What If Edwards Wins Iowa?

What happens on January 4 if Edwards wins, even wins convincingly? How does that play out? I have long believed that Edwards and Obama are competing for the Hillary alternative slot in this contest. The spread and the spin will be important of course but a win is a win and a win for Edwards gives him a leg up over Obama. But what if Obama finishes second? That would obviously be better than finishing third but still would be damaging to Obama in my view. Unless Hillary gets drubbed in Iowa, and that seems unlikely at this point, she is not going away. And now Obama would be at a disadvantage to Edwards in New Hampshire and beyond for the contest to be the Hillary alternative.

In my mind Barack Obama has been saddled with a terrible campaign team, starting with the awful David Axelrod. In November and December, Obama had a real chance to put Edwards away after Edwards made the mistake (and I still feel it was a mistake, Edwards could have been making this surge without riskig his campaign) of attacking Hillary Clinton personally. Edwards dropped, as did Clinton, Obama rose and in fact opened a healthy lead in Iowa. Instead of pressing this advantage and coopting Edwards' themes and occupying his argument to be the Hillary alternative, Obama continued with his muddled KUMBAYA message, allowing Edwards the space he needed to mount the impressive drive he is now in.


I think it is clear that Edwards has taken support from Obama in Iowa. For the most part, support for Clinton is mutually exclusive to support for Edwards and Obama. The support of other candidates is up for grabs. Indeed, it seems to me that Biden support would lean towards Hillary.

Bottom line, Obama and Edwards cannibalize support from each other at this stage. This seemed obvious to me. It apparently was NOT obvious to Axelord and Co. until the last few weeks. The realization has come too late. If Obama does not pull it out in Iowa NOW, I think his climb to the nomination becomes nearly impossible. An Edwards surge in Iowa is likely to take from Obama the most. And to think that Obama could have left the Edwards campaign for dead in November and early December.

< New Iowa Polls | NY Times Blasts Repubublican Candidates Over Immigration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Happy New Year's everyone (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    Stay safe.

    And play nice, there's only a few days left and the mold is set.  No need to say things now that you'll later regret.

    HST 1948 (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    We will do that because they are wrong and we are right, and I will prove it to you in just a few minutes.

    This convention met to express the will and reaffirm the beliefs of the Democratic Party. There have been differences of
    opinion, and that is the democratic way. Those differences have been settled by a majority vote, as they should be.

    Now it is time for us to get together and beat the common enemy. And that is up to you.

    We have been working together for victory in a great cause.

    His words are true today as well.


    This is an especially interesting (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    diary and comment.  Not much visible advocacy but lots of people predicting and giving reaosns.  

    Advocacy at this point is useless (none / 0) (#40)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    the next two days are frozen.

    most views are already formed.

    it's all up to the ground game.

    it will either by Clinton or Edwards.  If it's Clinton, the game is over.  If it's Edwards, then the fun resumes, sorta a speak.


    Perhaps useless, but DKers (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    haven't realized the futility just yet.

    Dimishing marginal returns. (none / 0) (#45)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:15:34 PM EST

    I thought this pro-clinton diary was very funny.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    Certainly was.  

    Something else that was funny, completely irrelevant to anyone's actual vote, but cute - Hillary signs a Hillary Nutcracker.  Awesome.  The lady who asked her to sign it is my hero.


    Good for Hillary (none / 0) (#47)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    Someone gave the Hillary Nutcracker to one of my sisters as a joke and it was in her carry-on luggage when she was flying home. She said it really threw the TSA guy looking at the x-ray screen, he couldn't figure out what it was.  So they had to open the bag.  

    It gave all the TSA people a good laugh.


    Funny, espec. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    since just last night the author claimed it was 43 degrees in So Cal.

    Next Weekend (none / 0) (#42)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    Now if Edwards wins, and by alot, then I imagine he'll be on every front page, every newscast, every magazine cover, Olbermann, etc.

