So about that NH primary

It's hard not to be overcome with disappointment at last night's surprising win by Hillary Clinton, but I'm trying to be very zen about the whole thing. (Considering I am not a very zen person at all, you should understand this is far more difficult than it sounds.)

First, while Clinton certainly defied expectations from even her own campaign and got the storyline she desperately wanted--Comeback Kid, part 2--the reality is that the results were incredibly close and the two candidates received the same number of delegates. All that this result really does is ensure that Obama is not yet the foregone conclusion that Kerry was by this point in 2004.

Second, boy don't all those political prognosticators look foolish. They had already written the obituary on Clinton's candidacy, and we all believed them. Hell, at Manuel's last night we were already discussing who Obama would choose as VP! And then a funny thing happened on the way to the landslide...the voters had their say. I can't help but be encouraged when massive turnout happens in the first two states, it means that people are engaged and interested in the political process and want to have their say. And this is a nice lesson to us all to forget about letting the press dictate the story of how the campaign's going to go.

Third, I am already sick to death of hearing about the "Bradley effect" and it's only the day after the first primary. I would like to believe that in this day and age, it's not true that a significant portion of white folks would lie to a pollster in claiming to support a black candidate, and then go into the booth and pull the lever for the white one. Haven't we grown past that? And didn't the exit polls belie that notion already by showing that white men still voted overwhelmingly for Obama? If this turns into a discussion of how older white women are harboring secret racism, no good will come of it. I'd much rather believe that many women made up their minds late than believe it had anything to do with racial discomfort.

Fourth, along similar lines, if this win is credited to the near tears on Monday I will be so annoyed. Just as I didn't want anyone to vote against Hillary Clinton because she almost cried, I don't want anyone to vote for her because she almost cried. And if we have weeks of staged emotional outbursts to look forward to thanks to the "tear tactics" working out for her, I will be so pissed.

Finally, this will ultimately have a good outcome for the voting public and the Democratic party. We want a vigorous and engaging primary battle--one where the voters know that turning out to the polls will actually matter in their state, where they get visits by the candidates and press coverage of the candidates and where they really engage with who they have to choose from. Even though I know there is concern about spending too much money on the primary and about taking friendly fire that hurts the eventual nominee in the general election...John Kerry had both of those advantages in 2000 and it didn't mean diddly squat to the eventual outcome. The vast majority of the country didn't really engage in the primary process, didn't get to know Kerry at all until the convention, and then had no real connection with him or his campaign when the real adversity of the general election sets in. The money will come in the general no matter who the nominee is, and I'd rather have a battle-tested candidate than someone who we have to guess how they will respond to real adversity. So, bring on the fight.

I guess my concern about waiting for the other shoe to drop was a little too prescient, huh?