Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
John Edwards supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for bragging about the endorsement from Ralph Nader. Have they forgotten how Ralph Nader threw the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush? Now that Ralph Nader is endorsing John Edwards, a vote for Edwards is practically a vote for Bush.
Besides, John Edwards has really put all of his cards on the table. It’s Iowa or nothing for John Edwards, because he’s invested his campaign’s wealth there, organizing in the caucuses. If John Edwards doesn’t get first place in Iowa today, his campaign is dead in the water.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t need to win Iowa at all in order to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Even if she comes in third place in the Iowa caucuses, it’s a sign of strength in her campaign, which invested little in Iowa.
Which kind of leader would you rather have for President - the kind who loses in second place, or the kind who wins even in third place? Hillary Clinton is the clear choice for voters today.
(99 votes, average: 2.9 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
66 queries. 0.685 seconds
Top Article Last Week
January 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I agree with you that Senator Clinton didn’t need to win Iowa, but she did need to finish second to maintain the image of inevitability that she wanted to have for the nomination race. She put a fair amount of effort into Iowa - she visited the state more times than most of the other Democrats, and about as much as Obama and Biden. The only Democratic candidate who visited Iowa more often was Edwards. Senator Clinton’s defeat in Iowa is at least a hint that her campaign might turn out to be a regional, rather than a national, phenomenon.
http://www.iowapolitics.com/1009/caucus08.html
January 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I don’t follow your logic when you argue that coming in third shows more strength than coming in second.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
It’s true, Hillary did not need to win Iowa, and I’ll even go further and say she does not need to win N.H. or S. Carolina either. What will really matter is what happens on SuperTuesday.
Hillary’s campaign knew that Iowa would be very difficult for her to win. I give her credit for deciding to participate in the primary there, unlike Bill in 1991 and Rudy this year. I don’t think anyone is counting Rudy out of the race just because he got 0 delegates from Iowa.
Speaking of delegates, it seems that Hillary pretty much did come in 2nd in Iowa at least when it comes to delegates. She got 15 vs. Edwards’s 14 and Obama’s 16. When we look at the nitty-gritty outcome of the Iowa caucus, ie delegate numbers, we can easily see that she’s doing fine thus far.
Another important point to keep in mind: the potential impact of SUPERDELEGATES. The Democratic Party gives states a total of 796 superdelegates –mainly members of Congress, other elected officials and DNC members, who are free to support any candidate at the convention, regardless of the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses.
Although most superdelegates contacted by the AP before the Iowa caucuses were undecided, of the 251 who have endorsed a candidate, Clinton leads with 160, compared to 59 for Obama and 32 for former Sen. John Edwards.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I’m currently about an hour drive from the New Hampshire border. What they’re doing up here is using their cellphones to show people an unflattering Hillary picture with wrinkles and saying “would you vote for THAT?”
These are the same people who start off a sentence, “I’m not against a woman for president but..”
January 5th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Of course, jerseydem, Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t use to give this spin you’re referring to that Iowa would be tough for her to win. It used to be that she regarded herself as having the strategy of establishing invincibility there. That kind of turned the Iowans off.
Also, your analysis ignores that what happens on Super Tuesday is strongly shaped by what happens in the primaries before Super Tuesday. If Hillary Clinton loses New Hampshire on Tuesday, even New York State might be put in play on Super Tuesday…
…and she was booed by a collection of Democrats in New Hampshire.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Have to disagree with you Frank Liberal. The Super Tuesday dynamics have changed now that there are more states participating. Unless you have a crystal ball, of course. We can’t rely on what has happened in the past.
What we do know is that Hillary came out of Iowa with just 1 less delegate than Obama; she has 3x more superdelegates endorsing her (160 to 60) and in the end, whoever wins will have to come up with 2000 something delegates to get the nomination. So, just get over Iowa already, will you?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Iowa doesn’t have enough delegates to matter. The candidates themselves weren’t (before the caucuses) framing Iowa as a victory for the winner of the most delegates, but as a victory for the winner of the most participants — sort of a test run for the states with primaries. Iowa’s blow to Senator Clinton’s campaign is its suggestion that Senator Obama is the stronger Democratic candidate in the farm states.