Howard Fineman on Countdown..."Keep an eye on John Edwards in Iowa..."

[Blackhatjack]

He says it is not good news for Hillary, but better than Obama winning in Iowa.

[BeyondGeography]

1. That's today's "insider" take

about another 20 or 30 twists and turns to come if the past is any guide.

[JuniperLea]

3. I think people want change so badly...

That the past is not a good indicator of what the future holds for this primary.

[AlCzervik]

2. i'm guessing Fineman thinks the recent brush up will help Edwards.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. There have been stranger things....

... Besides, I think grass roots effort will boost Edwards to the top. If you think the American folks that are having trouble making ends meet are going to vote for candidate that kowtow to corporations, I think you're rather mistaken.

[AlCzervik]

8. i'm not mistaken, i gave my opinion on why Fineman said what he said.

i like Edward's and he seems to have a good organization in Iowa.

[balantz]

4. He just may surprise everyone.

[Blackhatjack]

5. After some thought, I think Fineman is right ....

If Hillary thinks that the ultimate fight will come down to her and Obama, she probably thinks Edwards winning Iowa is less damaging to her than if Obama wins.

As long as Edwards AND Obama are viable, they will continue to split the base that both needs to defeat Hillary in the long run.

But the kicker here is that Edwards is surging at the right time and 4 days later New Hampshire looms, not leaving much time to resurrect her campaign.

Kerry was being virtually counted out this time last election cycle, and Howard Dean was being crowned the winner by the MSM.

Things change.... sometimes for the better! Go Edwards!

[Hissyspit]

9. I was thinking the same thing today.

GMTA

[peacetalksforall]

6. I think little bubbles have broken for the Clintons because of NAFTA and war.

We didn't see or didn't have occasion to see the war (military-corporate) support, nor could too many of us see the negatives of NAFTA. I don't know about anyone else, but the negatives of Pres. Clintont make me have doubts about the Senator. At some point they started scaring me. The war issue became the really big one, then the corporate closeness, then some of the Senators' votes. While the horrors of Bush became incfreasingly more horendous, the closer she seemed to be to them. Edwards is good, but a lot of the leveling out is awareness and hindsight. The DLC appears to be behind Sen. Clinton 100% so that clears Edwards a little? Hope so.

Q. At what point in past elections does the DLC take over and announce the candidate? Asked with a little sarcasm and a lot of resentment.

[disndat]

10. As an Edwards supporter

This is thrilling. Fineman represents centrist point of view and therefore credible in this instance where he would express a neutral point of view. After Al Gore, Edwards is next best. How about Edwards/Obama team? That would be delightful to think about for long-suffering people who endured 7 years of Bush and his Iraq war for oil.

[Blackhatjack]

12. I sure would like to see Edwards go after the 'Bush Republicans'...

He would sink his teeth into them and never let go until the Election!

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

11. wtf is that suppose to mean,...'better than Obama winning'?

If he sought to piss people off by that comment he succeeded in pissing me off.

:grr:

Edwards appeals to a broader audience because his sincerity and authenticity shines through. He is the "working class" advocate unlike either Clinton or Obama who both indulge in more 'intellectualism' than the populace finds any comfort in.

[Blackhatjack]

13. Fineman was reflecting Hillary's thinking.... not his own.

He was reflecting Hillary's thinking that she could defeat Edwards easier than Obama, and that if Edwards won Iowa instead of Obama it would work to her own advantage.

I actually think a 3rd place finish by Hillary might work out better for her than a 2nd place finish. She does a lot better with both Edwards and Obama competing, making it a 3 way race.

[flyarm]

14. I sat tonight with a couple /repubs who have a son in Bagdad..his second time

and he will be there 15 months..they were die hard bushies..no longer..they now feel nothing but contempt for *..to downright hate..

but they hate hillary even more!

they both said the only one they can vote for is Edwards...they said if it is not Edwards..they won't vote..

