N.H. postmortem

I was talking to my dad last night at around 10:30pm, when it was looking like Hillary would—as she ended up doing—win New Hampshire. My dad remarked that, going into the primary, polls were showing Obama to have as much as a 13 percent lead over Hillary. So what happened to that lead?, my dad asked me. His theory was that Hillary, in her rare display of emotion and vulnerability the day before the primary, may have won the women back to her side. And, according to this NY Times article, my dad was half right, if not more—Hillary did win back the Democratic women of New Hampshire, though just how and why are not speculated upon.

David D. Kirkpatrick, with Megan Thee, writes in this Times piece:

Democratic women rallied around Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, according to statewide exit polls, confounding expectations and providing her margin of victory over Senator Barack Obama.

In contrast to polling results in the Iowa caucuses, half the women who voted in the Democratic primary gave her their support, the polls showed. Four in 10 voters said Mrs. Clinton was most qualified to be commander-in-chief, while 3 in 10 said the same of Mr. Obama.

Now, my question is: Was Hillary's display of emotion genuine? Or was it merely the last, best card she had to play? I dunno, and really we can't ever know; we can't ever truly know anyone's inner motivations and thoughts—oftentimes we only barely know our own. But what do the readers of this blog (both of them) think? Were they crocodile tears, or the real deal Holyfield?