I was wrong. Obama's Iowa victory did not spark the unifying, bandwagon effect among Democrats I was expecting.

FireDogLake makes the key observation of the night: the big shift in the women's vote from Iowa to New Hampshire.

In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton among women, 35%-30%. In New Hampshire, Clinton won 47%-34%. (Women were 57% of the Dem electorate in both states.)

This gender shift was not picked up in the recent polling. Zogby's Monday tracking poll had Clinton with only a slight lead over Obama among women, within the margin of error.

That would indicate something happened in the last 24-48 hours to rally women behind Clinton.

It's speculation on my part, but a number of sexist attacks and sleights, real and/or perceived, have occurred in the recent days, may have been the catalyst.

-- Chris Matthews' badgering/pinching of Clinton (called out by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night)

-- John Edwards' criticism of Clinton's emotional moment, saying "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve."

-- The "Iron My Shirt" hecklers.

-- The Edwards-Obama gang-up against Clinton in Saturday's debate.

-- The seeming overall sense of giddiness at her anticipated political demise among much of the media.

All of that perhaps fed the notion advanced by Gloria Steinem's New York Times op-ed: that the most experienced and qualified candidate was being held back because of her gender.

Obama's New Hampshire concession speech had a notable difference from his Iowa victory speech. In the section detailing his top priorities, last night he added:

We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success.

We can stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support. We can do this with our new majority.

Bet on a greater focus on issues that matter to women voters.