I was truely surprised...

There son in Bagdad told them this is not a war..this is babysitting crooks..billion dollar crooks.


The father said Guliani is a total crook..

These people tonight said the only hope they have of getting their son and all our kids home is Edwards.

That they have a gut feeling he is just a downright good man.

I told them i agree with them.

fly

[Blackhatjack]

15. I know many just like them... who voted for Bush... who WILL VOTE for EDWARDS this time!

Some of these former 'Bush backers' have shocked me by going straight from a true blue Bush backer to an Edwards Supporter. Yet they are out there.

I posted an OP that there are Angry Repubs out there who will vote for Edwards. It's true.

[bullwinkle428]

16. I think this is more than just anecdotal - this is reflected in

the polling data that shows JE winning the general election by the largest margins over any of the Repugs when compared to his Dem. rivals...

[Blackhatjack]

17. Definitely! When Edwards is a Choice, He takes Independents & Repubs from the Repub Candidates

All this national polling of just Democrats compared to national polling with one-on-one results definitely points in that direction.

[waiting for hope]

18. He has the best cross over

appeal. Period. I want a BIG Dem win this time around, and with Edwards, that's how it will play out. Just think of all he can accomplish with the majority of the country on his side - I boggles my mind.

[Blackhatjack]

19. More Howard Fineman Analysis of Edwards...LINK

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22217110

More Howard Fineman Analysis of Edwards

"He has the best, most cogent and inspiring stump speech, and a good, loyal organization. He could get pummeled by media dynamics. There will be exit polls on caucus night, but they will not be an accurate reflection of the final tallies of caucus delegates – the legally meaningful number – until later. Also, he is strongest in the small western towns, whose disproportionate influence in the delegate tallies (don’t ask) won’t show up in the exits. In other words, he could win but not get credit for it by the time the winners are declared."

[BenDavid]

20. Hell, most everybody voted against the silly guy in 04 and

whats to believe they will vote for him now. Goodness......

Ben David

[saracat]

22. "SillY' ? Whats silly is anyone who supports a warmonger who refuses to learn from her mistakes.

Hillary is nothing but Lieberman in a skirt and both should be hung out to dry. We need a real president who cares about real Americans and less about waging war for foreign and corporate interests.And there is nothing "silly" about that.

[garybeck]

21. Edwards is getting the "not Hillary" and the "not Obama" votes.

and probably mine

[Polemicist]

23. The political landscape can change drastically after Iowa...

Winning Iowa often catapults a Presidential candidate into a much better showing than pre-Iowa polls would reflect in the next primary states. And winning New Hampshire as well can cause a tidal wave effect. So I wouldn't put much faith in any polls past Iowa at present, even national polls. That can change on a dime.

One thing about this year's Democratic race, is that most Democrats are fairly positive about the entire field of candidates. Perhaps that's not reflected in the average poster on DU, but it appears the case in the average primary voter. And to me that means that voters might be more likely to move towards a candidate with momentum, cause they really kinda like all of them. So any candidate that grabs the early momentum will benefit greatly.

Another factor is the even greater front loading of primaries. A defeated candidate doesn't have much time to gather themselves for the next primary. Someone could fade fast under those circumstances.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm backing Edwards. And I think he might be stronger than the national polls reflect, pre-Iowa. He's got great organization in Iowa and he's from South Carolina (originally) and won SC in 2004. He's a weaker third in NH at present, but that could change quickly if he were to pull an upset and win Iowa. New Hampshire voters are a very independent sort and often wait till late to make up their minds.

This is certainly still at least three person race. And it's possible even Dodd or Biden could come out of the pack with a strong early showing. I think Kerry was 4th in 2004 before Iowa. Does everybody remember what propelled Kerry to victory in Iowa in 2004?

It was his extremely strong grassroots organization in the state. Just like Edwards now has. Kerry didn't show much strength nationally, but he was very smart about how he targeted caucus voters in Iowa.