Whazzup, New Hampshire?
Reports indicate that turnout in New Hampshire is way up this morning, the weather is good. Which seems to bode well for Obama, who benefitted (I guess you could say that's an understatement) from high turnout in Iowa.
Will it be a drubbing? Markos Moulitsas thinks so. But Jerome Armstrong says the race is far from over.
The Clinton campaign flailed wildly yesterday, trying to find some traction. They may have staunched the bleeding a bit with pushback against the misogynistic reaction to Hillary crying, which seemed to dominate the news cycle. And New Hampshire does have a special fondness for the Clintons, but whether their affection for the "comeback kid" will accrue to Hillary is unknown.
The fact that the culinary workers in Nevada are going to go for Obama (as Tim Russert reported this morning) is bad news for Clinton. She needed Nevada and probably won't take it now, and South Carolina is sure to be a rout.
Meanwhile, Edwards is the only candidate who has been consistently climbing in the national polls since before the Iowa caucuses. As FlaDem points out, Obama's bounce is predictable for anyone who won Iowa -- while the Edwards rise seems to be the result of more people hearing his message and liking it. (Although having seen Obamamania up close and personal in Iowa, I don't think that accounts for all of it.)
But will the press cover the Edwards surge? Doubtful. They seem quite disinterested in him.
Give it a go, let us have your predictions in the comments so you can point back to how right you were when the polls close. There's no way you could possibly be as wrong as Mark Penn.
(video by BraveNewFilms, "Fox Attacks Obama Staffer")
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com