNBC’s facts. And yes, you’re still absolutely right, this has nothing to do with anything. DS)

If my comment wasn't clear, Obama got more votes than all of the white men that were on the ballot.

No Bradley Effect.

Has anyone reported/noted that this makes Clinton the first woman to ever when a statewide presidential nominating contest?

Has anyone reported/noted that this makes Clinton the first woman to ever when (sorry, win) a statewide presidential nominating contest?

Keith,

You are totally right on how Hillary distorted Obama's voting record on choice to swing the women vote as well as her crying jag, which by the way was when she uttered the words 'I just don't want to see this country fall backwards' which was to a group of SOLELY women and goes right along with the distortion of the Obama's pro-choice record by inferring women's right to abortion would end and we would 'fall backwards' to back alley abortions.

That was sooooo planned and totally scripted.

I also agree about the MLK and LBJ remarks. Clinton conveniently leaves out that Obama's remarks were in response to her 'false hope' statements during the debate.

Obama said to his crowd to imagine JFK saying o the moon is too far and or MLK being told not to march on Washington as that would raise false hopes.

He said that words are powerful and that our leaders should not use them to constraint our hopes but to expand our possibilities.

That is what Hillary then took and misconstrued by demeaning MLK's speech as all words but not actions.

I hope Obama comes back stronger than ever and I am amshamed of how the union that backed Hillary is responsible for that scurrilous mailer that distorted Obama's voting record. Which was totally sanctioned by Planned Parenthood.

Nasty Hillary at work...be prepared for more weeping, moaning and whinning as she claims that NH is responsible for her finally finding her voice.

Imagine that,she has 35 years of experience and claims she is ready to lead on day one, but only in NH in the past 48 hours has she found her voice?

Barack knew his for the past 15 years and he has been a consistent leader with great judgment all during that time, unlike Hillary the doubletalking waffling equivocating whinning kvetching termagant.

Interesting details in the exit polls.

Hillary had more support on those who'd made up their minds a month ago and those who decided yesterday. Obama had made inroads in the period between.

Hillary had more support from those who are falling behind, who think the economy is doing badly, who are angry (not just dissatisfied) about Bush. Josh's Rorschach on her outburst at the debates might reflect this - those of us who are angry don't mind seeing a candidate get obviously pissed about an important issue. She has a distinct lead for those who want out of Iraq immediately.

Unmarried women favored Clinton even more than married women. (Perhaps the reasoning behind the abortion mailer). Those very worried about terrorism went for Hillary more than those less worried about it.

Opposite Iowa, Hillary did better in urban/suburbs and Obama did better in rural. Part of this is that the youth vote in Iowa cities was way overrepresented as percentage of voters vs. a primary. Voters 39 and under made up only 1/3 of the vote in New Hampshire. Read that sentence again.

Hillary supporters have a much more unfavorable attitude towards Obama than Obama supporters have towards her. [I would hope that's more an issues-based distinction and not personal - I think it's been a pretty clean straight-forward campaign on all sides, the major distorting force being the press, not the candidates.] Edwards supporters are more inclined towards Obama, but it's not as much of a love-fest as I expected.

can you post some links to those exit polls Desider? ... I've been trying to get my hands on them for a bit.

Desider:

I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with one point you made:

[I would hope that's more an issues-based distinction and not personal - I think it's been a pretty clean straight-forward campaign on all sides, the major distorting force being the press, not the candidates.]

The objective facts are that Bill and Hillary lied or severely distorted Obama's position on several things: (1) his stance on a woman's right to choose/voting present at request of Planned Parenthood; (2) that he wasn't sure about his stance on the war; (3) suggesting that he's changed his position on the Patriot Act, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, etc., etc. And it's not even a close case.

She won, but (IMO) she sullied herself in the process.

DemAC wrote on January 9, 2008 3:03 AM:

The idea that voters were rejecting Obama because of race and then went on to vote for a woman President sounds just a little bit too convenient to be true.

Who's saying they did. 40% of New Hampshire voters are registered independents.

They could have done exactly what Bradley Effect voters would do in the general election.

Vote for McCain.

M:

Stop with this nonsense. Obama received more votes than any white man in the race (on either side of the aisle). HRC got out the women vote in greater numbers than anticipated and, I believe, given the predicted Obama landslide, led more independents to vote McCain.

