Obama will win.  That's a question?  More interesting will be where Edwards turns up and how big Obama's lead will be.

On the Republican side, who cares?

but if Hillary comes in a close (and surprisingly strong) second, maybe the press does call it a comeback.  we'll see.

I would say at least double digits, wouldn't you?

... I don't want to get ahead of myself.  I think 7-9 points.  

maybe the press does call it a comeback.

Maybe? Chris Matthews is already asking "What is a win" and framing anyting but an Obama blowout as a Clinton victory.

Ah the media.

It looks like your question was quite prescient after all.

15% of precincts are in on CNN...

Hillary: 40%
Obama: 36%
Edwards: 17%
Richardson: 4%

The dichotomy established in the last two debates undercuts Obama! Two candidates of change, one who is a figher, the other is bipartisan. Two candidates of experience (or status quo) depending on how you interpret it. At the end of the day, Edwards pulls more change voters from Obama than Richardson pulls from Clinton. Split the change vote, and Obama could well lose.
Plus, if Edwards makes it to Michigan, I have a feeling the unions might put him back in the game. A strong showing in South Carolina will help him too.

Disclaimer: I've been alternating between support of Edwards and Richardson since the start of this process. That being said, I'm still not sure who I'll be voting for on Election Day.

Only Clinton is.  And there are no delegates coming from Michigan this year.

I forgot all about that.

Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated.  That's been widely reported before tonight.

I wasn't sure if your comment that "only Clinton is on the ballot" was just in the context of Obama vs. Clinton + Edwards, or only Clinton vs. Obama and Obama isn't on the ballot. Obviously, if the DNC relents and seats the Mich. delegates just before the 1st ballot AND only Clinton is on the ballot so she by default has all the Mich. delegates, that would make a significant difference.

As one of the RK commenters noted, there have been rumors that the DNC might announce soon that Mich. delegates will be seated, but that wouldn't seem logical or fair to me if Obama had strictly followed the party rules and his supporters were asked not to circulate petitions for him, kinda like changing the rules to favor one candidate over another.

What I'd read earlier re both Florida and Michigan was that their delegatation would not be seated until after the Pres. nomination, but would be seated so they can vote for the nominee's VP choice.

Bottom line question is whether both Clinton and Obama are on the Mich. ballot. If only Clinton, I can't imagine that the DNC would seat delegates if the are only Clinton delegates.

                      T.C.

"kinda like changing the rules to favor one candidate over another"

Yeah...like that's never happened before.

ballot, but...people can vote for "uncommitted." I have heard that's what the Obama and Edwards campaigns are encouraging their supporters to do.

by morning Hillary is pulling staff out of SC (and if Obama gets Culinary Union endorsement she pulls out of Nevada too) and into Feb 5th states.

Hillary gets a few wins on Feb 5th.

Virginia, MD and DC wins on Feb 12th take Obama over the top.

TPM Election Central talked with city clerk, who described that phenomenon.  If not, that clearly helps Obama.  The question is if these are additional independents, in which case it dos not impact Republican race, or if it includes those who would normally vote Repub, which would also indicated movement away from McCain and help Romney.

And Huckabee has gone off the deep end . . . level after level of pandering. . . .

and can you link me to Huck's pandering that you're referring to?  Or would  that take up the entire Internets?  

I'm stuck in a hotel room and all I've got is my Internet.  Any ideas where the best NH results can be found?

posted by Chris Cillizza here

I quote:

As in last week's Iowa caucuses, Democrats are citing "change" as the most important trait in selecting their candidate in today's presidential primary, while Republicans are choosing leadership and personal qualities narrowly over specific issue stances when picking their candidate.

Unlike in Iowa, however, early exit polling suggests that the Democratic electorate is neither considerably younger nor populated with more first-time primary voters than it was four years ago.

Dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration runs strongly through both party primaries, a further symbol of the seeming changing nature of these elections. More than six in 10 Democrats pronounced themselves "angry" at President Bush's policies while more than half of Republican described themselves as either dissatisfied or angry.

Exit polling is being conducted throughout the day in New Hampshire in an attempt to offer a slice of what the electorate looks like. These results are preliminary and partial -- including only voters who cast ballots in the morning and early afternoon.

FWIW

peace.

