is indeed a wanker, as amply demonstrated yet again.

A more general word has to be said about what happened in New Hampshire, however. Even the Clinton and Obama camps themselves thought Obama would win by a significant margin, and many very reputable polls seemed to suggest that. Of course, this doesn't mean that the Clintons would thereby be erased from history or significance, but many very credible people -- with no interest in advancing Obama's candidacy -- did think Obama had a newly won advantage in New Hampshire.

Perhaps the broader question is whether we should be compulsively polling states for primary results before the primaries have actually taken place. I'm not one to say that no one should ever try to prognosticate on the likelihood of certain political outcomes -- this is a natural consequence of fascination with the process. However, I do think the media (and professional pollsters) were somewhat chastened by how embarrassingly wrong they got New Hampshire, and we can only hope this will result in greater caution (I'm not holding my breath).

I also do think that if Obama had decisively won New Hampshire, a state in which Clinton had an almost unparalleled campaign apparatus for a long time, this would have made him nearly unstoppable for the nomination. South Carolina would have followed closely behind, the culinary workers' union in Nevada would have helped him with a further victory there, and it's historically true that winning primaries is all about building momentum. Three or four straight victories by Obama would have made his momentum very difficult to beat, even by a seasoned and well-funded Clinton campaign.

That said, I'm fascinated by what in fact happened in New Hampshire. It has sent shock waves through the campaign and media communities. It will result in a more intensive discussion on the Democratic side, and this can only be a good thing.

If only we can get the media to stop haranguing Hillary Clinton so incessantly. I'm not one of her supporters (though I would be happy if she got the nomination), but she has been the victim of immensely unfair treatment in the media for a very long time.

I'm late, gotta go!

Color me a tad skeptical, although it's at least partially true. It seems clear to me that, on balance, the abusive treatment given to Hillary by the media has harmed her substantially.

My own experiences with others' attitudes reflect the surveys that show she has very high "negatives." Certain acquaintances of mine, when the subject or image of Hillary appears, erupt into the most absurd, juvenile, and irrational vitriol against her -- much of it highly, highly sexist. Grown adults who should know better.

This effect has much to do with not only a default chauvinism, but no doubt also the tireless right wing campaign to sully her image and get the media to join the chorus. Then, the pattern develops into a positive feedback loop, where the higher the number of prominent people that scorn her begets the perception that she is disliked, which begets a grudging avoidance by some of her would-be supporters who fear the baggage of a candidate that is so widely disdained.

I agree with Markos in the following, more limited regard. Isolated incidents such as her tearing up in New Hampshire can tilt the scales of outrage against her attackers. If coincidentally occurring just before an election, it can indeed produce a backlash. In the usual course, however, particularly where Hillary has ignored the attacks or sternly faced them down, all the bile just accumulates and eventually weighs her down by sheer attrition. In spite of her merit and resolve not to succumb to the unfairness, the additional constant force of societal sexism partially isolates her and compounds the relentlessness of the attacks.

Also, whereas similar biases against racial minorities have become taboo (at least in the open), the animus against women still retains enough societal legitimacy to operate with relative freedom. I won't venture to postulate here why open expressions of sexism, in my opinion, have been able to survive more than open racism.

At any rate, Hillary is indeed tough as nails, and I mean this in the best way. Every bit as resilient as her husband, if not moreso due to the added social forces working against her. Count me admittedly among those who emotionally sympathized with her in that vulnerable moment. Also, even though my first choice is Obama, if she does win the nomination, I would love nothing more than for her to have 8 years of magnanimous success as President in the face of all this blind hate.