    It would be enough of a bounce to win NH, five short days later.

    Then the fun begins:  Mean Machine vs Media Darling Halo through SC and Super Tuesday.


    Willie Nelson (none / 0) (#44)
    by Natal on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    As Willie Nelson has sung" "I've got a reason for all the things I've done".

    A Reminder of Why It's Good to Be A Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    The leftcoaster has put up the Boston Globe links on various questions posed to the candidates (Dem and Rep) on issues such as unitary executive theory and interrogation techniques.  Reading the answers makes me proud to be Democrat.  See for yourself here.  Sample:
    Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

    The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

    No. The President is not above the law.

    I strongly oppose George Bush's illegal spying on American citizens. Surveillance that takes place within the United States should be performed with judicial oversight, as the law provides.


    Absolutely not - I have been a very vocal and early opponent of this Administration's warrantless wiretapping program and efforts to provide retroactive immunity for the companies who participated. The choice between national security and civil liberties is a false choice. Indeed, our adherence to the rule of law enhances our international standing and leverage, and accordingly enhances our national security. I've made it clear that I will return from Iowa and filibuster any bill that makes it onto the Senate floor including retroactive immunity language.

    No. The President is not above the law, he is bound by valid acts of Congress. Our laws state clearly that no one can wiretap Americans without a warrant. By willfully authorizing warrantless wiretaps of Americans, the President violated the law, and he should be held accountable.

    There are some areas where the statutes don't apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is. ... I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law.

    Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe.

    Absolutely not.

    Thompson, Guiliani and Huckabee didn't answer.

    The most interesting answers are on the Republican side.  If you want to know what the NRO folks see in Romney, compare his Bushesque answers to McCain's and Paul's.


    "cannibalize" (none / 0) (#1)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:36:06 AM EST

    Bob Johnson is gonna have a fit.  He freaked out over Taylor Marsh's quote "Obama's ability to cannibalize the very essence of progressive policy.."

    As to Edwards post IA:

    1. will Indies swing buy-in, stay home, or try to save McCain.

    2. How hard will Team Clinton hit Edwards post btn NH and SC.

    3. Will Big Mo, 527s and a new media darling halo be enough to counter Clinton's war chest and organization on Super Tuesday.

    It's a possible 4-bank pool shot, but there is little margin for error.

    Bob knew what he was doing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    He is in primary mode.

    well (none / 0) (#5)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    the KKK remarks were, dare I say it, dramatic.

    Offensive is what they were (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    Should have been deleted.

    deleted (none / 0) (#21)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    he didn't even get troll rated (atleast not when I read the diary).  And he had pictures, to boot.

    primary colors (none / 0) (#7)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    why does Bob Johnson dislike Clinton so much?  What did she do to him?

    I know he says it's because her votes for K-L and the Iraq war (he even posted a "I will never vote for her" diary last year), but others bloggers of his stature who support Edwards and Obama (you for example) who don't bash Clinton (if anything, you bash your own candidate).


    Bob has ALWAYS hated the Clintons (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:02:43 AM EST
    especially because he thinks Clark was put up to beat Dean.

    sucha a canard (none / 0) (#14)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    how it gained currency among the intellectuals I don't know, seeing it was started by Bill Safire of all people.

    In any case, I haven't seen other top E/O bloggers going smash mouth on Clinton.


    Obama Needs to Beat Clinton (none / 0) (#2)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    He needs to beat her, just as much as she needs to beat him, maybe more.  And that may not be enough - he may have to win Iowa.  

    I honestly don't see how he gets the nomination if he loses to Clinton in Iowa.  I think that kills him in New Hampshire and then that hurts him in South Carolina.  If I were Obama, I'd almost skip New Hampshire if I lost Iowa to Clinton and get to work in South Carolina - it's the best place for him to try to build a firewall, IMO.  

