The Dish

… that Obama is doing better among the smaller big towns.

I’m getting a sinking feeling, as I did in 2004. The exit polls suggested a clear win for Obama. But Clinton is still ahead. Yes, Manchester is strong for her, and is reporting first. But some dread rises …

In the state he’s relying on for his comeback, he’s now fourth.

A reader writes:

You know, reading some of the reactions that my fellow libertarians have had to the TNR piece about Paul’s less-than-savory newsletters makes me wonder why so many of us are pretending that this is actually news. The Kirchick article doesn’t tell us anything that we didn’t already know about our candidate before. The newsletters were no secret before.

As a Paul supporter myself, I think there really isn’t an excuse for not having made a bigger deal about it long ago. Paul was a refreshing candidate in many ways–especially for a movement sorely tired of the mainstream GOP. Too many of us (myself included) overlooked the newsletters because we were too excited about his anti-establishment platform and rhetoric. We were wrong to do that. Very, very wrong.

The backlash from all of this will be harsh, no doubt. It might even leave a long-lasting mark on libertarian conservatism. I think we deserve it.

Ambers has some exit poll data on the Democratic race:

Obama won independents, getting nearly 50% of their votes. Independents comprised about 41% of the Democratic primary vote. But Hillary Clinton won among registered Democrats: 38% to 32%. Clinton wins women narrowly: 40% to 36%.

STUNNER: 47% say Obama is most likely to beat Republicans, compared to 33% for Clinton. But Clinton is still viewed as qualified to be commander in chief: 37% say she’s the most qualified, versus Obama at 27%.

Obama now has electability going for him. But the Clinton machine isn’t dead, and it’s pulling every lever it has.

(Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty.)

That’s the other story to come out of the GOP race:

Statistics compiled by ABC News Political Unit and ABC News’ team of off-air reporters indicate that Giuliani held more events in this first-in-the-nation primary state than any other Republican except for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in neighboring Massachusetts. He also spent more on TV ads than anyone except for Romney and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

And now he’s struggling to beat Ron Paul in the early returns.

A parallel?

You watch him do it. In a conference call today, he said:

"I don’t know what’s going to happen. I know it’s going to be a little closer than people expect. You’ve just got to keep your chin up and keep fighting."

If this primary is not an Obama double-digit win, the Clintons will spin Hillary as the "come-back kid". You can see it coming. Just brace yourself.

Matt Welch has a useful round-up. Radley Balko has his say here. Brian Doherty responds here. Nick Gillespie here. Jesse Walker here. I think all of us of libertarian-conservative bent who have been buoyed by the Ron Paul revolution are disheartened and shocked. On reflection, although I just don’t believe he wrote those repulsive sentences himself, I think Paul needs to explain more. As in: who did write them? Who did publish them? What was the connection between them and the congressman?

I also want to reiterate that those of us who supported the Ron Paul movement find these sentiments despicable. They are emphatically not what we are supporting and have supported – a return to constitutional principles, individual liberty, fiscal prudence and a foreign policy that is not based on war, torture and indefinite occupation of other people’s countries. As I wrote, I think much less of Ron Paul today; but I do not think less of the principles he has expressed and defended in this campaign.