Suggesting otherwise is shitting on HRC's victory and insulting to the voters of New Hampshire.

Regarding MLK, someone a few years back noted that Thurgood Marshall's legal efforts in Civil Rights cases in the 1940's and 1950's (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education) were truly revolutionary and paved the way for what we somewhat mistakenly think of 1960's progress. He won 29 of 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court. It took someone with a specific action list (via the NAACP) and a well-executed performance to pull it off. But it's not done in a vacuum - Marshall's legal victories reflected the long-term disgruntlement and yearnings of the (black) man in the street, as well as a firm grasp of Constitutional law.

Unfortunately for Obama though, the demands of MLK and others were very concrete - wages, work conditions, equal access to public facilities, access to legal recourse, etc., not just hope. And it says nothing against MLK that he was demanding government action at all levels, not running for office himself.

LBJ is interesting in this case. He was marginalized as Vice-President because JFK's advisors (not JFK) didn't take him seriously/like him. He was given Equal Employment as a bone to chew on, and he took the bone and chewed through it. By the time JFK was shot, these types of issues had become LBJ's new forte. Probably not terribly idealistic at heart, or at least quite corrupt in any idealism, LBJ was very efficient in pushing through legislation due to his connections and his personal style, and by chance, Civil Rights proponents had the right man in the right place to push their agenda. He also appointed Thurgood Marshall as Solicitor General and later to the Supreme Court. But Marshall's earlier work is more revolutionary than his time on the bench, aside from the precedent of having a black man on the highest court.

In any case, I don't think Marshall, MLK, JFK or LBJ are really that relevant to this year's campaign except in the sense that the success of 3 of them was in having a firm agenda, and that LBJ was a master in persuasion. I suppose there's also an analogy that JFK like Bill Clinton had his moments of brilliance and moments of frittering away his advantage, but Bill's not on the ticket this time.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 3:19 AM: Stop with this nonsense. Obama received more votes than any white man in the race (on either side of the aisle). HRC got out the women vote in greater numbers than anticipated and, I believe, given the predicted Obama landslide, led more independents to vote McCain.

Suggesting otherwise is shitting on HRC's victory and insulting to the voters of New Hampshire.

No, "suggesting otherwise" is not hiding one's head in the sand.

The Bradley Effect isn't being brought up in order to rain on Hillary's parade. It's being suggested because in nearly every poll, the black candidate was polling 12 to 15 points higher than he actually finished. (as much as 17 points in the Clinton internal poll) That is the only reason it's being brought up. Had any of the polls reported anything close to what actually happened, we wouldn't be discussing this.

This has nothing to do with Hillary. It has to do with looking at the clear historic record, realizing how horribly wrong polling was for the Democratic race, and how accurate it was for the Republican race. Then facing the reality that all the polls were wrong in exactly the same way. A way frighteningly consistent with the Bradley Effect.

I'm not the only one suggesting this. I guarantee that by this time tomorrow there will have been hundreds of news stories written about this very topic. MSNBC already featured a roundtable on it this evening. Both MSNBC political director Chuck Todd and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson agreed that it was a real possibility.

Yes, it's distasteful, but it could be true. We won't know for sure until the detailed exit polls are released. If the exit polls don't support the Bradley effect, I'll be the very first to dismiss it. Unfortunately, if the exit polls do confirm the Bradley Effect was at work, I think a lot of overly optimistic people will try to delude themselves into believing something else was to blame.

If it's not the truth, fantastic. But if the Bradley Effect was at work, we need to accept reality and work to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Keith,
I hope she puts her feet in her mouth more often then.

"True hope", i.e. realistic goal, e.g. "the government will change the law to allow people of all colors to sit where they will on a bus"

"False hope", i.e. unrealistic or non-existent goal, e.g. "the parties in government will stop their partisan bickering and look for common solutions"

We had Spiro Agnew in the 60's, we have Dick Cheney today. Partisanship will not go away, nastiness will not go away. Aside from that, I don't particularly care about "hope" except that I "hope" someone gets into the office and does their goddamn job right and responsibly for a change - balance the books, handle emergencies, fix obvious problems. I like the Constitution just fine, I don't need a revolution. I need competence. I don't care if the President has a Marquis de Sade chamber beneath the Oval Office - I just want him or her to handle the job's professional duties well. I don't care if the person is nasty or all-inclusive, liked or feared, I care if the person gets the job done and reflects the will and better reputation and interests of the United States. Personal scandals, however, have been known to sap energy from one's official duties though, so personal issues are not completely irrelevant. They're just overrated.