    Clinton, it seems to me, could survive an Edwards win even if she comes in third.  It's certainly not good for her to finish third, but I think she's strong enough in New Hamphire to still put up a fight there.  She's got serious problems, however, if Obama wins Iowa.  She could still be competitive in NH and has potential momentum re-gaining wins in Nevada, Michigan, and Florida, but it makes it a LOT harder for her.  

    I used to think Edwards needed to win Iowa, now I think he might just need to beat Obama, although he's still at a huge money disadvantage so he may need the free media that comes with a win.

    I think Obama seriously underestimated Edwards' strength in Iowa.  We'll see in a few days whether that mistake hurts him or if he gets away with it.

    To Stay Alive (none / 0) (#3)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:37:56 AM EST
    I should've said that I used to think Edwards needed to win Iowa to stay alive in the primary.  I honestly think it's going to be very hard for him to win the primary even if he wins Iowa.  Not impossible, but, yes, it is a four-bank shot.

    My two cents: (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    I think the following:
    1.  Obama's being revealed to be the cipher of a press (and Establishment) confection I'd long felt he might be.  I just thought that regardless of experience or whatever, behind Obama, there was no "there" there.  Recent revelations:  Voting "present" (repeatedly - the only rational reason therefor would be to avoid taking a stand which could later come back to haunt him), Mrs. Obama telling the press "now or never" (visions of Teddy Roosevelt on the night of his landslide re-election, telling the press he would not run again, in those pre 22d Amendment days, making himself into an instant lame duck), and the odd consonance between Obama's sit around the campfire and make nice and the High Broderism of a Bloomberg-McCain-Hart-Rockefeller Republicans a couple posts down the blog.

    I think back to an early profile of Obama, I think in the New Yorker, in which a supporter and consultant of long experience was talking about him and said something to the effect of "you wait your whole career for a Bobby Kennedy to walk into your life and then, one day, he does.  Only it was Obama."  Well, the problem with that analogy was (and remains), that by the time Bobby ran in '68, he'd already: been Attorney General (regardless of what you think of the merits of his choice, he did an pretty good job), helped deal with Hoover (if not turning him back, at least keeping him from going too far), pushed major changes in society through actual civil rights legal work, been a senator, and a lot of other work.  Obama - he voted "present".

    1.  High Broderism and Bloomberg.  Bloomberg had better not make any ads for himself.  Not because he can't handle the media (he's made himself quite, quite rich in media, after all).  Nope.  Simply because his voice is one which will turn off the vast majority of Americans by reinforcing every stereotype they might have - he sounds like a particularly nerdy NooYawk accountant.  Bloomberg makes Rick Moranis' nerdy tax preparer accountant in Ghostbusters sound like James Earl Jones.  And, outside the radius of 100 miles drawn from the Empire State Building, that's a fatal negative.  It killed Al Smith's candidacy in 1928 and it will do the same in 2008.

    2.  A lot of older people of my acquaintance, many of them the so-called Reagan Democrats, have remarked at one time or another over the past four years that Edwards, not Kerry, should have been the Dems' nominee in 2004, and that he seemed the best of the bunch going forward.  Many of these folks were the older generations who remembered FDR and Truman, and look askance at the more modern corporatist Democrats.  they remember.  They like Edwards.  They vote.

    3.  Everyone I know will vote for HRC if she's the nominee, but there will be little of the enthusiasm I'd expect if Edwards is the nominee.  No one I know is all that excited by Obama.  No one expects the major changes we need to come from HRC or Obama.

    Now, I think I'll STHU until either the returns are in or someone makes a total fool of themselves and I feel like piling on.

    enthusiasm-gap (none / 0) (#9)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    I think everyone appreciates your candor.

    As to Clinton, aside from voting for her, will volunteer for and contribute to her fall campaign ??  


    I Don't Think Enthusiasm Will Be A Problem (none / 0) (#16)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:11:41 AM EST
    for Clinton or any other Democrat.  Once the focus turns to beating the GOP and the GOP attacks begin, that will energize Democrats around the nominee.  Of course, not everyone will be energized, some of the people who particularly hate Clinton probably won't work for her.  But there are some people who feel that way about Obama and even Edwards.  

