Put a sock in the polls?

The day of the NH primaries I was telling somebody that it was going to wrap up the Democratic nomination for Obama, who could not be stopped in South Carolina after winning both Iowa and NH, which would lock up Florida and make even a tie on Feb. 5 end it (and leave us more time to appreciate the unfolding bar fight in the Republican coalition) - and I was obviously shocked by the huge swing back to Clinton. Could that really be an opinion shift in response to Clinton's televised effusiveness? Or was it the subconscious pull of race, as I just heard a commentator suggest on NPR?

I think it would be awesome if the dysfunction of the polls just before NH has chilled the punditry out of their penchant for reading into polls with confidence and saying outlandish things that are all-too-soon forgotten, thus nudging the discourse of the campaign a wee bit toward the substance. (Does more claptrap mean a net gain for Edwards? Obama and Clinton are articulate, but that Edwards, what a talker!)

From the outset of the campaign, I have found Richardson an interesting candidate, and it would be nice if this brief reassessment phase after the NH primary allows more people to make note of his resume, which includes an unparalleled range of experience. I also think that Clinton should be open to being the VP part of the equation, given that her experience in elected office is not that great either and that she is not at all old enough that we might fear she'd be too old to take the job in eight years (she does look great for her age, folks). I mean let's face it, people, waiting eight years wouldn't exactly deny her the opportunity to deal with dire threats to the health of the nation and globe during her own tenure as president. Plus, we are in the age of the consequential VP, are we not?