I haven't followed this in any great detail, but perhaps some of the more politically addicted can enlighten me. I'm writing this from the perspective (perhaps skewed) of how the deck is stacked for and against certain candidates.

Seems to me that a couple of things are true. First, the "big loser" in Iowa is Clinton--having been treated as "inevitable" for the past year, a loss like that has to sting. The press will also probably be piling on, looking for a way to take her out.

Second, the big winner is Edwards, whose message of populism flat-out beat a fundraising juggernaut. His message resonates, and it's got to be terrifying. Super tuesday could kill him, as his organization can't possibly handle all those states at once, but his message resonates. That has to scare the living daylights out of a lot of interest groups. That to me is the real story in this, and one that is just not being reported at all. The WaPo this morning was all Clinton/Obama.

Third, Obama won--but the stories of his win don't really jibe with an electoral landslide. His turnout strategy worked, and at least some of his supporters are fanatics. All of Edwards' supporters, however, are that way. And no matter how you slice it, the press loves him--fickle though they may be. How long that love affair lasts is anyone's guess.