    And Clinton does have a potentially huge base of enthusiastic support - women.  It doesn't work for her as much in the primary, but in the general I think most democratic women will be excited by the prospect of her election even if she wasn't their first choice for the nomination.  Again, not the haters, but the rest.


    It may turn on her choice for VEEP (none / 0) (#19)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    energy that is.

    If she picks Bayh in late August, all bets are off.  In that case, I think a new wave of naderites would emerge.

    The state of the economy will be a big factor, and if Bush were to go crazy and strike Iran.


    The only reason to pick Bayh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    would be to make her speeches sound as eloquent as MLK, FDR, Churchill or JFK. Otherwise Bayh doesn't add much to the ticket.

    Heh (none / 0) (#25)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    True (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:27:21 AM EST
    But I don't think there's any way she does that.  One of the best decisions her husband made was his Vice Presidential choice. I think her decision will be a decent one, certainly not something to depress her base, she knows she needs it.

    Ironically, Kerry made one of the worst choices because Edwards was unwilling to play the attack dog.  It must enrage Kerry to see Edwards attacking other democrats this time out.  He couldn't even get him to attack Cheney in any meaningful way.  

    Although, really, Lieberman was probably the lamest choice in a long time.   An attempt to appease the beltway elites, who screwed him over anyway.  


    Gore was a good attack dog, too (none / 0) (#26)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    his "it's time for them to go" speech at the convention and debate against Danny-boy.

    Biden would fit that roll, but he comes with baggage.  I can see Markos going into a tizzy, shouting, "Senator MBNA" etc.


    I think Lieberman helped in South Florida (none / 0) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    There was a lot of enthusiasm in the Jewish community here for him at the time. It may very well have made the difference in Gore winning Florida- before the felonious five staged their coup.

    I am not a Lieberman fan and I didn't care for the sanctimonious creep, but I did see a lot of enthusiasm for him down here. Its the same type of enthusiasm HRC is trying to tap into with women and Barack is trying to tap into in the African American community.

    Gore was always a bad at campaigning, but he would have been a great president.


    re "the felonious five": (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    I've just finished reading the portion of The Nine devoted to Bush v. Gore decision.  Toobin doesn't got as far as you, but says respect for the Supreme Court as as institution tanked.  O'connor is the most disappointing, under Toobin's account.

    Haven't Read Toobin (none / 0) (#31)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    But I'm not surprised O'Connor is the most disappointing, she's the least crazy of the five, IMO.  She should've known better and I believe of all the five members, probably regrets her vote most.  To which I say, good.  She should.

    When 5 nine old partisan republican justices (none / 0) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    find a way to get their votes counted twice while many of my fellow Palm Beachers couldn't get their votes counted once, you bet respect for them plummeted. Never forgive, never forget.

    I have plenty of respect for the Supreme Court as an institution, but none for the felonious five. They deserve to go down as the worst since the 4 horsemen.


    A Bloomberg Presidential campaign is a joke (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    He'll get stomped and get 5%.

    I really want to see it though.


    yeah, but will he get into the debates.. (none / 0) (#17)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    and will he stand on a stool.

    I've seen Blooie up close, he's 5'5" - I towered over him and I wasn't wearing heels.


    I Can't Decide Which Slogan Will Be Best (none / 0) (#18)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    So does Bloomberg run with

    "I'm a Billionaire so you know I've got your best interest at heart!"

    "I've been a mayor, so I'm ready to be President on Day 1,001!"

    "Vote for me and I'll pay you $1,000"

    Seriously, doesn't whoever the Democratic nominee is have an easy task to paint this guy as someone who is trying to buy the Presidency.  Romney couldn't run that campaign, but Edwards or Clinton could.  And I think that's pretty devastating in the absence of any true compelling reason to run for President.  At least Ross Perot ostensibly had the budget deficit.  What's Bloomberg's race based on, a need to get along?  Doesn't that fall apart about 5 seconds after he's asked for his position on abortion or guns or immigration?

