Edwards Finishes Strong Second, But It's Just Not Enough

LOW UNION TURNOUT COULD BE A DEATH KNELL FOR N.C. SENATOR

Finishing second in Iowa at first glance seems very encouraging. He beat out Sen. Hillary Clinton for second, but he also finish a distant second to Obama. Edwards garnered 30% of caucus goers which was about three or four percentage points less than a highly encouraging second. This is how far Edwards has come in the four years since a second place finish in Iowa probably buoyed his chance to be John Kerry's VP--not very far.

The big disappointment yesterday was not finishing so far off the pace, but that Edwards's union appeal was completely misrepresented. According to exit polling, the former senator from North Carolina was the third choice among Democrats.

Without a doubt, this fact is the death of Edwards's campaign. He made union involvement the linchpin of his populist campaign. The Edwards strategy was to parlay union-backing in Iowa and Nevada to start strong, but it's not happening. In hindsight, the writing could have been on the wall when one of the country's strongest union, SEIU, didn't endorse him across the board.

New Hampshire looks like a third place finish as does South Carolina. By the time, Nevada comes around, Obama's momentum will be huge over Hillary's comeback kids persona will have taken root.

THE REST OF THE FIELD
Another fact that lends credence to the Obama movement was the poor performance of Gov. Bill Richardson, who reportedly instructed followers to back the Illinois senator if he wasn't viable at a precinct.

These second choice caucus goers apparently fled to Obama and might account for the pre-caucus three-way tie in Iowa.

Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden, the graybeards of the campaign said farewell. It's notable that Sen. Biden, whom many mocked for his pubic kissing up to Sen. Clinton. Was he auditioning to be the future Secretary of State? Apparently not, since most of followers were instructed to choose Obama as their second choice.

Hillary Asks For Iowans Vote And To Buy Proactive

RUNDOWN OF CAUCUS EVE DEMOCRATIC ADS



SEN. HILLARY CLINTON
The message has been the same for months. She's about change both in government and gender and a rebuke of all things President Bush. I, frankly, strained to here that message because of the excessively white-washed senator that give the impression that the former first lady is hawking face cleansers. These are the wrinkles the harsh key light is successfully concealing.

JOHN EDWARDS
This ad is fairly effective in that conveys the populism that Edwards is predicating is campaign upon. When the Iowa man, Doug Bishop, begins to choke up, it's hard to not to do the same. Two problems, though. The least of which is wouldn't it be a bit creepy for a man to be telling a seven year old that he was fighting for dad's job. Aside from that, it's a bit of a gamble for the Edwards campaign to be featuring someone other than the candidate in its final campaign ad before tomorrow's caucus.

Dems Could Be Looking At A Virtual Tie In Iowa

SEN. CLINTON COULD BE LOOKING AT A CEILING OF 25 PERCENT

Salon.com columnist Walter Shapiro has been around Washington and political campaigns for decades, here's what he's seeing on the ground in Iowa:

At this point in 2004, just a few days before the caucuses, I had begun to pick up anecdotal evidence (from crowd size and interviews with likely caucus-goers) that Howard Dean was slipping and John Kerry and John Edwards were surging. But this time around, I have not seen or heard anything that prompts me to move away from the conventional wisdom that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are locked in a three-way tie.

Shapiro sees a dead heat in the Democratic Iowa caucus, but he also has uncovered some interesting nuggets.

While traveling with the Edwards campaign, Shapiro found the former senator's base is solidly in his corner, largely due to his time and organization in Iowa.

Sen. Barack Obama's popularity is hinged upon students caucusing faithfully for him. This, if true, might make the seven-point lead in today's Des Moines Register as tenuous. Rarely, does the youth vote make for a successful campaign, but that's not to say Sen. Obama is candidate many have ever seen.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's much derided brigade of Golden Girls are also a problematic demographic not because of their likelihood of caucusing, but because of health and weather. Shapiro does make this interesting point on Sen. Clinton, her constituentcy is either with her or against her, therefore unlikely to gain any new support.

Of all the polling out there, the safest bet is Hillary reaching a ceiling of only 25 percent of the caucus goers making the possibility of her finishing a very disappointing third.

If this happens, it will a clear indictment of whom Iowans believe is the real candidate of change--Obama and Edwards.

What If Hillary Finished Third In Iowa?

AFTER THE INITIAL SKIRMISH, EDWARDS WOULD CAPITALIZE

The idea seems inconceivable within the parameters of national polls or any casual conversaton with your neighbor, but the liklihood of Sen. Hillary Clinton finishing third in Iowa is very plausible.

A Newsweek poll last week had Sen. Barack Obama at 28 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, Sen. Clinton at 24 percent and John Edwards at 22 percent.

What if Edwards's formidable organization in Iowa eeks out a few percentage point from Clinton or, more likely, Obama's and drops the presumptive Democratic nominee to the bronze medal? What would be the ramifications and who would gain momentum in such an outcome?

