Comments on: Why Iowa is Still a Win for Edwards

By: Heather

Heather — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:14:31 +0000

Thanks Tom and Jamess for coming by and reading and commenting, I appreciate the thumbs up

By: Bladerunner

Bladerunner — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:19:14 +0000

Heather–yes, “let his wife,” meaning instead of doing it himself as opposed to your inference of muzzling. I wouldn’t want John to muzzle Elizabeth any more than you would want Hillary to muzzle Bill. Or would you? The only muzzle here was apparently self-imposed by the candidate and now he’s taken it off and taken aim at Barak. Nothing wrong with that–as you say, its a candidates job to define differences. I’m just glad he finally has done it, although it may be too little, too late for him. But it will, interestingly, help Obama, who needs some testing in the primary to see if he can take a punch and get up off the canvass. And who knows, Edwards might recover with his Seabrook style no nukes, more kooks campaign in New Hampshire. And if he recovers, Denver is going to be one exciting city this summer.

By: thesunkenroad (formerly known as "james" til somebody showed up with "james s" ... "s" also being my initial)

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:30:29 +0000

I don’t think anyone is “afraid” of Edwards. I think probably Obama knew he had to co-opt Edwards to win. They’re both winners here. Clinton is lost. I know she might recover, but I’m willing to bet she won’t. I prefer Edwards’ populism and his working-class origins to Obama. But Obama is really interesting, a fine orator, and had the nerve to oppose the Iraq War when millions of us were and millions more were blaming Iraq for 9-11 and denouncing us. I’m not impressed at all with the “lack of experience” charge. Clinton’s experience is her problem, as far as I am concerned. I share and appreciate Obama’s community organizing background, though I hear he might be a bit thinner on that experience than he has admitted. He’s gonna get beaten up now (Obama). We’ll see how well he takes a punch… soon I guess. But I’ll vote for either of these guys (Edwards or Obama).

By: Heather

Heather — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:50:34 +0000

“Edwards let his wife”? Should he have muzzled her? She’s a very important part of his campaign, just as Hillary was to Bill. What is crazy to me is when people take digs at Elizabeth’s involvement in the campaign are the same people who probably point to Hillary’s time as first lady as part of her experience.

I consider Elizabeth to be a major asset to John and she speaks her mind. She doesn’t have to seek permission to do so and it says a lot to me about John and his ability to be an equal to his wife.

It’s politics, he has to define a difference, as a candidate it’s his job.

By: Bladerunner

Bladerunner — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:34:35 +0000

Not to fear Heather, your candidate doesn’t turn the other cheek. Whereas before Edwards let his wife do most of the Obama bashing, the post-Iowa Edwards mantra is Obama and Clinton are corporate Democrats, Obama and Clinton are for nuclear power, etc. etc.

No one is ever going to say that the Wolfpack candidate isn’t a fighter.

By: Heather

Heather — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:56:03 +0000

The Obama people realize that the longer Edwards is in the race the longer it will take to defeat Hillary. The second choice of most Edwards people is Obama, not Clinton. As the Obama spinmeisters were feverishly spinning last night and today, Edwards failed to get a bump out of a second place showing in Iowa in 2004 and wonâ€™t this time. The Obama people are saying that Edwards is structurally much weaker in New Hampshire then in Iowa and that the voters who want change are going to Obama, not Edwards.

———————————————————————

If Edwards is not an issue, why has Obama spent the last two weeks trashing him in ways I never imagined? It says something to me that Obama is afraid of him, why I don’t know. But he really tore him apart about the 527 and even implied that Edwards had broken the law. Not many people know the law and so when Obama said Edwards could stop them, I’m sure a lot of people though, so why hasn’t he? I could go on, but I can’t either. It just was a strange turn of events for Mr. Hope to start ripping the person who could supposedly help him the most.

By: Bladerunner

Bladerunner — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:48:56 +0000

All the spin is fine but here is a reality check for the Edwards folk who are looking at Iowa as slaying the Clinton Dragoness–both the Clinton and the Obama campaigns consider him Dead man Walking(you’re a little off message Bill). The Obama people realize that the longer Edwards is in the race the longer it will take to defeat Hillary. The second choice of most Edwards people is Obama, not Clinton. As the Obama spinmeisters were feverishly spinning last night and today, Edwards failed to get a bump out of a second place showing in Iowa in 2004 and won’t this time. The Obama people are saying that Edwards is structurally much weaker in New Hampshire than in Iowa and that the voters who want change are going to Obama, not Edwards.

So while it might feel good for the OC Edwards and Obama people to pat each other on the back, the Edwards people just need to understand that there is a political knife in that Obama hand near your back. And if you don’t want to believe what the Obama and Clinton people are saying about Edward’s political life expectancy, look at OC attorney and Edwards backer supremo Wylie Aitken who the local fish rag notes was disappointed in the Iowa results and says Edwards must win in New Hampshire to stay in the race. That’s a pretty big hurdle.

Iowa was huge for Obama but there is a long way to go unless he can continue to punk Clinton in the Granite State, South Carolina, and Nevada. If that happens, New York may be the only place she wins big on Super Tuesday.And then the only question is who is Barak’s numero dos.

But before the blogsphere puts Hillary on a DNR, consider that counting the super delegates already pledged, Clinton has 169(52%) compared to Obama’s 66(20%) Edwards 47(14%) and Richardson’s 19(6%). Edwards staying in helps Hillary by dividing the anti-Hillary, let’s change vote. Something to contemplate for the minority of Edwards people who seem to get off on trashing Clinton.

By: Andrew Davey

Andrew Davey — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:30:43 +0000

Bill-

Congratulations on last night… Enjoy “victory” while it lasts.

No really, good job. Your guy helped bring many people who never participated in Democratic politics before to do something special last night. Over 236,000 ultimately caucused in our side in Iowa, and we all did something great to turn Iowa blue again this year.

But anyways, I mentioned the delegate count because Iowa is only the FIRST contest, and there are still hundreds more delegates to be awarded in the coming weeks. New Hampshire happens next week, and for all we know the entire nomination game may look completely different by this time next week. That’s why I’ll be tuning into the ABC debate tomorrow, and why I’m totally prepared to jump into my asbestos pantsuit and endure the bumpy ride.

By: Bill Spaulding

Bill Spaulding — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:08:46 +0000

Yes, I admit, I’m pleased my guy came out ahead last night. And I heartily salute Edwards for his second – and not third – place finish. Both results are pleasing. And Dan is absolutely correct: Democrats in general won, also.

Andrew – only political animals will notice or pay attention to the delegate count. What the general public, the typical voter, will see is 38-30-29. That’s what the MSM will tout when questioning HRC’s future. And anyway, HRC was already way ahead in delegate count before Iowa on account of pledged Super Delegates.

Change is in the air!

Oh, and BTW, I do know that one event does not constitute a trend. It’s a long road for us all – well, until Tsunami Tuesday…