    But, yes, it would be glorious to watch the Broders of the world scratch their heads and wonder at why the American people can't see the wisdom in electing a billionaire mayor who just wants everyone to stop being so shrill.  It would also be a nice little boost into the economy.  A billion dollars is almost enough to be real money.


    Oh, come now. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:58:07 AM EST
    How could Team Obama NOT have known they were competing with Edwards for the votes to beat Hillary? If that's true they are more inept than any campaign in recent history.

    They knew they were competing but I think they thought they could get the Edwards supporters without much effort once Edwards started to fade.

    Now that I think about it - maybe Edwards played them.  It seems to me that Team Obama started to almost ignore Edwards right after Edwards made that remark about how he felt Obama was closer on the issues to him than Hillary.  They certainly didn't seem to have an end game for this past week that took Edwards into account.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    In any event THEY ACTED like they were not competing with Edwards.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#20)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    There's been at least one report that I've read that said that privately Obama staffers have been shocked that Edwards has held onto his support.  

    So I don't think it's that they didn't know that they needed to drain Edwards' support, it's that I think they thought it would be easy.  That as Obama rose, Edwards' supporters would see him as the Clinton alternative and drift to him.  

    I think the problem with that theory is that it presumes all Edwards' supporters are looking for is a Clinton alternative.  I don't think that's necessarily true.  A lot of Edwards' supporters are Edwards' supporters, not necessarily just against Clinton and I can think of a lot of reasons why Obama's kumbaya shtick wouldn't play with an Edwards person.


    shocked ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    They expected, to paraphrase Atrios, that all that strong Edwards support would just melt away before the awesomeness of Obama?

    Grain of Salt (none / 0) (#33)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    It was just one report that I read.  

    Why Obama didn't target Edwards in Iowa earlier is going to be a big question if he loses this thing (which is still a big if)?  Right up there with why he didn't immediately disassociate himself from Axelrod's comments about Bhutto and Clinton's war vote (which may be calming down now, but couldn't have helped Obama).


    Ok, I'll open my trap again (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:07:40 AM EST
    and, rather than write that brief due tomorrow, say:

    What Digby Said.

    After reading Digby ask yourself: "which Democratic candidate will do what needs to be done along those lines?"

    Vote your answer.

    Please elaborate: (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    In my mind Barack Obama has been saddled with a terrible campaign team, . . .

    Seems to me Obama must have picked his campaign team, not been "saddled" with it.  

    Non-sequitur:  If Jeralyn's stats are accurate, and Iowa remains 95% Caucasian, what effect to you see this lack of diversity having on Obama's chances in Iowa.  

    Biggest Effect of Non-Diversity (none / 0) (#36)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    Depends on what non-white folks are absent.  A lack of African-Americans appears to help Edwards since both Clinton and Obama do well with that segment of the population, if South Carolina is any indication.  A lack of hispanics helps Obama since he seems to poll weakest among latino voters.

    Blaming Obama's Campaign Team (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    seems to miss the point. If Obama's campaign is making a lot of mistakes, then he isn't managing his team correctly and the fault lies with him. Either he is not managing his campaign team (poor leadership IMO) or he agrees with it's direction. Considering the direction he has taken in the last couple of months, it is not a direction I want to follow.

    What if SOMEbody won... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    ...an nobody cared?

    i think that's the more likely result.  sadly, too many americans have given up on politics and participating in their civic duty as voters.  i'd like to think we see turnout in the 80s this election cycle, but the 50s will rule.  That we get so thrilled at the 60s, well, sigh.

    Nobody cared? (none / 0) (#79)
    by mkolb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:32:05 AM EST
    I think you are seriously underestimating the loathing the general American voters feel towards Bush&Co.  

