Some interesting reactions this morning. Excerpts:
It's Hillary. I'll admit to being surprised, along with a lot of other people. Clinton deserves kudos for coming back from behind after Iowa. I still think she'd be a terrible candidate in the general election. She does well among Democrats, but not with independents or wavering Republicans (unlike Obama), which is crucial to look at when thinking of the general election.
For the Democrats, Obama is virtually their next Jack Kennedy in his charisma and message. Edwards offers a strong populist stance for the little guy. Hillary just offers you the 1990s.
My Pet Goat (AKA wayward)
It was a little disappointing, but not too bad.
There's still a lot more primaries to go, so I'm not going to despair and give up on the rest of humanity just yet. I hope that my Lemming Theory of Primary Voting doesn't hold true this time (Namely, that once a candidate is seen as "THA BEEEEG WINNAH AND THA SURE BET!", stupid people who don't think much about things other than, say, who's winning on Survivor will mindlessly vote their way).
I'm also not going to think about the fact that the Democratic winner of the New Hampshire primary usually goes on to be the nominee.
Damn you, rank and file Democrats. Now I'm going to be indgestive, gassy, and crabby for the rest of the month.
Any others I've missed?
flattie (http://flattie.livejournal.com/) is still unsure ...
moon_grrl,
There is still hope. Only twice since 1976 has the Democratic winner of the New Hampshire gone on to win the presidency.
She might hurt you for that....
:)