I agree that this works both ways - I would certainly not say that Iowa was "no big deal" - both were very significant and also last minute surprises.

I'm not trying to play down the significance of these 2 races, or the potential impact they will have on future races.

My main point is that I feel the media is largely ignoring the fact that this is a VERY CLOSE election - the candidates are at 25 and 24 delegates each, but the media narrative has shifted from the totally wrong "Obama has a runaway victory" after Iowa, to the equally wrong "Clinton has a runaway victory" after NH.

I simply think the media ought to tell the whole story responsibly.

Clearly becuase of her white female privledge status she knew she could slam MLK with immunity partly becuase Obama is afraid to fire back and defend his Black credentials he has handcuffed himself but of course I have not...

Hillary's revisionist history to step on MLK to was a move to remind white voters that as a white person she could do that was quite revealing on a number of fronts...

Hillary knew as the spouse of a southern male collateral attacks on MLK affirms white southerns who still resent taking it on the chin because of King's legacy... Hillary made a move like her hubby( as governor) when he refused to commute a black mentally ill male from the death penalty in Arkansas to prove to southern whites he was still a 'law and order" white candidate..

White female privledge is really a sore subject when you discuss it with Black woman inparticular those young credentialed Black females in the job market..

Hillary's selfishness as no boundaries..

In America's pecking order as a white female of privledge HRC could never sacrifice her agenda for the greater good. White females in part because of thier inherent whiteness and thier history of riding on the coatails of white males, have always used this vicarious racial power to leverage themselves at the expense of all others especially Blacks.

HRC as a privledged white woman has an entitlement mindset with regard to Blacks, she feels we owe her ... Hillary had the audacity to toss MLK under the bus to remind Black folks that at the end of the day LBG freed our Black asses . LBG of course was a southern white male like her husband.

White feminist's never connected with Black woman becuase of this surrogate white male demeanor they displayed when they interact with Black woman. Black woman are often victimized twice by white feminists with thier sexism and racism towards them.

Hillary does not have the courage to step back for the country and share power with Obama, she is a reflection and a parrot of her surrogate white male role model who of course rejects any degree of parity and equality with non-whites.

Only a white woman playing the gender card like Hillary would have the audacity to slamm MLK knowing the good negro Obama would not strike back. I gues she knew as a white famale since Obama's mother is white like her she could leverage herself to the degree that she has..

Walter you'll take a Hillary win any way you can get it -even if it was thanks to Diebold.

Here's the first line from pollster.com

New Hamshire, "There is a problem here."

The pollsters smell a rat. And rather than contest the outcome we should seek to look to and admit to the truth.

The likely answer?

Hillary got her butt whooped good. Diebold rose to the Bush doctrine of 'play dirty or don't play at all', and since they had the pleasure of counting 81% of the votes, they reversed the 38% for Obama with the 59% Clinton -something Diebold does easily.

The reversal of those figures matched all of the polls and matched with the results from the hand counted votes.

The pollsters say they'll find the truth -we shall see.

Ardent, were you also saying that Iowa was essentially "no big deal" instead of an Obama blow-out because the delegates went: Obama 16; Clinton 15; Edwards 14?

The popular vote tallies are more important than the delegate counts because the popular vote, and how it is parsed, is a better indicator of electability.

And I don't know why our current primary system lets a state like Iowa with its crazy caucus system get so much attention.

I am completely baffled by the media reports of Clinton's victory and Obama's defeat - didn't they get 9 delegates each?

Is my understanding correct that there is no "winner-take-all" at work in NH?

It seems to me that in the terms that actually matter, that's a draw, not a victory or defeat. Perhaps someone can explain why pretty much every media outlet is painting this as a win for one and loss for the other, because I truly fail to understand.

There's a lot of moronic hype going around. Hillary wins a plurality -- not a majority -- by 2%, and there's "gape-jaw amazement"? Where is this crap coming from? As for her no-actual-tears emotional moment: Jesus, don't people have anything real to talk about? I watched it and thought, "Wow, it's a real human being sitting there. Where has SHE been hiding?" In short, I liked it. A lot. And she was absolutely right. Elections are serious business; every American's future is at stake.

I'm not a big supporter, on the other hand, because she's too polarizing on the right. We don't need any more of that, and a Clinton-Huckabee race is my worst nightmare. He's just a lot more likable. It shouldn't matter; he's a superstitious idiot, after all... but likeability DOES matter. Democrats would do better with Obama or Edwards, and that's just bloody obvious, IMHO.

Voters there are very independent and have played the game a long time. Many would have voted for Obama did not assuming based on the polling he would win and instead went for McCain out of sentimentality and to put an end to Mitt the man with the magic underwear and Barack Obama racks up some endorsements set him up nicely in Nevada and nationally and his "concession speech" was beautiful and briliant. 2008 will mirror 1968 in many ways.Young people will show up to participate and vote not just for the fun stuff and that is the Obama victory, the have not the taint of Viet Nam and are not so cynical as to not believe we can move on.