I'm an Edwards supporter, with Obama a close second choice and Clinton coming in third. BUT I think all three of our top contenders are strong and progressive, so I don't think I'll be crushed if my guy doesn't win or if Hillary ends up being our nominee.
That said, I'd like to speculate a bit on some thoughts about Hillary's comeback in New Hampshire. Folks doing much more informed analysis of turnouts and demographics and such from the exit polls have been focusing on gender, race, age, change, experience, tears, news cycles, media backlash plus all the usual suspects. But I wonder if Hillary's secret ace in the hole might not have been the very worrying economic news that has been reported since the start of the new year. The new unemployment figures came out o January 5, two days after the Iowa caucuses; the djia has fallen about 12% since October -- and a big chunk of that decline happened between January 5 and January 8 (with a big 200+ point drop on NH primary day itself); Christmas is over but the bills remain; and the economy was cited by a lot of voters as their chief concern. Those voters, as I recall, broke for Hillary.
So while the "experience vs. change" theme seems to break in Obama's direction, economic concerns seem to go the other way. One way to understand that divide (given that all three of our top contenders take policy positions that at least seem to focus on the middle class and working poor) is that Clinton's longer track record (and yes, years in the White House as first lady) give voters the idea that she has the needed experience (and expertise) to manage the economy better than either Edwards or Obama, both of whom have powerful ideas but in some ways slimmer resumes.
It's just a thought. I'm no political scientist or economist either. But the role of economic anxiety seems to be under-discussed in our analyses of what's stirring in the country.