The Bradley Effect stuff is nonsense, especially in New Hampshire. There's very little reason why someone would be reluctant to tell a pollster they were pro-Hillary or pro-Edwards. It's easily justifiable, there's no need to hide the prejudice, just pick another candidate, they were all socially acceptable, Lester Maddox wasn't on the ballot.

Now if the Bradley Effect you're talking about is that undecideds went about 5% more towards a white candidate because of perceived electability issues, you're talking about a different phenomenon. Tom Bradley was in the general election - either someone supported him or not, either he won or not, there was no further elections. And a lot of people in New Hampshire made up their mind at the last minute. Perhaps they considered voting for McCain, perhaps they were moved by all the tear stories, perhaps the last minute terrorism/abortion issues had some effect, whatever. But that's not the classical "Bradley Effect".

Quoting Angry Vet
"I am having difficulty dealing with the possibility (that I suppose was always there) that I'd have to vote for Hillary in the Fall. I'd do it, mind you, I just wouldn't do it willingly.

Why?

She is simply NOT INSPIRING.

So, congratulations to Hillary on her win, however, this changes nothing about my vote or my opinion of her. And, a quick word of warning:

Hillary as Democratic Nominee would lose us more votes than she would win. Not electable, period. at least that is my gut feeling. Were she to win the nomination, I would argue my guts out for her, but I know there are people I would not be able to convince (unlike for Barack)."

I agree whole heartedly with Angry Vet. I am a moderate Dem who cannot stomach HRC. I have Clinton fatigue and see her and her campaign as Bush lite. I want change, I want the old guard out, I am sick of Bush-Clinton. If she wins the nomination, I will vote against here. That is how strongly I feel and I know many others who think like me. Obama is the only hope among the Dems to stop HRC and although the NH primary results were unexpected, I think we have a good two way race on our hands (BTW, someone tell Edwards he's dead in the water). Of course if HRC does win the nomination, maybe Bloomberg will jump into the race and satisfy us moderates and independents.

Mike wrote on January 9, 2008 4:22 AM:

Ms. - If this was the bradley effect, then what about Iowa?

You sound like a racist. A black man is running, so if he wins it's a fluke or white guilt. If he loses, it's the bradley effect.

So I'm a racist for pointing out a possible truth? Is Eugene Robinson a racist too? On MSNBC this evening he accepted it this as a real possibility.

As for Iowa, if you'd bothered to read the thread you'd know the answer. It's not that there are more or less racists in either state, it's that Iowa has public voting and New Hampshire has private voting. The Bradley Effect does not and can not apply to public votes like those in Iowa.

The Bradley Effect describes people ashamed to publicly admit they won't vote for a black candidate. They publicly tell friends, family, neighbors and pollsters that they're voting for the black candidate, while privately and secretly voting for the white candidate. Well, the Iowa caucuses aren't private, the Iowa caucuses are entirely public.

In the Democratic Iowa caucuses, everyone knows how everyone else votes. A voter's neighbors, friends and family may all vote in the very same room, everyone sees how everyone else has voted. So in the very special case of Iowa, potential Bradley effect voters either stay home, actually vote how they've told people they are going to vote, or vote differently and be seen as the hypocrites they are. I suspect almost all chose one of the first two options, which is why the Bradley Effect doesn't apply to Iowa.

In New Hampshire though, voting works just like it does in the general election, people vote in secret behind a private screen. A secret ballot enables Bradley Effect voters to lie about who they're voting for, with absolutely no way to prove that they've lied.

Ms: I know that Tom Bradley, Doug Wilder and Ron Kirk all saw a drop in support between final polling numbers and actual votes cast. Would you know if Deval Patrick saw a similar incongruity?

It wasn't racism. Obama has not demonstrated effective debating skills. He has not delivered any ideas on policy during the debates rallies are great for intimate exposure, but he failed to share his policies to the NH voters. Also, it was gender. After the fems saw the boys beat up on Clinton during the debate, and the scurrilous tabloid and punditry against her, women decided it was more important to back up their gender. Unfortunately, these women don't realize that if Clinton wins the nomination, she will not have the same appeal to the youth and independents that Obama has. She cannot rely on a base of dems and old women to carry her over, especially, if McCain manages to get the RNC nomination with Huckabee running as VP.

