Well the first test of the Presidential election is over, and pundits like Tim Russert are ready to call the race for Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee. The way they are talking on the news this morning you'd think it was the last primary, not the first caucus. Once again the media is hyping this thing up to overblown proportions, that is until the New Hampshire Primary.

Take a look at Hillary's situation - Russert and others are saying that losing in Iowa is a "huge Blow" to her chances. How? Look back to the 1992 Presidential Race: Bill Clinton did not even campaign in Iowa (Tom Harkin's state), Bill Clinton did not win in New Hampshire (Paul Tsongas), yet he won the Presidency - remember the comeback kid speach?. At this point in the 2004 election the pundits were still in love with Howard Dean - how did that turn out?

So how can these so-called experts, you know, the same guys who screwed up the 2000 election coverage, come on the air and talk using such certainty? What if Huckabee gives a Dean-like "yee haw" after the next primary? Or if his supporter Chuck Norris ends up giving Mitt Romney a roundhouse kick to the head? There is still a lot of ground to cover and these guys are basing the whole election on how a bunch of Mid-West farmers are voting - and don't get me started on that retarded caucus system.

So, fellow angry ones out there you have a homework assignment: Keep track of the hype going into New Hampshire's primary and then notice the language the pundits use after the vote. In my mind the media is forcing the American public to vote for the candiates they like - regardless of political party. Yet another example, along with all the political polls, of the tail trying to wag the dog.