If you look at the counties where Clinton led, the're mostly urban. Obama led in more counties without major cities. I think this puts to rest the idea that Clinton's win in New Hampshire was the result of hidden racial bias (which would have had to be public in Iowa) because presumably the more rural counties are also more white -- though I guess New Hampshire is pretty much white anyway.

I think the reason Clinton won New Hampshire is easy to understand. She had a good local organization from her husband's background there. He always put New Hampshire and Arkansas at the head of his strongest states politically. With good local organization you can increase turnout, especially in urban areas.

What I think this shows is that Clinton's trained professionalism is beating Obama's exciting and promising amateurism. She did all the things she needed to do to win -- nailed the debates, showed her depth in lengthy discussions with voters, and showed emotion. Obama got caught up with the crowds and allowed his optimism to carry him away.

He also made a huge mistake by allowing Clinton to set the expectations. Think about it -- Clinton went from a double-digit lead to a bare win in two weeks. And she gets credited with being the new Comeback Kid. That's how you compete in the Presidential election, Mr. Obama.

Can anyone imagine if Buchanon had won in 2000? The US would probably be in great shape, at peace.

Jonawebb--I think you have nailed it. Good and insightful post.

The expectation switcheroo was an artifact of press coverage. Obama's rise in the polls was the big story. Most political reporters can't think about two things at the same time: it unbalances them.

One thing, though: the assertion by some mope Clinton staffer that they'd turn the thing around with another five days: probably not true. Obama was polling well with independents and that kind of support can only firm up with extra time. Clinton was waaay ahead a month ago, even two weeks ago. I don't think that celebrating her squeaking by with a narrow victory is a matter of managed expectations. A narrow defeat would have been a disaster. It would have cost her a lot of financial support, and it would have cost the emily's list people as well. Now they can make a specious claim that the momentum's back on her side. it isn't.

Mr. Bill, who should put a sock in it, claimed a moral victory when HE came in second back in 1992. Well then, who's the moral victor, now?

Wasn't it Woody Allen who said that 99% of life is just showing up?

Kiss my baby, eat my chicken soup, go to my church - you got my vote.

Campaigning is a job interview basically - wear a nice suit, act personable, etc.

But the skill of doing a job has little to do with the skill of GETTING the job - the Presidency no more than any other job.

Never, ever, underestimate Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are tough and persistent campaigners who wear out their opponents in the end. Look at Hillary's Senate runs in New York. Her Republican opponents were left in oblivion.

I think MaCain is still Our best choice he is the leader on war conflicks

If you like war.

working on those machines.

They couldn't mess up the rural paper ballots but we know the machines used in the urban areas can be hacked.

Well, another news day and more clarity is brought to this matter. Enough of the voters have been asked why they switched back to Hilary, and the answer seems to be complicated. Don't you hate that?

There was some pity elicited by HC's one actual human moment in the 11th hour. Unless she intends to weep her way to the White House, this will not be repeated. There was also a feeling that HC and Obama were about equally attractive as candidates, and everyone would like to hear and see more of both of them.

There were a couple of other factors as well -- how do you poll for this stuff? An alarming percentage of people who vote make their minds up at the last possible minute and can't tell you, afterwards, what tipped it one way or another. For the most part, what we remember is the negative stuff -- there's a reason for all that negative campaigning, you know. The hardest thing to figure out is how to balance the virtues of two candidates when you like them both, or, as in the last Presidential election, loathe them both.