As for my opinion, I think it did matter. There were two votes at the caucuses. First was for all the candidates. Then the candidates with less than 15% got to choose between the big 3. Here's my first-hand report of how the voting went down at the Iowa caucus I attended. For example, the Richardson block went to Edwards en masse after he didn't make the cutoff. (The Biden group went to Obama.)

So in addition to Edwards supporters who might have gone elsewhere, there were Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, etc. supporters who might have gone to Hillary over Obama if Edwards wasn't in the race.

As for what if, it's a big deal. It was the first primary and Hillary's coming in slightly behind Edwards was the talk of the nation. It was the beginning of the media focus on how she might not be "inevitable" even though she never said she was inevitable. It was perceived as a big loss.

The "what if" that won't be known is how she would have fared in a 2 way race with Obama in Iowa. If Obama won big, the result would be the same. If they tied or she won, the whole race could have been different.

It revealed Hillary to a lot of folks as someone who would say anything -- or vote for anything, like a war in Iraq and throwing flag-burners in jail -- in order to get elected.  

You obviously would disagree with that view, but it's what crystalized for many of us long before Iowa why we wanted an alternative to HRC.

Edwards was, I would say, the "anti-Hillary alternative" for those not ready to vote for Obama.  So Wolfson's assertion is, to me, nonsense.  Dodd or Biden might have played that role if Edwards weren't in it.  Who knows?  

The key point about Obama's victory in Iowa was how big it was, thus reassuring a lot of folks -- including many black folks -- that white people would vote for him.

And (as I've said before), were it not for the Iraq War, this might not be a Democrat's year.  So should Democrats be thankful for Iraq?

Alas and alack for what could have been.

And for anyone who doesn't know, I'm NOT an Obama supporter, and wish like h*ll that Hillary won.

Claims of sour grapes are not relevant.

I have no idea what would have happened the night of January 3, 2008 if Edwards had not been in the race, but to ignore the fact that John Edwards served as Obama's attack dog in Iowa, as Bowers and the Clinton hating Poblano do, when discussing his effect on the race, is absurd.

This is from Nate:

This is not to say that Edwards couldn't possibly have impacted the race in ways that were favorable to Barack Obama. He was probably useful to Obama, for example, in attacking Clinton early on, increasing her negatives without Obama having to pay the price. His endorsement of Obama in May was undoubtedly a big assist to Obama's endgame.

There is no doubt in my mind.  There was a concerted effort between the Edwards and Obama camps to crush Hillary and they knew they could count on the rest of the boys' club, from both MSNBC and the DNC to help them.  

How long have you been reading about the Bush administration and media coverage?  You know, the worst administration ever?

As to your other points, how's the air in that bubble?

"In the Atlantic article, which is based on internal Clinton campaign memos and e-mail messages, Green highlighted bitter fighting among Clinton's staff, writing that her advisers "couldn't execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution."

The internal communication also suggests that the lack of clear lines of authority within the campaign meant that issues that ultimately led to Clinton's defeat -- her lack of support in the Iowa caucuses, the absence of a strategy to capture delegates after the Super Tuesday primaries and her failure to prepare for a protracted primary fight -- went unaddressed for months, Green wrote.

That doesn't make him the Obama campaign's attack dog, just the Edwards campaign's attack dog - that's politics.  When Obama became the frontrunner, everybody (including Hillary and her supporters) turned into attack dogs against Obama for exactly the same reason.

Secondly, there is the implication in your post that if Edwards had been unmasked as an adulterer before Iowa and forced out of the campaign, then Hillary would have done better and might even be the putative nominee right now.

Of course, if Bill Clinton had been unmasked as an adulterer in 1992 and forced to withdraw from his first presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would by now be (un)known on this website as "Hillary who?" just the barest footnote in history - the wife (or ex-wife) of one more failed campaigner for office, brought down by his private indiscretions becoming public.

If only Russert had passed away a few months earlier, say mid Oct, where would we be right now?

but to ignore the fact that John Edwards served as Obama's attack dog in Iowa, as Bowers and the Clinton hating Poblano do, when discussing his effect on the race, is absurd.

Third, it would have been one less voice attacking Clinton on her ties to the establishment, which undoubtedly hurt her.

Bill deceived and lied to protect his position and his family from an immoral act; however that act played no part in the political actions at the time.

Edwards, knowing that his past conduct could bring him down, as well as others,his party, ran for office under a false perception, allowed both Obama and Clinton to seek his endorsement, both not knowing about his actions, and then he went on to accept interviews and appearances based on this false perception, and finally he had the audacity to endorse Obama in front of millions of Americans, still hiding his true moral compass.

This is as bad as lying under oath. IMO it's worse. He deceived everyone for how long?? A long time; and the press, instead of investigating him, had absolutely no intention of using it because it didn't serve their purposes.

There is after all no one to indict the media, but us.