Everyone assumes that he will get the black vote in SC, but obviously the punditry is assuming that blacks will vote in a block like women. Not so. Black women, that make up the largest contingent of the SC primary electorate want experience over change, and Hillary will win that argument. Obama will have to offer more substance in terms of economic policy when he speaks to them. Black women will not vote for Obama because he's black, or because he can win. They will vote for him because they believe in his policies.

This is a sexist analysis, but after last night, women just made my case.

The Clintons and their Rovian politics wiin in NH.

NYT article today says: "Several New Hampshire women, some of them undecided until Tuesday, said that a galvanizing moment for them had been Mrs. Clinton’s unusual display of emotion on Monday as she described the pressures of the race and her goals for the nation — a moment Mrs. Clinton herself acknowledged as a breakthrough."

Hillary has found her "own voice", poll-inspired, focus-group tested, Ann-Lewis crafted and it goes like this:

I am such a victim of evil men: Bill, the male Democratic candidates, the male Republican candidates, the media (Russert, Matthews, Rose, anyone who dares to challenge the Clinton spin machine)and the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. Make me president and leader of the world because you feel sorry for me, girls. Then we can get some Hagen Daaz and have a good cry.

I have great confidence in the future of America, if Hillary's latest, new "own voice" carries her to the White House. Heaven help us.

The debate won it. Seeing Edwards shilling for Obama made me sick. When Clinton poised questions that the people needed to hear answered he blocked them as if he was Obama's VP as Obama looked down as if he was the Prez as if it was in the scrip. BO didn't want to answer. They are in it together. That's not change it's the same old shit and people saw it. Thats why Edwards not getting out, he's cut a deal to block for BO. BO has no answers, just wonderful words. When she came at Edwards about the bill that was never passed that he keeps harping about that blew him away, why had not the press said there was no bill, they never do their job, unless it's checking up on HRC. When it messes with the beautiful story it's call attacks. No it's called fact checking and NH did fact checking and I hope the rest of the country does it too. Maybe it's not too late.

A few comments from a man who knows nothing more than the rest of you know:

1) I do not care what anyone else says, I think that the tears did play a role here. Not the only role, to be sure, but they were part of it. Those huge-margin polls were taken (for the most part) before the tears, and I think that they are part of the reason why the result was so different from the polls.

2) I also do not care what my fellow Obama supporters say, this result was, almost by definition, a case of Bradley effect. We had a caucus where our man won by the predicted margin and a secret ballot where he came in about 10% below where the polls had said. A black candidate getting 10% less than the polls predict is the Bradley effect. I know that IA seemed an encouraging repudiation of that CW, but in hindsight I think we should be able to see that IA is irrelevant to the Bradley effect because IA is not a secret ballot.

3) What that means is that we cannot grow complacent. In many ways it is a good thing that we discovered this now, so that we will know going into Super Tues that we cannot get too confident if the polls show our guy up. We need to keep working even then, because these numbers hide a certain margin of closet racism.

4) Most of all what this proves to me is how terribly toxic the "inevitability" label proves to the candidate who gets it. I have no doubt but that a lot of folks revolted against Clinton early on because they were sick of being told that she was the one. All of a sudden Obama won IA and they were being told that he was the one. Nobody likes to be told what to think. Hopefully, however, now that each has won one contest the sap will have gone out of this meme and the whole idea will be dropped. Merely as a word of caution to my fellow Obama people, however, I would argue strongly against advancing any sort of pitch for our man premised on the idea that he will ultimately prevail.

5) Clinton is a good candidate. We all knew that before and we not see it confirmed. Nobody should be surprised if a good candidate wins an election. I cannot pretend not to be a mite disappointed that my guy lost, but in a way this was the best result for everyone. What this ensures is that this election will be a real contest going forward, and thus whoever take the nomination will emerge from it seasoned, stronger, and even better positioned to win in Nov.

With the help of pollsters and the media, Hillary's campaign turned what should be billed as a loss into a great victory. Hillary has been leading by huge margins in New Hampshire for months. She squeaked out a 2 percent win. Yet the spin based on nothing but press reports is that it is a magnificent triumph for her and a resounding endorsement of her candidachy.

Hillary is losing steadily. The national polls which she dominated for years, now shows Obama even witht her.

