So, what happened?

The analysts and pundits have are taking the results of the New Hampshire apart; I don't pretend to have their knowledge or skills. But here's a brief take:

Were Hillary's feistiness in Saturday night's debate, and the break in her voice in answering a question on Monday important? Probably. I agree, however, with the person (with so many commenting, I am sorry but I can't recall who it was) who said that New Hampshire voters did not want the Democratic campaign to end. I, and other enthusiastic Obama supporters, DID want to end it in New Hampshire: we wanted to put a hurt on Clinton's campaign and build up unstoppable momentum. But I think that Granite State voters wanted to give the country a better look at our guy--or, rather, that they were sufficiently unsure of their so-far short acquaintance with him that they did not want to make him the nominee in only the second contest. In that sense, the polls and the comments of the pundits hurt Obama.

That reasoning would explain one of the most surprising findings from the exit polls yesterday: that Clinton and Obama split the late-deciders evenly. Political wisdom teaches that the challenger always wins among those who are undecided late; if a voter is going to be for the incumbent, he or she would is likely to have decided well before the voting. Clinton is the equivalent of an in incumbent in the Democratic race--the candidate that voters have known well for years. On Tuesday, logic was turned on its head.