Anybody know where I can find quick exit poll data?  It's almost 20 minutes past 7 pm  ET and CNN still doesn't have the actual horse race info.

preeminent Dem New Hampshire  blog

as of 5 PM, Londonderry had a 70% turnout

here's the link for the Concord Monitor

Peace

talking about the exit polls - Obama leading in exit polls as far as who people think can best win in the Fall.  If Clinton is losing on that issue, I would think she is in deep doo-doo.

with 12 of 301 precincts in (4%)

Obama , Barack Dem 3,783 39%
Clinton , Hillary Dem 3,193 33%
Edwards , John Dem 1,634 17%
Crow , Randy Dem 434 4%
Richardson , Bill Dem 419 4%
Kucinich , Dennis Dem 180 2%
Total Write-ins Dem 58 1%
Gravel , Mike Dem 14 0%
Biden , Joe Dem 11 0%
Dodd , Chris Dem 10 0%
Caligiuri , Richard Dem 10 0%
Capalbo , Kenneth Dem 3 0%
Hewes , Henry Dem 2 0%
Hunter , D.R. Dem 2 0%
Keefe , Bill Dem 2 0%
Savior , O. Dem 2 0%
Killeen , Caroline Dem 1 0%
Koos , Tom Dem 1 0%
Hughes , William Dem 0 0%
LaMagna , Dal Dem 0 0%
Laughlin , Tom Dem 0 0%
Skok , Michael Dem 0 0%

2/3 of Manchester, which should go for Clinton, not yet in.

But nothing in from Nashua, which should be for Obama.

Here's the problem - what I am seeing is that Romney's attacks on McCain infuriated some independents, and he drew a larger percentage of independents than expected.  Thus the %age in the Democratic primary that is independents is actually DOWN from 2004.  That helps Clinton, who is winning Dems.

According to Chris Bowers, morning exits had Obama by 4.  That would track with the Suffolk poll.

It won't be a blowout.  I still think Obama wins.  It will be close enough that it is POSSIBLE that the big union endorsements supposed to come tomorrow may hold off.  If that happens, Clinton may well win Nevada.  

Obama needs to win by as large a margin as Iowa, 8% or so, and he won't.  The next cut is probably 5%.  

And if Clinton is this close, she will be able to raise money and keep going.

I know Edwards will want to continue, but my guess is that the voting public will no later than after SC want it down to 2 people.

Still watching.

Peace.

Do you have a link for that exit poll data?  I've been desperately looking for that info since the polls closed.

Thanks.

Exits had him up by 4, but Wilder effect will be in play in New Hampshire.  The pundits who said Obama got a reverse wilder in Iowa (people wanted to show how progressive and enlightened they were in the open cacaus) are right.  Sadly.

That's an awfully big assumption on your part.  Where do you get that his supporters in Iowa were showing up to the caucus for him to prove they're enlightened?

It comes from between ones loins, backside.

But then again there could be a grain of thruth in it.

I was making a joke.  

Truth be told I think a lot of us were way off on this race.

Snopes has a discussion going of this (Wilder/Bradley) effect and Barack Obama.

http://message.snopes.com/show...

I suspect that Obama loses by 2-3 points in NH.  Still he's very much in the race, and I hope he wins.  South Carolina will be strong for him.  Also Edwards may drop out, and that will give him a big boost.

Though I think Hillary's secret weapon will be that many women are saying, if not now, when?  If Hillary can't do it, will we see a woman President in our lifetime?  I know that african americans may feel the same way, but Hillary has experience going for her.

Do you know one thing about Hillary Clinton's biography?  This is a really awful, disgusting, misogynistic thing to say!

Gloria Steinem had an op-ed today in one of the NY papers saying that if a woman with only two years of senatorial experience deigned to run for President, the MSM and everyone else would be all over her.  

if Edwards drops out, Obama would pick up one vote here....maybe.

The Washington Post had Obama up by 1% in its exit polls, but if Obama plays below the exit polls, I think that the Wilder effect can't be entirely dismissed.  Maybe not a huge factor, but perhaps a factor on the margins in a close race.

I don't know which other states have the same rules, but that will likely hurt Obama.

but 2/3 of Manchester is in, but nothing in yet from Keene or Nashua, which should break for Obama, especially looking at how Portsmouth broke for Obama.

It depends on how heavy the turnout was downstate, which tends tobe more independent, and better educated, and hence friendlier to Obama.

Oh, and Hanover (Dartmouth) not yet in either, although I suspect not that many votes there.

Also, I don't see figures for Durham, which is U of NH.

So we have a ways to go to see how this plays out.

