The fact that the polls didn't pick up the Hillary shift in New Hampshire doesn't surprise me, because I can easily imagine myself telling pollsters one thing and changing my mind in the voting booth. Here's why:
For the first time ever, I find myself really enthused about the top three Democratic candidates. Being completely honest here: I like Hillary because of her health-care plan, her experience in the White House, the fact that she would be the first woman president, her strength of character and her cred as a fighter for the Democratic party. I like Obama because he is inspiring in a way that could make him the next JFK or FDR (in a good way), because he strikes me as having outstanding judgement and intelligence, and because he would be the first black president. And Edwards, although he is looking a little one-dimensional lately, is on target in his crusade from the left.
The downsides are not major, but here they are: I think Edwards is looking weak on foreign policy. I'm not crazy about all of the people surrounding Hillary, and boy wouldn't it be great to finally have a candidate who doesn't have the baggage of the Vietnam era? And Obama was making me uncomfortable with his adoption of some right-wing talking points on Social Security and health care, although he seems to have changed his tone somewhat. None of these are deal-breakers.
Maybe I'm being shallow, but I want them all to be president. I don't honestly think Edwards has a chance, but he is a much-needed progressive influence on the party. But that leaves me with Hillary and Obama. Logically, to have both would mean eight years of Hillary, since she may not have a second chance, followed by eight years of a more-experienced Obama. But my heart is torn between them, and my preference shifts daily. So if New Hampshire voters are experiencing the same thing, then it's really no surprise.
The good news is, this is the first time I've ever experienced the complete opposite of the "lesser of two evils" conundrum when it comes to election time.