Is Edwards the True Anti-Hillary?

[Stop Cornyn]

From the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza's blog, The Fix:

Clinton has been rocked back on her heels only twice in this campaign.... The first time came at the YearlyKos forum in Chicago where Clinton was forced into a halting defense of lobbyists -- "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," she said.

Who forced her into that slip-up? Edwards, who earlier in the forum had proposed that all of the candidates on stage pledge not to accept any more contributions from Washington lobbyists. Edwards tag-teamed with Obama to force Clinton into a corner but it was the former North Carolina senator's impassioned speech against the lobbyist culture in Washington that had primed the pump for the attack.

The second time Clinton found herself on the defensive was when she tried to explain her vote recommending that the Iranian Revolutionary guard be designated a terrorist organization by President Bush.

Who first alleged that Clinton's vote was the first step in authorizing the use of military force against Iran and a possible repeat of the same mistakes made in Iraq? Edwards. The former Senator brought it up in a debate in New Hampshire the same night the vote was cast. Edwards noted that both he and Clinton supported the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq but "we learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on the road to war with Iran."

[RiverStone]

1. He certainly could be!

I believe Edwards has the best shot at catching and passing HRC. What he needs is for voters at large to have the sense that he CAN WIN or maybe more, that she CAN LOSE. Call it a psychological edge. JE needs an edge.

Second to an Iowa victory on 1/3/08, the next best boost I could imagine would be an Al Gore endorsement.

Of course, I'd love DK or Al Gore to be Pres, but it's time to let go of wishful thinking. I do NOT want Hillary - there is still time to change that, but time is running out.

[superkia]

18. I want DK also but I think Clinton will win unless some drop out.

I think that Clinton has more supporters than any of the others but the people who support the others don't want Clinton. If the field were to downsize, we could be blessed with someone other than Clinton in charge of our children's future. Hopefully people don't give up if their candidate suffers in the primaries, maybe then we could focus on the next best candidate other than Clinton. I don't think America will make it through 4 to 8 years of Bush.

[karynnj]

21. That may be true, but in all the cases where that

has been said - I remember it with Bill Clinton and Carter - no candidates have ever left the race to enable someone else. Also, consider how the main backers of any remotely viable candidate would feel if he strategically dropped out - I would bet there would be a sense of betrayal. This thread was started by Edwards supporters. Ask yourself how you would feel if Edwards dropped out before Iowa, saying that this was the best way to stop Hillary and making a case for why Obama could move us past the Bush/Clinton/Bush years.

The other thing is that the candidates do not control who their supporters go to. They can influence it, but they can't make it happen.

[Ninja Jordan]

2. Edwards is finished.

[Stop Cornyn]

6. A loss in Iowa would finish Edwards or Obama. Edwards has a better chance of winning Iowa than Obama

[Ninja Jordan]

11. Nope. Obama just has to finish ahead of Hillary in Iowa.

whether that be 1st or 2nd place.

[Stop Cornyn]

14. Michelle Obama agrees Obama must win Iowa or it's over but maybe you have more inside info than her

here's a link: http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&vid=799cdda6-7cf9-492a-9f78-6faf98bd91c0

[PATRICK]

23. Obama relative to Hillary

is indeed the story the media is fixated on to negate an Edwards' win in Iowa. By this rationale Edwards must also win very big, and, you are correct, Obama will not be let go easily from the horse race perception so he has a bigger edge than a failure to win would effect. He is also set up to lose by the media so that is a Pyrrhic advantage at best. A similar drama is being set up in the sorry crew of GOP stooges, over which the candidates themselves probably have little say, but hope for the voters to rescue them from fate.

I just hope Iowa shakes things up massively and leave it at that.

[ChiciB1]

25. Ditto To Your Statements! Edwards Is Being Ignored By MSM...

and I actually believe it's being done by "design!"

[rinsd]

3. His acceptance of public financing makes him unelectable.

[Tejanocrat]

4. I think you have to close your eyes and click your heels three times to make that chant work.

[rinsd]

7. Its pretty simple

If by some miracle he defeats Clinton and Obama he will be near zero'd out by early May. That means until the Dem convention in late August he will be dependent upon the DNC and 527's as his defense.

That is bad tactics when facing the GOP.

[Tejanocrat]

10. In june and July, he'd get plenty of free media and plenty of 527 support. Edwards would travel all

50 states during June and July appearing with our Senate and House candidates and he'd get a ton of press from that tour and in the lead-up to the convention.

Hillary might need to run a heavy rotation advertising campaign in June and July because she can show up in person in many states because she's ballot poison in the South and in parts of the West, but Edwards can appear in all 50 states in person because he elevates our ticket instead of dragging it down.