... with only 27% reporting. Cut 2 points off her lead in the last refresh.  Let's see if that's a trend.  If so, bodes well for him.

Getting close to 1/3 in, which is when you can start to take the numbers seriously.

Edwards is getting pummeled here. I don't see how he stays in the race. Still think he needs to strike now while the irons hot and find some way to get on Team Obama to ensure some role for himself in the next admin.

Other interesting note: turnout for Dems is at least 40% higher than the Repubs based on a quick calc. Bodes well for November, although I think New Hampshire is officially a light blue state now, so no real big surprise.

Hmm, I wonder if McCain siphoned some of that independent vote from Obama.  Romney has already conceded the state (just heard him on C-SPAN).

Let me cut to the chase on this one for you: "NO."  Democratic participation is SHARPLY higher than Republican participation, same as in Iowa.

I don't know what it was that Hillary did--I think a huge part of is that Richardson's second-choicers broke for Obama in Iowa (Richardson's at 5% this time, 2% in Iowa), and there weren't any second-choicers breaking for Edwards this time around.  The polls didn't make it seem like it should be this close, but Hillary Clinton ought to walk away very, very proud of this result.

Holy crap.

Nailbiter!

Maybe I'll get my wish and February 12th will still be important.  That would be awesome!

Indies broke 39-34 for Obama (FOX News exit polls).  That's not very big.  That may be the reason that he won't win tonight.

As I write this, John McCain is giving (reading, actually) a real snoozer of a speech...

Amazing contrast to Obama's speech last week.

Sue for trademark infringement!

I totally think people on here are seriously underestimating the man.  

When he pointed to the sky and said we had to take this country up.  I'm scared to death of this man as president.

I understand that many of the college towns have not reported yet, which should help Obama.  Still, too close to call though . . .

I think she won.  She's got a 5,000 vote margin with 2/3rds reporting in.

Hillary Clinton won.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I have goosebumps.  Oh my God!  For the first time in America's history, a woman wins a presidential primary contest a WEEK after a black man does the same thing for the first time in Iowa!  What an amazing year for American history!  What an amazing time to be a democrat!

(I'd also like to note that, as I'd mentioned earlier, Democratic participation was once again FAR higher than Republican participation, same as in Iowa).

It truly IS a great time to be a Democrat.  Notice the much larger turnout of Dem's than Rep's in both Iowa and NH?  Dem's are fired up, Rep's are demoralized.  Let's keep that going through November and beyond!

Although CNN REALLY doesn't want to be wrong about this one, but they were.  Quite amazing.

Hillary, Barack, John, and Bill are all still in the game...

If tonight teaches the party one thing, it's that we're committed to selecting the best candidate, and none of our strong bench are ready to quit.

On to Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina!

You can't write anybody off in this race, at least not yet.
They have the cash to go the distance...

You wait until all the votes are counted.

She didn't practice her victory speech in advance; she's reading it off the podium because she doesn't have it rehearsed.

I've been sneaking peaks during a late night at the office, and I have to say, this is some horse race.  Can't count anyone out, can we?  Hillary and Obama are going to make this a real contest, with Edwards playing the spoiler role.  I think if Edwards decides to bow out most of his votes are going to go to Obama - I believe he's been bracing himself for that with his obvious alignment with Obama against Hillary in the most recent debate.  Once that happens, look out.  

And what did I tell the teeming multitudes about McCain?  Didn't I say he was going to win tonight?  I still think it's a mistake to underestimate him.  If you get the old white war hero guy running against either the black guy or the woman you're going to see some votes seeping his way, just because people can't stand the thought.  Inexperienced, melanin-heavy Obama frightens them, and assertive, menopausal female Hillary scares them, too.  This race can hardly get any more interesting.  Can't believe I have to go back to my boring legal crap when this is going on.    

With ALL the polls showing Obama ahead by well ahead of the margin of error this is statistically impossible. It could be believeable if a few polls showed one ahead and a few showed the other ahead, but this is right in your face. When I saw the vindictive look on Bill's face when Hillary started dropping on the polls I had a bad feeling that something was up.

Aren't these the same polling companies which underestimated Obama in Iowa? Would all of their methods suddenly be wrong? I don't know what it will take for people to start taking vote fraud and election rigging seriously. Even prominent people in the Dems are writing me about getting election reform through Congress right away.

The polls before New Hampshire showed an outcome similar to this -- the polls spiked immediately afterwards, but I think teacherken hits the nail on the head.  

