Iowa and New Hampshire Analysis

From Real Clear Politics:

Clearly, last night was the embodiment of what we've been sensing all along: this is an election about change. But last night was also the triumph of authenticity in both parties: the two winners were candidates who were not the most experienced, did not speak in terribly specific policy terms, but nevertheless were the most real and most sincere in their pitch to - and ultimately in their connection with - the voters of Iowa.

Last night we saw the result of the 'authenticity gap' in this race. Mitt Romney spent $7 million in Iowa touting himself as a candidate of conservative values and came away with only 25% of the vote. Hillary spent $6.7 million trying to portray herself as an agent of change and finished in third place with under thirty percent support. Voters simply did not buy the repackaging of these two candidates and instead opted for candidates who were, to use a cliche, exactly who they said they were.

Yeah - I've never really gotten over my nagging feeling that Romney doesn't really believe all the conservative things that he's now saying, and that he's only saying them now because he thinks that's what Republican Primary voters want to hear.

New Hampshire is going to be interesting - that's usually the Primary whose voters have the most finely tuned BS detectors.  Polling currently has John McCain - another "genuine" candidate - with a slim lead. If Romney loses New Hampshire, I don't know if his campaign can recover.

Clinton also has a small lead, but the trend is that she's quickly losing ground to Obama.  If Obama wins New Hampshire, then I think the nomination is his.

This is the most compressed Primary election schedule in history, but the news cycle also moves much more quickly than it ever has.  Is there enough time between now and Tuesday for a major changes in the dynamic?