    I recently moved to a state that was solidly red in both 2000 and 2004 and I haven't spoken to anyone yet who has anything even remotely nice to say about this administration or any of the Repub canidates.

    Types of people I would have rather arrogantly assumed would not be paying attention are almost rabid in their interest.

    This election is the Democrats to lose and that will be harder than usual for them to do, given the quality of most of their candidates.


    Can't figure out why Edwards would (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    win in Iowa now when he didn't in 2004.  But, I haven't pd. close attention to his campaign.

    In 2004, Edwards (none / 0) (#49)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    was full steam ahead in Iowa just before the caucus. Scuttlebutt was, he would have overtaken Kerry given a little more time, but Kerry's ground team was lead by Michael Whouley (spelling?) and he was/is just flat-out brilliant at what he does, which few know about, the guy's nothing if not low-key.

    In my neck of the woods in 2004 (northern Missouri, just south of Iowa), Edwards was much preferred over Kerry.  Edwards displaced Gephardt, easy, even though D. Gephardt was a Missourian.

    I wouldn't count Edwards out in Iowa at all, but  whether he's capable of beating Hillary's Machine is a crap shoot.

    And, re: Wes Clark, he's standing in the wings, waiting for pay back for 2004.  The general was used as bait (by the Clintons) to downplay Dean, Edwards and Kerry, in my conspiracy-prone opinion.  @;-)


    For whom is Michael (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    Whouley (sp) working this time around?

    P.S.  I grew up in Burlington IA so have Missouri's location firmly in mind!


    Michael Whooley (correct spelling) (none / 0) (#51)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    he's working for Team Clinton.  

     If you are in Iowa or N.H. and you're committed to a Edwards or Obama, make sure spare tire is working Thursday night.



    Oh, thanks (none / 0) (#53)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    RedHead, for the information and the correct spelling!

    Yeah, Whooley's from Boston, right?  Not that that means anything, right?  It's like being from Chicago.  @;-)


    LOL! (none / 0) (#55)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    yes, yes.

    Somewhere, The Boss is smiling at Boston's Whooley.


    heheheh (none / 0) (#56)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    Whooley's nickname: The Ringer  :-)

    My bad (none / 0) (#59)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    it's spelled "Whouley"

    and the The Boss was reference to the legend of machine politics, Richard J. Daley.


    Grew up (none / 0) (#63)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    several hours south of Chicago.  So, got yer Boss reference.  :-)
    Remember watching the '68 Convention on television.   My mother was a Democrat and she was furious. My aunt, her sister, was a Republican and she was furious. Two furious woman for different reasons.

    Query (none / 0) (#80)
    by mkolb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:35:16 AM EST
    Who is the current Mayor Daley supporting?  Or the Gove of Illinois?

    I don't know (none / 0) (#52)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    who Whouley (sp) is working for.  Think it was US News & World Report that did an article on Kerry's surprise win in Iowa, and claimed it was mainly due to Whouley's ground team/game.  They also said Whouley stayed well below the radar. I would be interested to know who he was working for, if anyone.

    I really haven't followed this primary at all, first time in a long time.  Have thought all along that Hillary has it in the bag. (as in $$ in the bag.)


    Hillary (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    Strangely enough, in New Hampshire.

    Is anyone here (none / 0) (#57)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    going to be in New Hampshire for their primary?

    And... wonder why Whooley isn't in Iowa?  Was that game already set, or maybe it wasn't necessary to come in as #1, as long as NH could be nailed down?


    Iowa (none / 0) (#58)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    Markos says Iowa.  He was responsible for the "Hill-copter" tour.

    Why would be surprised??


    "Hill-copter" tour? (none / 0) (#60)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    LOL  Right out of Playbook 2004.

    it's actually from 1948. (none / 0) (#62)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    LBJ invented the Helicopter tour in his 1948 senate race.

