WashPo's Dan Balz in "The Trail": Can Clinton Be Stopped?

[flpoljunkie]

Iowa's electorate is notoriously picky about its choices. The voters there demand considerable attention and, even when they get it from the candidates, wait until the last minute to make up their minds. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin believes more than half the likely Democratic caucus voters have not settled on a candidate. Advisers to the leading candidates say the percentage may be even higher than that. No matter what the polls show elsewhere, Iowa is a real battleground.

An Obama victory in Iowa would deal a serious -- though not fatal -- setback to Clinton. Although Clinton has a lead in New Hampshire today, Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary. If Obama were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton then would be in deep trouble.

An Edwards victory over Clinton in Iowa would present a potential obstacle to her nomination, but perhaps not one as significant as if Obama were to win Iowa. That's because Edwards did not do well in New Hampshire in 2004 and has struggled there this year. Knowing that, he and Elizabeth Edwards have been investing more time and resources in New Hampshire, but no one can say with any confidence whether it could pay off if he wins Iowa.

Clinton is acting as if her whole campaign depends on Iowa -- and it may. She has rebuilt her ground operation there. She has used Iowa as the venue for major speeches on Iraq and health care to position herself favorably for the Democratic electorate. Twice now she has brought in her husband to campaign across the state with her. She and her advisers believe a victory there could secure her nomination. They also know that a loss there would scramble what has so far been generally smooth march forward.

What happens next depends in part on her opponents. She and the other Democrats will assemble in New Hampshire for a two-hour debate on Wednesday night (9-11 p.m. on MSNBC), moderated by NBC's Tim Russert. That event likely will reveal how they intend to try to stop her.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/24/the_hillary_blitz.html?hpid=topnews

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I strongly believe Obama plans to strike hard - the question is when he plans to

[Bitwit1234]

2. You know something

these flaming posts do not deserve respect. We are not republicans. why can't you just post good stuff about your guy and stop being child est. If he is behind in the polls he is the one who needs his good points emphasized so people will remember them. Just remember the more you flame the more you are hurting Obama.

[luckyleftyme2]

3. russer will try to subvert her

he's really a conservative at heart and despite what they say they can't beat HILLARY! ONLY WE CAN DO THAT BY BELIEVING THEIR LIES

[trumad]

4. Uh---he's just posting a wapo story....

[flpoljunkie]

5. No one's flaming anyone here, Bitwit.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. How is this a flame post?

This is an article in The Washington Post. There is nothing written that is flameworthy.