Make no mistake about it, the political establishment would explode in this doomsday scenario. The Clinton inevitability factor is so omnipresent, that the shock could derail her campaign permanently like a third-place showing in Iowa did for Howard Dean in 2004.

Most likely, the nomination would be up-for-grabs in the short term, even pulling Bill Richardson, currently polling at around 10 percent, into the fray. Because of his huge reservoir of cash, Obama would get a second look from Democrats who yearn for a fresh face, despite their loyalty to all things Clinton, but it might not last long.

In this scenario, Edwards could continue to stay just under the radar while the ravenous Clinton campaign throws every sharp object in the kitchen at Obama. She would most likely gain some momentum back from him to the point where he would have to return fire or lose the top spot all together.

This would be a great point of contention in an Obama camp were the mantra has been to run a completely kind-hearted campaign. This strategy worked early on, but it's idealism will become a curse later because in the rough-and-tumble world of politics the nice guy will never win. If Obama stubbornly sticks to this plan he will regret it in exactly the same way Al Gore dropped the ball when he shunned Bill Clinton in 2000.

What's left then? Edwards. From the start the strategy has been to highlight the plight of the poorest Americans, continue to build strong union support in early primary states like Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina and, above all, hope Clinton and Obama begin to spar with each other.

Edwards not only runs third in national polls, but also in funding. The prevailing idea when it comes to Edwards' longevity is predicated on him parlaying his organization in early states like Iowa with labor's strong support in some of those same early states. A strong showing early would then feed upon itself.

This unique political stratagem has been what drew me back to Edwards' campaign, but also a bit of a hugh gamble. If Clinton stumbles in Iowa, it could make Edwards's campaign the stuff of election legend.

Hillary's Iraq War Dilemma

Darrell Hammond as Chris Matthews interviews Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live

It may be a silly send up of Sen. Hillary Clinton and MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Saturday Night Live last Saturday, but it's worth noting that by officially throwing her hat into the race for the White House the attitudes and perceptions of Hillary the Candidate versus Hillary the First Lady are beginning to form.

The writers at Saturday Night Live just may have crafted the prevailing thought of Democrats across America with this line:

"I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere."

We're likely to witness a Sen. Clinton vaguely extroplating her shifting positions on the war in tones similarly to that line. There is a very high liklihood that the stormy atmosphere on Capitol Hill and the rest of America regarding this war will likely persist. Because no matter the amount of resolutions against the surge in Iraq the Bush administration is dead-set on making it happen; not because it's the best tonic for the military's problems or the most righteous, but because it will literally run the clock out on this President's watch. There's is no other reason for it.

With the scenario of today still percolating in 2008, it will be to the advantage of those who stood against the war (Barack Obama) and those who either reversed course earlier enough (John Edwards) and those without much of a public record either way (Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel)

In Hillary's case, her vote authorizing the President to invade Iraq is no different than Sen. John Kerry's or any candidate on the Republican side, but it is likely that by lying low the past six months regarding her opposition to the war as its quickly bogged down in the theater of war and opinion polls, her strength on this singular issue has been severely sapped by her competition thereby giving away much of her virtual lead and possibly campaign dollars to people like Obama and Edwards.

This race is on. The question is: can the prohibitive front runner win the presidency wire to wire without the country hearing the same old song of that it's heard through one Clinton and two Bush's?

Payback's A Bitch: Dems Take Control Of Congress

FIGHT BACK AGAINST TROOP SURGES IN IRAQ

Washington is a buzz as the Democrats take control of Congress Thursday. After President Gerald Ford's death last week, the Capitol is dripping with nostalgia of a bygone era when Democrats and Republicans actually spoke decently to each other.

Hold on. Only half of D.C. is spewing this talking point and its Republicans.

After six years of nearly complete marginalization by the Republicans in Congress, the new majority party is poised to give the GOP a dose of their own medicine and it should be as costly as the over-priced medication millions of uninsured American dole out everyday.

There is no reason for the Dems to concede anything to their GOP colleagues, at least until next year when conciliatory gestures will go well with a cocktail of Hillary, Obama or John Edwards.

The Dems constituency made it implicitly clear last November that the ultra conservative direction of America needed a correction in the direction of the center. I have no allusions of Democrats achieving anything more than their pre-programmed first 100 hours of a minimum wage hike, stem cell research and reduction student aid interest rates, but if they do anything they must contain President Bush's maniacal grasp on leading this country by the slimmest majority of popularity and logic.

After those first 100 hours, Nancy Pelosi must vigorously lead the party and a possible sizable chunk of the GOP caucus against the President's blood lust for further entrenching the U.S. in Iraq. The position must be clear and concise; nobody in America except for the men in Bush's shrinking inner circle believe a troop surge is anything but folly.

Pelosi must realize the basic duty of their service is to lead the country by the wishes of the people and they have spoken. Take a stand, Madame Speaker.