[rinsd]

13. Hillary puts quite a few Southern states in play and doesn't need to protect her NorthEast flank.

Like Edwards would have to with Rudy in the race.

And relying on free press (from what a suddenly respectful MSM, ya know the one Edwards supporters complain that has been ignoring him?) and 527's as one's engine for promotion and defense of the campaign for 3 months is plain fucking stupid.

[Tejanocrat]

24. This tells me that you OBVIOUSLY live in a blue state (for which I envy you)

[mirrera]

16. Are you kidding?

Any winner of the Dem primary will get PLENTY of money to beat a Republican. I only hope Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich/Richards/Gravel, get together and decide who is going to beat Hillary and win in the General. If they don't get smart, they will split the primary vote and they may as well campaign for Hillary... (who is still MILES above any Republican in the sense that Dems say I love you before they f**k you while Republicans just f**k you.)

[rinsd]

17. You don;t understand. By accepting public financing he is limited until after the convention.

You are not allowed to spend any GE funds until you are officially the nominee which happens at the convention.

He will have plenty of money come that 1st week of Sept but I am worried about the 4 months prior to the convention when the nomination will be likely wrapped up.

[Tejanocrat]

19. The sky isn't falling. Edwards would have a two month period before the convention where he'd have

actually campaign in person instead of running a TV ad campaign.

That's not a problem.

[Donnachaidh]

5. and Hillary taking money from Murdoch makes her what?

She's a lobbyist's dream.

[rinsd]

8. A whole $4600 richer in her campaign coffers.

The GOP was able to stunt the Edwards campaign's early momentum with a freaking blurb about his haircuts and his house.

When he is likely to have little resources to defend himself between the time he secures the nomination and the late Aug convention is combined with the knowledge of the GOP noise machine, I am afraid he stands little chance in the GE.

[Stop Cornyn]

20. No. Murdock is a Hillary bundler who hosted a fund-raiser for her and raised a lot more than $4600

[Think82]

9. Biden could give her a run for her money, and only has to beat expectations in Iowa

to stay in the game.

[rinsd]

12. If Biden were to finish 3rd or higher in both IA and NV.

He would have some momentum going into NH.

[jmp]

22. Biden IS Hillary

...

[ChiciB1]

15. If MSM Would Just Give Him A Chance... He Could Do It... However, It

has been said that the D.C. Elites HATE him! And of course we KNOW who THEY are! I was just talking to my sister from Texas, a died in the wool Bushie (even now) and you can't argue facts with her about The Idiot, Decider!

But as we were talking, politics reared it's head (a place we try to stay away from) BUT she said that she DIDN'T like ANY of the Repuke candidates and assumed I was a Clinton supporter! I told her that Clinton would be the LAST person I would vote for and she asked me who I liked. I told her there were a couple that interested me, Biden is one, but John Edwards is who I supported!

To my GREAT surprise, she told me that IF John Edwards got the nomination... SHE WOULD VOTE FOR HIM!! Now my sister lives in Round Rock, TX and surrounded by Bushies, but this was a REAL SURPRISE! The ONLY Repuke in our family and she said she would support Edwards! She doesn't even buy the Global Warming issue, so given how she feels I think IF they gave John Edwards half the coverage they give Clinton, I truly believe HE could KNOCK her off her throne!!

But, since she's has all the "connections" we may never get the chance! I did tell her that even if it meant having a Repuke again, I can't "do Clinton" and she was shocked too! She assumed she was my choice because there was a time she was!!

And when I tell you my sister is a Repuke, she is really in denial about so much stuff.... thinks Bush didn't do anything wrong, it was only the people around him! But she said she would vote for Edwards BEFORE any Repuke candidate this time around!!

[appleannie]

26. Edwards is the only viable candidate across the country

He's charismatic, he's reasonable, well spoken, and he's progressive. I have no idea why more democrats don't see that he's got the most winning combination of any of the candidates now running.

Edwards is the only democrat that has scared Dick Cheney and the GOP. That should tell you the extent of the threat he represents...they understand better than we do who has the potential to be a true crossover candidate.

Many democrats in the west and the south WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY...I can't repeat that enough. I speak to quite a few, and I know the eastern establishment doesn't understand this fact, but I will keep repeating it. Hillary is 'box office poison' in much of the west and the south.

But the story isn't over. Edwards is gaining key endorsements, and I think as the economic situation deteriorates in the next few months, his message becomes more compelling. If the junta attempt war with Iran, and oil spikes over $150 a barrel, people may start waking up.

Edwards in 2007!