In the end a large number of the independent undecides broke for McCain rather than Obama (which is probably why the Clinton Obama exit polls were so close among independents).  I think humanfront touched on an issue too -- there probably was a bit of a Wilder effect on the margins too giving Clinton her victory margin.

Either way, the race continues.  Great concession speech by Obama too -- I thought he demonstrated tremendous resolve in the face of a disappointing outcome.  In my view this was an even stronger call to action than the speech he gave when the outcome broke heavily in his favor.

In any event, another $50 to the campaign tonight ($100 and counting within the past week).  We've got a fight on our hands, but just like the Webb nomination and general election, it's the kind of fight where the principle serves as a strong motivation.  Fired up and ready to go, baby!

Explain why ALL the polls were wrong and most had Obama winning beyond the margin of error?  

Who knows maybe Hilary's tears moved some votes into her column at the last moment.  Maybe the negative attacks against Obama started to get some traction after the bounce.

The exit polls showed that this was likely to be a close race -- Washington Post had the numbers at a 1% Obama advantage -- another had him up by 4%.  A 5% point swing is within the margin of error.

Also if you look at the polling data, there was a bump on Monday after the Iowa caucus's and the New Hampshire debates.  The polls released today showed the gap closing from 10% and 13% back to a 4% to 6% race.  The trend-line from Monday to Tuesday was downward.

Perhaps McCain independent voters were leaning towards McCain before the Iowa caucus, changed their minds after Iowa, and changed their minds again when they went to the polls.  It happens.

I'm probably not going to tell you that Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn was sued for eavesdropping on a former employees conversations http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Of course anything is possible, but in this case, the evidence of irregularities -- real irregularities would have needed to surface.  If there was something wrong with the tabulation, we will know about it over the next few days.  The polling data though doesn't really require a conspiracy to explain how it stacks up against the actual vote tabulations.

You could even look at the case of the 2000 election between McCain and Bush -- most of the polling firms got that race wrong before election day due to the huge swing that McCain got from independent voters.  Independent voters can be fickle in a state like New Hampshire.

Clinton also had organizational advantages in terms of GOTV in New Hampshire that she didn't have in Iowa (the Clinton network was the result of decades of work, in Iowa she didn't have these GOTV networks -- at least not ones that were as well established).  Iowa tilted towards Obama, New Hampshire tilted toward Clinton based on proximity to home states.

It looks like it broke for her in the end.  Good for Hilary.

On to Nevada and South Carolina!

The folks I know who are from New Hampshire are all extremely stubborn and take pride in their independence...  they enjoy making a point of being different.

I should not stereotype here, but is it possible a percent or two voted for the perceived underdog just to demonstrate how different they are?

I also have huge concerns about our voting system and remain convinced that many votes (though a statistically small percentage) have been stolen in both directions for decades (yes this problem predates the electronic voting, but electronic voting makes it both harder to detect and easier to move large numbers of votes from one column into the other).  I believe elections are being stolen, but only the close ones.

I have a hard time believing that criminals would try to steal an election this far out (risks too high, return to little - at least for the rational criminals).  The criminals will wait until November to do their theft.

I think this was a mix of several things:
1) McCain siphoning some independents from Obama because they are pissed about Romney's ads (reactionary, but it happens)

2) Hilary simply running strong on issues, much stronger than people are willing to give her credit for, and even though I do not like her for POTUS, she is a good legislator and has a very strong platform

3) there may indeed still be a small Wilder effect - though that is sad to contemplate, I can't believe it is a big one - at least in New Hampshire

4) Hilary's "Dean Scream" moment has had a reverse effect.  People are both pissed at the media for focusing on one small glitch in Clinton's composure, and encouraged that she is fallible as well...   which makes me wonder if it was not engineered...  wow.

5) This race is close, and like it or not we Dems are likely to still have a say even if we don't get a say until February 12th.  All the candidates are still in (at least the top four Dems) and the top 3-4 Republicans are in too, which is amazing.   Romney should begin sweating now though..

Anyone have hard numbers of actual voters?  It'd be lovely to compare Dems to Reps and find out Edwards did better than McCain!!!  

6) Women realized that Hilary has a real chance and came out in larger numbers than expected, and voted for Hilary.

If you randomly select a sample of 1000 "likely voters" (a highly subjective term)... and conduct polls maybe four, five, six times? Poll results feed poll results to some extent, because poll-takers might feel some measure of social pressure, biasing them to give one response to a pollster or campaign and choose their own preference in the privacy of the polling booth. Obama's post-Iowa bounce in the polls were partially soft numbers, much like Hillary got a minor bump after the hostage situation.

