The Media's Katrina?

"Marianne Pernold tells 630 WMAL's Chris Core she truly believes that Senator Hillary Clinton's emotional response to her question at a meeting in New Hampshire was genuine . . . Pernold tells 630 WMAL she still voted for Barack Obama, because she had attended one of his rallies earlier in the week, and she claims Obama's stirring speech brought HER to tears!"

Looks like the right celebrated Hillary's demise a bit too quickly. The Weekly Standard's cover--"The Fall of the House of Clinton"--appears a tad premature.

"That was quick," says Fred Barnes. "The Clinton era was over for a grand total of five days. It was nice while it lasted."

Blogger AJ Strata is rooting for her:

"Hillary's win in NH was a squeaker -- but what it actually does is breathe new life into the GOP. The Obama juggernaut was going to be tough to take on. The 'change' fever sweeping the nation is not going to want to see Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton . . . I, as an impure conservative, prefer the GOP battle Clinton. Or at least I would like to see Obama take some hits before he wins the nomination. So win for Hillary is a win for the GOP."

At the New Republic, Jonathan Cohn sees Hillary in a new light:

"Over the last few days, I've heard more than one person suggest that Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama's perfect foil -- old to his young, establishment to his insurgency, shrill to his smooth, and so on. In other words, her weaknesses almost perfectly highlighted his strengths. I think that's all true.

"But watching Clinton speak to her supporters just now, it struck me that the opposite holds, as well. This was the best speech I've seen her give, maybe ever. It was clever, for sure -- the way she managed to hit 'reset' on the entire campaign by declaring she 'found her voice' in New Hampshire. But it also presented her as a clear alternative to Obama -- substance to his style, down-and-dirty work to his lofty inspiration, and so on . . .

"I certainly won't predict how it all ends Like all those geniuses you hear on the talk shows, I had figured this race was over. Obviously, it isn't."

Obviously.

Atlantic's Marc Ambinder poses a series of questions:

"The press eats crow; those who declared Clinton dead (me?) and Romney alive (me?) have some explaining to do. But the polls were right on the GOP side and wrong on the Republican side.

"Was there a racial premium in Obama's support? Did whites in New Hampshire overstate their actual support for him?

"Was the press really unfair to HRC? Can the events of one news cycle change an entire race? (HRC crying) . . . Did women revolt as women?"

And maybe, says Dick Polman, it's as basic as this:

"Whereas the Iowa caucus participants may have felt that Hillary was behaving like an entitled royal on route to her coronation, and rejected her accordingly, the New Hampshire voters may have warmed to Hillary because they sensed she had been rendered human."

Mark Halperin's advice to Obama includes:

"Do not go into 'four corners' like he did in last 48 hours in New Hampshire - especially when it comes to access with the press (access or lack thereof is how the press determines whether a candidates is or is not likeable regardless of whether one is in fact indeed likable - see George W. Bush in 2000."

Oh, and Bill Richardson is out.