    Really! (none / 0) (#67)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    I remember reading stories about LBJ driving around in the back of a truck, stump-speech style.  My dad used to joke about what he called "The LBJ handshake."  Always take the hand, but grab the elbow, too.  Master of persuasion.

    Here's a fun picture (none / 0) (#69)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    Here's a fun picture from the LBJ library

    LBJ (none / 0) (#70)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:40:19 PM EST
    was a master!  That's a perfect picture.

    He was hated by many, but in retrospect, he was a better man than we gave him credit for being at the time.  He knew he lost the South for the Democrats over the Civil Rights Act, but he did it anyway; and he had at least a big enough conscience to keep him awake at night over the deaths in Viet Nam. (Unlike GWB.)


    I heard NH (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    I seriously doubt he came up with the Hill o copter tour.

    That's not his bailiwick.

    He is a turnout guy.


    okay (none / 0) (#64)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:22:33 PM EST
    I was only citing Markos on Iowa and Michael Crowley on the helicopter.

    That's what I thought (none / 0) (#65)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    he was, the turnout guy. A little pressure here, a little reasoning there, a job, maybe.  Old-style.

    Oh, I forgot (none / 0) (#66)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    why did you say Strangely enough, in New Hampshire. ??

    That he's working for Clinton or that he's in NH or both?


    NH (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:27:14 PM EST
    After the success he had in Iowa.

    Second the question... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:26:48 PM EST
    So, the Clinton campaign is (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    "saddled with" some savvy people, eh?  and then there are those she pushed off the raft.

    Phone Banking in Iowa (none / 0) (#71)
    by Amylew on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    I did some phone calling to undecided voters today on behalf of John Edwards.  FWIW, I had one Biden supporter and one Richardson supporter, and they both had Edwards as their number 2.  And take it from me, they will NOT follow orders from anyone at the caucus to align with Clinton.  A lot of people I talked to today wouldn't even tell me who they were supporting.  They were all "I will vote for who I want to vote for.

    what else? (none / 0) (#73)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:29:16 PM EST
    did you have any disconnection?  

    any angry responses?

    Did any of the males hit on you?  LOL, I only ask, because 20 years ago, I had that happen.


    Plenty of pissed off people (none / 0) (#77)
    by Amylew on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    At this point, I felt like the phone calls were actually doing more harm than good. Most people weren't answering their phones and I was leaving messages. Many of the ones who apparently don't have caller ID were pissed at the phone call because we Iowans are getting 5, 6, 7 a day from various campaigns, push-poll outfits, etc. A few older ladies didn't think I should be calling on "the Sabbath." I had a few hang-ups, but really, why don't people have caller ID?  

    The most interesting call was to a woman of about 58. She said that "It's too early."  I said, "Ma'am, the caucuses are this Thursday."  She said it doesn't really matter who she would caucus for because the one who wins is the one with the most money.  I explained that SHE has the opportunity to influence which Democratic candidate will be up against the Republican candidate next November. She was pretty much resigned to having no influence and that it doesn't really matter, even though she is livid with Bush.

    I had to stop and go out and smoke a cigarette after that one. It was very disheartening and frustrating.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#74)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    I did phone banking in Iowa (to veterans) during the last primaries. (lived just south of the area and had been hit by the same winter storm.) Much conviction was expressed over who they were going to vote for, which made me wonder about the dynamics of the 2nd choice thing, how much influence there really was over the caucus-goers. (One guy was in his late 80's and had never missed a primary.)  Anyway, thanks for you report.  I'm not at all surprised at the support shown for Edwards. He hits home.

    sorry (none / 0) (#75)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:47:48 PM EST
    meant to say:
    Much conviction was expressed over who they were NOT going to vote for, which made me wonder about the dynamics of the 2nd choice thing, how much influence there really was over the caucus-goers.  Or how much work had been done beforehand.

    Well duh, (none / 0) (#76)
    by kj on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    Just read this post above from Jeralyn:

    Another New Iowa Poll: McClatchy - MSNBC