:-) Note: This is not an argument against election reform, simply a statement that not all disputes between polling numbers and election results are a flaw in the election system. Election reform, security, and protection should be a priority! Hillary supporters came out for tonight (especially unions and self-identified Democrats) and put her over the top.

These polls seem to be gone, gone, gone. Why is that? Shouldn't people deserve to see how far off these polls were in the DEM race ONLY? Seems like most web sites have gotten rid of these polls. Are we not supposed to think about them? Funny, people in other countries think about their polls and use them to monitor for election fraud.

No polls taken from 1/6 onward show Hillary winning. Only one or two are within the margin of error. About 85% show Obama head by more than the margin of error. You can believe the results or look at these polls and believe your lying eyes.

As Groucho used to say: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

with 82 percent reporting and listening to Edwards, Then Obama and Hillary's winner speech, I can go to bed happy that all you spinning artists were wrong. And it is really the little things that count. These candidates are so close in what they want to accomplish, it is the little things that will make one of them the winner.

Be it an emotional out break or be it like Obama "asking his workers to give Hillary an applause for her effort and winning".

Then he fails to lead that applause. It was a little thing that points to lack of leadership or inexperience.

Sorry, but after such a change as Hillary winning NH, I just had to SPIN.

Its the fact that the Dem polls were WAY off and the Rep polls were believeable that bothers me. I don't care who wins as long as its honest.

The fight goes on and February 12th may yet be more than a rubber stamp!  This is wicked awesome!  We have a wonderful field of candidates!  They are absolutely stellar!  I don't know about you, but I'd like to borrow a cheer: I am FIRED UP, READY TO GO!  Let's go change the world!

BTW, did you see Law & Order SVU, also a stunning ending!

Oh! And can we use The Circle of Life from the musical The Lion King as the theme of our convention?

The different between the Dem polls and the results is about a 12 to 13 percent swing for Clinton compared to the polls. This is at least 4 times the margin of error for polls which is 3%.

So where's the conspiracy?  Among the different polling organizations who conspired in the last few days to project Obama in the lead?  Or are you saying it's the flinty citizens of New Hampshire who manipulated the tally of the actual primary votes to give it to Hillary?

This is entirely mathematically possible.  I will thank you to refrain from even insinuating election fraud, which I perceive is what you're trying to hint at.

Issues contributing to Obama's loss after some favorable poll samples:

1.) Because of the shortened window, all polling firms have been using what's called a "rolling poll," wherein the oldest day's sampling is thrown out every morning and the newest day's sampling is added on to the remaining numbers to extrapolate what a larger sample would show.  This had to be done because there wasn't enough time to accurately create two tracking polls; however, it's incredibly difficult to maintain a scientifically-selected sample that accurately reflects what the electorate is going to look like.

2.) Reduced turnout in the 17-29 year old voter bloc hampered Obama's performance.  I think the perception that Obama's victory was inevitable influenced more than a few students to decide that they didn't need to take the time to go vote, instead opting to go to Dartmouth's Ultimate Frisbee Club practice.

3.) Hillary cut back into the female vote, and there are strong indications that it happened only within the last 48 hours.  Again, because of the rolling polling, if 5-10% of women shift their votes in a short window of time, that's only going to reflect a very minor shift in the average sample because your poll results won't reflect the fact that 5-10% of yesterday's sample also changed its mind.

But you do raise an important point that should be taken seriously. What we are likely to see is a parade of people saying how polls don't mean that much, etc. etc. Just as we saw it after Bush won in 2004.

Another thing that is disturbing is that exist polling was also giving a win to Obama.

Having been raised in Mexico, I share your concerns about the polls being this off. If the polls were so off, one would expect that each poll would give different numbers, rather than all of them being consistent. Some should have predicted a win for Hillary and others for Obama.

Hey, maybe you are onto something. :) Keep in mind that by bringing this up you are running against the American political culture that refuses to believe that election fraud can happen in the U.S., even when we have documented cases that it has happened in the recent past.

Get ready to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist. :) If it makes you feel better, I am probably going to be accused of the same just for saying that you make a valid point.

