Edwards spent about one-third the money, got fucked by the FEC and slightly bettered the corporate conspiritor. Not bad.

True, Dusty. And when the big news organizations round it off, as they do, it ends up being Edwards 30 and Clinton 29.

That said, there's a lot of race left. A month (to February 5) is an eternity in presidential politics.

...and the worm turns.

And yet Edwards' argument has a certain logic. If the question was Change versus Experience, then Change just walloped Experience (you can even spot Experience the 3% combined Biden and Richardson got).

Now maybe you then just concede the race to Obama. But if you still want a contest, why not face off the top two Change people, as opposed to insisting on keeping a candidate with a nonviable message alive?

Huckabee's big win could spell trouble for Obama in NH. NH has open primaries and NH independents have a reputation for voting strategically. They may well consider it to consider it their sacred duty to stop Mike Huckabee.

CalD:

I think that's wishful thinking, especially given his (Huckabee's) lack of organization on the one hand, and McCain's obvious appeal to independents. That being said, Clinton and Edwards are going to have to SHIT on Obama's message and MO in 5 short days. I'm just not sure if they can do it (not impossible). Anything can happen, but I think given the nature of Obama's victory, it's going to be a tall order to fill.

Very curious to see if Obama has pulled even with Hillary by the next national poll. My sense is the national numbers are going to change very quickly now.

57% of the 'youth vote' went for Obama. Considering that there wasn't' a youth vote in the 04 election to even talk about..this is great news.

Anonymous at 12:33,

And something like 7% of the youth vote went to McCain on the Republican side.

In general, I really think the cross-tabs show why if McCain is the GOP nominee, the Democrats should very much hope they nominate Obama and not Clinton: Obama can compete with McCain for independents while still turning out historic numbers of Democrats.

The bottom line is that Iowa isn't a microcosm of the rest of America. It's primarily rural and primarily white.

Feb 5th is the date that matters..20 states have primaries on that one day alone. That will be the point of no return for some of these candidates..hopefully Hillary will be one of them.

Good for the Obama crowd! Time to celebrate!

And when the shouting is over and push comes to shove, what does Obama stand for? Change? Okay, but what does that mean? His positions are nearly indistinguishable from Hillary's and that isn't a program for change.

Tonight's coverage was almost 100% about Obama the person and the significance of a black man having a realistic shot at becoming President. But does changing the race of another typical DC Democrat really portend anything other than changing the face at the top? I don't think it does.

I anxiously await a genuine and substantive answer from anyone why they think that Obama's race alone means that anything will change in America. Will his race change the fact that wages for average Americans have been flat for the past 30 years while the rich have gorged themselves on ever-increasing incomes? Will his race change the fact that national health insurance is desperately needed by average Americans? Will his race make the difference when the greedy health insurance and drug industries stand in the way of any attempt to change the system and reduce their role aka their profits? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, no.

Obama's race is a symbol of change and only a symbol. It is a hollow symbol because he isn't running on a platform of change only on the rhetoric of "wouldn't change be nice? I'm the man to bring nice to Washington DC".

There is nothing in anything he proposes that portends anything beyond the flaccid, capitulationist approach the Democrats in DC have adopted for the past 30 years. All the starry-eyed Obamaites will be sorely jaded when their man is unable to control the Democrats in Congress, let alone the Republicans nearly all of whom are puppets of corporate money and influence.

Having run on a platform of conciliation and unification, Obama would be hard pressed as President to lead the kind of political fighting that will be necessary to accomplish any progressive goals--none of which he even discusses in more than the broadest of platitudes on the stump or elsewhere. He has no plan for change, he has no real agenda for change. His proposals differ only slightly from the same pablum we have been handed from DC Democrats since Clinton first was elected in 92.

Obama is a nice guy whose race and attractiveness as a "new" face serve as little but one more distraction keeping Americans from dealing squarely with the real problems we face. It's a pity really. Another missed opportunity that will mean continued stalemate in DC, continued suffering for average Americans and further discrediting of the Democratic Party because they will be permanently known as the party that never delivers on what it promises just as the Democratic led Congress has now so firmly established for itself.

Where I come from "peckish" means hungry, or did back when people said "peckish." Made me smile. I hope Obama still feels hungry.

anon at 12:54,

Obama believes he can help unify the country behind his agenda, but not through capitulation. That is the basic thing people are still struggling to understand: that a politician today can be both progressive and have broad appeal.

DTM: NH has been right around 50/50 in the last two presidential elections with the independent vote split about 55/45 in favor of Democrats. In the 2000 primaries about 2/3 of the independent voters who turned out voted in the Republican primary. Of those, 2/3 went for McCain. The difference between the number of indies who voted in the Democratic vs. Republican primaries amounted to 10% of the total turnout for both primaries. That was a number equal to 25% of the total turnout for the Democratic Primary alone. Any way you look at it, it's a significant number.

2000 NH Primary results are available here on the CNN web site. You don't have to take other people's word for this stuff.

CalD,

Right, but the argument in question specifically addresses how things have changed since the 2000 NH primaries.

By the way, "Graniteprof" is Dante Scala, a Professor of Politics at Saint Anselm College and widely-noted expert on NH politics. So, although I would not necessarily "take his word", I would tend to take his opinion seriously.

anon at 2:28,

OK, but that still does not address the question of how best to get the people you want in power into power.

They've still not recovered at MSNBC!

A goosebumps moment Eugene Robinson, WaPo

The Victory Speech that Greg Sargent doesn't want us to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc

The snooze is over...
I get the feeling Satuday's ABC debates will finally be watched..

Does anyone know what the holdup is on the final precincts reporting on the Republican side? Only 95.5% reporting so far on all major outlets.