Mark Halperin of Time rounds up what went wrong with the polling and the punditry.

“Didn’t factor in the 24 hours of tears? The fact that New Hampshirites like to make news? That independents turned out for McCain and Clinton as well as for Obama? That without Huckabee as a factor, the McCain-Romney fight was taken more seriously in the end? That all those comments that she was bussing in people from New York and Massachusetts to pad the crowds were the nonsense some always suspected them to be? That Bill Clinton acting out and saying crazy things reminded people that they were once sympathetic to his wife? That her debate performance was mocked by the pundits but loved by the voters? The lingering impression of Billy Shaheen’s pre-Iowa words? The shadowy hand of Michael Whouley? The appeal of Clinton to 20 somethings? The “doer versus talker” message?  All those prominent women supporters in a state that has a lot of women elected leaders? The Chris Matthews hug? That Obama has limited appeal to blue-collar Democrats in places like Epping? That she took questions in town meetings at the end, which New Hampshire voters really like? That Obama had a Tom Bradley-Doug Wilder problem? More coming….”

And this from Marty Kaplan on Huffington Post: “No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton, no matter how this
campaign turns out, there is undeniable satisfaction in watching the
pundit class being forced to eat the words of its premature obituaries.
The strategists who were called morons are suddenly geniuses again. The
candidate and her husband, who were the subject of such undisguised
journalistic venom just 24 hours ago, are suddenly worthy of awe again.
The donors who dissed her are wondering whether they can retract with
impunity. The White House staffers-in-waiting who danced on her grave
are hoping they said nothing incriminating on the record.”