Clinton was virtually tied in Iowa since she was in second place and only one delegate (out of 4,049) behind Obama (16 to 15). Contrary to the MSM reports, Edwards was in third place in Iowa wtih 14 delegates. (This is not counting superdelegates for any of them of which Clinton has the most.) So with 15 delegates meaning she was 1 delegate behind Obama's 16, Clinton was 6.25% behind Obama in Iowa. Not the "huge" win or the huge lead that the MSM and the Obama campaign made it out to be. In this picture of reality, Obama's campaign should never have allowed themselves to be sucked into that fairytale whirlwind of a "huge" win.
In primaries, the difference in the number of votes doesn't count at all if the % is less than the percentile needed to get a delegate. Thus in New Hampshire, where the 2% vote difference was not enough to award an extra delegate, the result between Clinton and Obama was actually a tie with 9 delegates each, not a win for Clinton. The so-called 2% "stunning victory" was an illusion since Clinton really needed about a 4.25% lead just to get one more delegate than Obama for a real win. Since New Hampshire was a dead heat tie for delegates and came off a virtual tie in Iowa, there was no great fall behind and no great upset win. Both sides of the Iowa-New Hampshire story of great ups and downs were made up by the MSM and pundits like Russert to create sizzle out of whole cloth.