Edwards is well positioned.
I really don't think the voters want to elect an American version of Margaret Thatcher.
And that, is precisely who Hillary Clinton is.
Posted by Christopher at August 21, 2007 03:30 PMI am glad see you believe Drudge over what Michelle Obama actually said. Since she was talking about her own family, not the Clinton's this pretty much guts your whole "analysis."
Edwards is counting on Iowa to magically make him a winner, but right now he is in second place there, and he doesn't have enough support or money to run in any other state besides Iowa right now, let alone Michigan, which will be on 1/15.
I just don't see him being able to pull a John-Kerry-2004 on this field which is much stronger than the 2004 one was.
Posted by DaveB at August 21, 2007 04:01 PMI don't believe it, DaveB. Ulterior meanings are easy to dismiss and deny, but often remain.
Posted by John Patric at August 21, 2007 04:56 PMI don't know whether or not Michelle Obama made the comment, but if she did, I think that was a very low blow to Hillary and mean spirited. Not very attractive coming from one of our own.
Posted by Judith at August 21, 2007 05:58 PMMichelle indeed did say it, Judith. Countdown showed the tape tonight and it's all over YouTube if you wanna catch it for yourself. Pretty nasty stuff, despite the Obama camp's denials about intent.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at August 21, 2007 06:13 PMLet's get something straight. John Edwards is first, not second in Iowa. If he wins Iowa, which he will, then his poll numbers will be raised to the of Obama. Add that with the sense of electability that SC, NH, and NV will have, and Hillary has one serious problem on her hands.
Look, right now people are choosing candidates like it's the flavor of the month club. They like him one week, her the next. But ultimately people are going to have to make a decision about who they want to be president. So do they want someone who has experience but doesn't seems to be sincere and who doesn't have any clear plans to "change" America (Hillary). Maybe they want someone who's inexperienced, can only seem to talk about hope, and, like Hillary, doesn't seem to have any real plans (Obama). Then there is the candidate who has real substantive plans, is sincere, and still talks about hope and change (Edwards).
Just because Edwards isn't the former first lady or a superstar first term Senator doesn't make him unelectable. So what that he had a $400 haircut or lives in a MacMansion (would you like to see a picture of Clinton's house?). Throughout history, time and time again, there was always the candidate who wasn't in first place who, at the last minute, snatched the nomination. Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, just to name a few.
Just because he's not in frontrunner status five months before the first vote it cast doesn't mean that he's gonna lose.
Posted by Aaron at August 21, 2007 06:33 PMAaron, last poll I saw, the most recent, had Senator Clinton ahead of Edwards in Iowa.
Posted by John Patric at August 21, 2007 06:42 PMThat's just another Edwards "gaffe", John. Aaron didn't say that. You just took it out of context. Place your own excuse here_______________________.
Edwards is in second and falling, been level or falling for a looonnnggg time. He's just melting away. Even Richardson is catching him, probably in a September poll. He placed all his chips on Iowa and the primary season changed. Like always with John, he didn't change with it. He wouldn't make anything but a fair candidate for president. The only candidate that concerns me is Governor Richardson, but, I'm not voting in Democratic primaries.
Posted by peter at August 21, 2007 07:38 PMGawd peter, shut the fuck up and quit your lying!
Are we or are we not balancing the coverage of the campaign on the candidate's polled support? Are we making the coverage look fair by sidelining the virtual tied for second-place candidate (Edwards) not involved with Obama-Clinton spat? The last candidate called on any question? Kucinich, right behind Edwards. The viewers are given very definite images of media favor, campaign hierarchy and legitimacy and I have a tough time disbelieving that these images are coincidental. The frames and pushed bias exist, and the denials are getting harder for the corporate media to deny.
Edwards seemed to be purposedly ignored in the first part of that debate Sunday. Gravel was called on before him. Kucinich got really screwed. George Stephanopoulos did it on purpose. Owes his career to the Clintons, in other words, a political hack!
I think national coverage like this will reflect easily in the polls? And it shows.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 21, 2007 09:27 PMAnd you all realize that the media is creating this war between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, right? So that Drudge will pick them, pick them, pick them!
That is what's happening, and every time somebody writes a post about their fight you're falling right into line.
We need to stop doing this. What we need to do is act like a real journalist, well, like how a real journalist used to operate, and source everything that spews from the media from multiple sources, preferably to include the subject parties, before commenting on the bullshit the AP or ABC or CNN or WaPo dumps on us.
This thing is ridiculous, whatever Ms. Obama said is essentially meaningless and not worth the angst its causing. It's like Bill Richardson's comments on Gay Marriage. What, you think he's going to outlaw gay marriage if he were elected to the White House? Persecute gays in every way imaginable, or subtlely and insidiously?
Please.
This infatuation with every utterence every day benefits nobody but Karl Rove and the rest of his traitorous and un-American ilk.
Posted by Duckman GR at August 21, 2007 10:41 PMDuckman is right and as for me, Edwards is the only candidate to whom i donate money.
Katherine
Posted by Katherine Hunter at August 22, 2007 05:52 AMpants-pissing peter fears Edwards being nominated
the korporate media is sliming Edwards just like it slimed Gore
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 22, 2007 05:53 AMElizabeth started it.
Posted by Sally at August 22, 2007 06:37 AMWouldn't it be a shame if the bickering created negatives for the Clinton and Obama campaigns and left Edwards looking as if he were above the fray, a decent guy, showing leadership by keeping it positive?
Why is that a shame?.....that's politics my friend.....being the frontrunner 14 months out is often a curse....I'll still take odds on Edwards winning in Iowa.....let the games begin.
Posted by Goyo at August 22, 2007 07:22 AMIt would be no shame at all. Edwards is the most electable against all Republican candidates. He, Gravel and Kucinich are the least beholden to the DLC and the powers that be. And I think he is the most feared among Republican strategists--too big to be belittled by them, and not directly connected to their corporate brethren, so less controllable and predictable. He speaks with a more populist message (though it is not populist in the old timey tradition). Let Obama and Clinton do one another in for all I care.
Posted by gtash at August 22, 2007 04:24 PM