At some point in American politics we have to get beyond this looking over our shoulders stuff.

In 2004 I pledged not to volunteer for another all white, all male ticket.  I don't think that pledge will be an issue this year.

I do think you could make a case that another all white/all male ticket could well result in a "Kerry/Edwards" effect, or a "Gore/Lieberman" effect at the polls.

But, hey, that's just me, huhn?

I could almost feel their suffering when Obama one Iowa, that great midwestern bastion of whiteness, and they feel so redeemed in their beliefs now after his loss in New Hampshire, even though it was very close.  It really is a pitiable thing to watch, as they cling so tenaciously to their beliefs.  Before this, they were saying that Obama isn't really Black, and if he became president it's only because he's light-skinned and half Caucasoid.  Truly pathetic.

I have no doubt that racism was a factor for some, because I know New England, but whether it constituted a deciding factor or even a major contributing factor is doubtful in my mind. I would need to see some evidence of that, and I haven't seen any exit polls that prove it. I think the media coverage, the undecideds, and the fact that so many independents decided to participate in the Republican side of the primary, because they thought Obama had it easy, was probably the deciding factors.

The pollsters obviously underestimated Hillary Clinton's support, and I guess you could say that they estimated Barack Obama support pretty well at 36%, but I believe that it was the  the women who saw Hillary cry, coupled with the fact that the media was going on and on about how it would be over if Barack Obama won New Hampshire, prompting many people to perhaps change their vote in the hopes of keeping Hillary's campaign going.

What ever the reason, I can honestly say that I'm glad this is going to be a real fight, because that's what America deserves, to have our candidates battling and working for our votes, with passion and fire.  That's how you get people interested and motivate them to participate in their democracy.

It sure is up in the air, and I hope it stays that way through super Tuesday.  Though I must admit I'm feeling worn out already, I've never had this much emotionally invested in a political campaign, and it's leaving me more than a bit drained.  But I suppose that's the price you pay for democracy.  :-)

This being said, I also don't believe Hillary's emotional moment had anything to do with her win.  The internals show only about 20% of the voters decided in the last three days, and of them she and Obama split the vote.  Assuming these numbers are correct, that means that moment had nothing to do with her win, unless they were all planning to vote for Obama and then switched.

Now, I understand I will probably upset a lot of people with this following statement; but there are some fishy things about these results.  Namely, that Obama won in towns with paper ballots by a margin of 83% to 45% and lost in towns using diebold machines by a margin of 59% to 38%.  Now You can find the raw data here for the votes http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/nh/nh_primary_dem_results_by_town/
and here for the towns that use diebold vs. paper ballot.   http://www.bbvdocs.org/NH/state/Jan-08-votingsystems-NH.txt

This combined with all the polls being wrong gives me pause.  I know I will be chided as a conspiracy theorist by a lot of you, but what occurred last night was odd - and in more ways than just the sudden swell of support for Hillary.

She may have won with older, blue-collar Catholic women. But given her identification with abortion, it still comes as a surprise. On the other hand, white Catholics have a fraught history when it comes to race relations, and Obama's channeling of the Protestant social gospel may not resonate with them. Catholics have been a "homeless" voting bloc since the Kennedy era, so their choices are significant.

Clinton is still doing well among women (particularly older and married women), traditional Democrats, voters over 40, and among lower-middle income white voters without college degrees who are worried about the economy. Obama is doing fabulously among the young and very well among independents and upscale Independents. Both of these can also be important blocs for a Democrat to win in the fall.

Here are the groups in which Obama enjoyed a significant margin over Clinton: men, young voters (18-24), voters making more than $50,000, voters with post-graduate education (a good indication of professionals), independents, first time voters, voters without religious affiliation, men without children and single men, voters who said they were getting ahead financially, voters who thought the war in Iraq was the most important issue, who wanted change, and who wanted someone who could unite the country.

Late NH Polls Missed Clinton Upswing

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said he thought low-income, less-educated voters who declined to be interviewed by pollsters were likelier to be reluctant to admit they would not vote for a black candidate. Pew is a nonpartisan polling organization that did no late surveys in New Hampshire.

"You can't rule this out as an issue," Kohut said. In Iowa, "Obama was not the front-runner. He was not such a symbol, perhaps threateningly, to people who don't like blacks that he might be president."

Centrist Dems and left-leaning indies went back to Hillary, moderate Pubs and right-leaning indies voted for McCain or Romney, and perhaps even more than a few progressives went back to Edwards, disenchanted by his seeming willingness to make nice with the other side (i.e. Pubs, corporations, neocons, etc.).

Why did they do this? Well, it's easy to understand why progressives might have left him for anyone who's been reading this or other leftie blogs recently. The media Hillary bashing, her "crying episode", Obama's regretable "You're likeable enough, Hillary" comment in the debate, and perhaps a sense among more conservative Dem-voting types that he wasn't quite ready for prime time, would have shifted votes to Hillary. And McCain's recent "surge" and the media's "comeback kid" meme surrounding him, along with a similar sense that he just wasn't ready for the presidency, might have shifted votes to McCain (or perhaps Romney).

I.e. his strategy proved lacking. It was great at attracting lots of enthusiastic soft supporters, but when it came down to voting, many of these them proved unwilling to go all the way and vote for him.

It was a combination of gender and "not so fast, Iowa."