Exit polls are taken by picking a few precincts you expect to be "bell whethers" and stationing a few people outside those precicts for a couple of hours to ask voters who they voted for.  You don't stay for the whole time (in this instance exit poll takers asked during the first couple of hours and the last couple of hours of the day).  If the precincts you picked don't actually reflect the rest of the state's voting patterns, your results are going to suck.  They will also suck if a significant portion of voters come in and out of the polls while you're not watching them, or if some people won't take the time to stand around and answer some questions for you instead of, like going to work or going home and putting dinner on the table for their kids?

I don't know what precincts they picked.  If the precincts they picked reported different results individually than what was collected by the surveyors, then that might be worth wondering about.  Otherwise, I'm just going to assume they suck at their jobs.

Hey, remember back when Howard Dean was supposed to win the nomination?  CNN told me so and everything.  Only then he didn't?  How many times do we have to learn, folks?  Don't act like unreliable polls in presidential primaries is somehow new to electoral politics.

I think I understand what you were trying to say.

From Iowa to NH most polls had Hillary down 9 to 10 percent.

After winning last night by 3 percent that was actually a 12 to 13 point swing, which is far beyond any margin of error of 3%-5%. It is a valid point.

The pundits can spin all they want about the youth vote did not show, more woman showed or there was a big turnout of Independants. That is why there is always a margin of error of 3%-5%.

What really got me is your were accussed of promoting a conspiracy, when all you did was show a problem with the Media and Spin machines using polls.

How can someone rise from the dead or comeback when they were never really down because the polls were obviously very very wrong. The logic doesn't fit.

Just because the Clinton camp bought into the polls and the Obama hype doesn't equal a comeback.

Joe Scarborough tried to use some bad logic to explain the "comeback", too. He used the example of the Red Sox coming back to beat the Yankees when they were down 3 games to 0 a few years ago. He equated Clinton with the Red Sox.

Really? The Red Sox were losing....which is a fact, so yes, it's a "comeback."

Obama was leading by sample polls, which are not facts, so no, it's not a "comeback."

Between 7 and 8, before the polls closed, Chris Matthews was openly scoffing at any attempt by Clinton to frame herself as the new Comeback Kid, swearing that the MSM types would get it and denounce it as the cynics they are.  By 11, he was part of the "amazing comeback" chorus, along with Tim "one of the greatest upsets in political history" Russert.  All hype, all the time.

Note: 1) People who call themselves independents are really Republicans -- and will overwhelmingly vote for McCain if he's the nominee; 2) The Doug Wilder factor -- if it is one -- is compounded in this case by Obama's youth and relative inexperience (poll tonight showed that he lost big in the "experience" category in both Iowa and NH, although he won in the "change" category in both). When people get into the voting booth, these concerns come to the fore; 3) Historically, the youth of this country don't vote. For some reason, they have tons of time to go to rock concert-like rallies, but can't spare 15-45 minutes to actually get to a voting booth on election day. Maybe it doesn't seem as "cool" an activity -- definitely is not as social as hanging out at a rally with friends or conversing with people on blogs.; 4) Getting an endorsement from Bill Bradley is like a death knell to one's election chances (I believe Al Gore got Bill Bradley's endorsement as well); 5) The NH primary is much more representative of how the country votes (at least in most primaries) than the Iowa caucuses. In terms of absolute numbers, Hillary has gotten more votes overall over the last week than Obama (because so few people caucus); 6) Politics is local, politics is retail, politics is about loyalty, politics is about organization, politics is about money, politics is about the economy most of all (as James Carville figured out -- BTW, he's back with the Clinton campaign); 7) I think Hillary's speech tonight was the best she's ever given -- when she said she listened to NH voters, and she found her voice, I actually teared up. When she ended it saying she was going to fight for the American people, I started cheering -- I want to fight, not unite!! If I hear Obama talk about the founding fathers anymore, I'm going to throw up! We have to deal with the here and now, especially with an economy that is (and has been) hurting a lot of regular people (polls showed Hillary getting many more votes from blue collar voters and single women, as opposed to the PhD'S and parent-supported students who are so enamored with BO). It's Hillary Clinton's time this time around, not Obama's. Women in this country -- particularly the older ones like me -- are going to make that happen.  

...let's move on with a real campaign focused on the issues and the discernment of who we think can best lead this nation for the next four (eight?!?) years.  The media pundits can shut their pie-holes and let the candidates voices be heard.  My biggest hope coming out of last night is that people will stop relying so heavily on polling with statistically valid samples and focus more on the actual vote tallies from real people.  I'm tired of seeing the "winner" declared a day before the first vote is cast.