Billary's attacks on the media and mean spin machine are Bush-style politics, as are the mean-spirited, dishonest personal attacks on Obama by well orchestrated Clinton operatives, who the campaign then claims acted on their own. That is bull. The pattern is clear.

America will wake up again to the Clintons as they have to the Bushes.

If Hillary's vicotry depended on people in New Hampshire "liking what they saw", her current campaign spin, then she is in trouble. When the real Hillary comes out, and she always does, people don't like her and don't want her for president. Contant reinventions wear thin and people catch on to the dishonesty of it all.

Greg DeLassus,

Actually, given those numbers, and assuming my math is correct, I believe the NYT exit polls got Obama's support pretty much exactly right (assuming the same 57-43 female-male breakdown I have seen elsewhere, I got 36.6 for Obama, and his actual was 36.4, so this was all within rounding error).

And I can't speak for the other poster, but my initial impression is that when it comes to the pre-election polls, it turns out to be more or less true that they got Obama and Clinton's relative support among men correct, but not Obama and Clinton's relative support among women. That is not the pattern predicted by the Bradley Effect, but of course there are obvious alternative explanations for such a gender effect.

the reason the polls were wrong was simple.

WOMEN voters. its that simple.. they swamped this election for Hillary. huge gender gap.

and when 15% more women vote in the dem primary than men it makes a huge difference.

Congrats to Hillary for her success in NH. I'm glad it is game on and not game over this early. All of the candidates need a more thorough vetting by the voters--not the pundits or their active supporters.

Hopefully the lesson to the Clintons is to stop the negative crap. Time will tell. Hopefully the lesson to the Obamas is to not ever pause before the final vote count.

I don't believe there was a Bradley effect. I just think the model that the pollsters used to predict what groups would turn out proved to be wrong. When the turnout is historically high, I think that sort of prediction as to what groups show up in what percentages may end up being skewed. We'll know more about this in the next few days.

Obama can't just hand out hope. He has to be specific and eloquent about folks who are scared about their economic situation now and in the future. And he has to nail down exactly what he and his administration will do about it. Hillary was right that rhetoric only takes one so far. But Hillary needs to have learned some lessons too--it's best that she drop the public mask and reveal herself.

My suggestion to my fellow Obama supporters is to up your donation--even if by a few dollars--and to dust off the back of your pants and hit the streets and/or the phones. All of these primaries are going to matter.

stlounick said:

"Hopefully the lesson to the Clintons is to stop the negative crap."

Amen to that. And I also hope that it stops their supporters with their mindless messianic hyperbole.

(snark alert)

Do you know that I canvassed New Hampshire for the last 300 days in a row and didn't find one Hillary supporter?

What happened?

Finn:

Is this your first campaign or something? I've yet to see much of anything but general civility and sttriking similarity of past records and programs on the table by the top candidates.

All of them are in it to win, and will do what (they think) it takes to accomplish it within the bounds of the law and good taste.

I know that you are probably one of those who thinks the Clinton years (with their holdovers, Al Gore and Hillary) were the low point in Democratic history, that there is no difference between Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and that Obama and Edwards raised all that cash from little dewey-eyed children who broke open their piggy banks to get BO or JRE to help them realize their American dream.

But, get a grip. This ain't beanbag. Basically very clean campaign so far on the part of all the terrific Democratic candidates and I'll be pleased and proud to vote for whomever my fellow progressive Democrats choose (even, ugh, Edwards).

I'm no Hillary supporter but in all fairness, she did not bash MLK, rise above people.

Comrade Finn:

And, pray tell, who is the anti-capitalist running on the Democratic side who will "turn the status quo on its head"?

I say vote for the Socialist Party candidate (seriously) if you want to upset the so-called status quo - otherwise, as much as I hate Nader, there isn't much difference in the American political environment as constituted today. They're all corporate capitalists and the difference is in how they vote re their respective interests (Hillary and Obama vote 95% progressive and against corporate interests - Edwards less so, but like HRC and BO, has a 100% rating on pro-union votes).

And I say this as someone who grew up with a 6-time elected Socialist mayor (Zeidler in Milwaukee) for my first 12 years and an Independent (Maier) until I left there eight years later.

I refuse to award the Clinton for their bad behaviour anymore.

Wait a second - are you really an American? There is no U in "behavior"; not in the U.S. of A. at any rate.

;-)