Some overnight analysis.

Peter Wallsten in the LA Times crunches the numbers.

The turnout was 80 percent larger than 2004’s big turnout.

Wallsten: “Long viewed as an insular process dominated by longtime political activists, Thursday’s first-in-the-nation voting event of the 2008 campaign turned out to be a forum for unaffiliated voters and first-time participants to say they were looking for something new and different. One-fifth of the Democratic caucus participants were independents, according to a media survey taken as voters entered precincts Thursday night — and of them, 41% backed Obama and just 17% opted for Clinton. Moreover, 57% of caucus-goers said it was their first time taking part, and first-time caucus-goers made up two-thirds of Obama’s supporters.”

Read that last clause again and marvel. Two-thirds of his supporters had never caucused before.

Politico’s Ben Smith et al talk to Clinton people and get a look at the strategy.

It’s quite simple, actually: Go negative. But is there time for it to work?

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic also gets some inside dope on the strategy shift.

Here is Clinton’s game plan:

1. Swarm the state with surrogates; she has a deeper network in New Hampshire than any other state.
2. Two rallies a day; lots of retail events; lots of television interviews.
3. Find some way to go negative against Obama. Some Clinton advisers and aides say that the campaign have a storehouse of opposition research — old and new — that they’ll use against Obama. In Iowa, being directly associated with negative attacks is seen as uncouth and un-Midwestern; in New Hampshire, rude remarks as as welcome as questions and answers.
4. Claim that Clinton never had a shot in Iowa because of the state’s historical bias against women (it’s only one of two to never have elected a woman as governor or member of Congress); that Edwards had cornered the Democratic vote and that Obama ran against the Democratic party and cornered the Democratic leading independents; that for a New Yorker to receive 25 percent of the vote or her is impressive (although.. I distinctly remember an HRC mailing calling her a Midwesterner).
By the way: Since 1972, four of nine Democratic nominees have finished second or worse in Iowa; but those four all finished first or second in New Hampshire; the calendar was much more drawn out in those cycles.
5. Point to Clinton’s strength in New York, California and Florida; point out that Obama is bad in debates and that in contests that don’t rely on retail politicking, she has an edge.
6. Run against the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee; in other words, who’s better to face McCain: Clinton or Obama?
7. Women, women, women. Playing the gender card again.
8. Have really, really good debate performances.

Back to Coolican: Too bad for John Edwards. Despite his second place finish, he’s being written off already by Obama and Clinton, and the national media seems to be affirming that opinion. Yes, he put a lot of resources into Iowa and needed a win, but didn’t Clinton put more resources into Iowa and come in third? The logic of Edwards being out while Clinton is still in is a little obscure and, to my mind, a little group-thinky.