The Big Picture: Democrats

Our internal air traffic controller is asking me to climb and maintain 30,000 feet for a while in order to see how different the ground looks from the last time I was up that high.

(1) The campaign is in 24/7 mode. Mistakes are magnified; compelling performances are magnified; there is very little room for errors of ommission or commission.

(2) For the first time since the cycle began, the press and Barack Obama and John Edwards all followed the same line of argument against Hillary Clinton, and her campaign was clearly knocked off balance for a while. Clinton's position on issues didn't do this to her -- just listen to Barack Obama's Meet the Press performance if you'd like to be less clear about how and where he differs from her -- it's how she responded, in real time, to events.

(3) Barack Obama's speech at Saturday night's Jefferson-Jackson dinner was the best I've ever seen him give. His interview with Tim Russert the next morning was one of the worst I've seen him give. The former matters much more than the latter.

(4) John Edwards's campaign has been holding its breath for months and his standing in Iowa hasn't declined all that much. He's back on the air now with expensive, crafty and risky new commercials. His JJ speech was the second-best of the night. His Iowa organization is still the best. The news media is writing plenty of "Edwards Surging?" stories.

(5) Barack Obama has the money, the talent, and the ego to continue campaigning for president if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire. John Edwards might not.

Comments

Couple of points...

1. I don't agree with the characterization of Obama's Russert interview. The goal of that exchange is to look unflappable in the face of Russert's hackneyed questioning style. Obama did that easily. And Russert didn't lay a glove on him. Obama's goal was to ensure the interview didn't matter. He succeeded in avoiding the only thing that would have been newsworthy.

2. Why are Edwards ads in Iowa "risky." Are you suggesting that it's the focus on Elizabeth's cancer which rubs a lot of people the wrong way?

3. Obama's ego? Are you saying that Obama has a bigger ego than John Edwards? Or any other person who decides to run for President? Not sure I understand what you're saying here...

Posted by Vermonter | November 12, 2007 2:37 PM

Obama will be the nominee; Edwards better get on the VP track!

Posted by Daniela | November 12, 2007 2:39 PM

Your number one is why I think Edwards is in trouble in Iowa right now: he's gaining no traction from his attacks and I think the release of his policy proposal booklets is an acknowledgment of that fact. Reminding people of his substance and he's not simply slinging mud.

Your number one is also why I think Obama is on the right track and if he can make it through the next two weeks with the positive coverage his campaign has had he's got a really good chance at winning Iowa.

I think that your number two is wrong: Edwards has been hitting the Clinton lobbyist angle since she said that lobbyists are people too. She's stumbled before and the campaigns have tried to cut her with it - it just stuck this time because there was not only video but it happened in prime time letting a narrative play out completely. And it was a narrative that has been cultivated for a while - since the 90s. That's the essential problem for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Her high negatives and the sterotypes of her are playing out and people are reacting against that - this is something she's managed to avoid with the control and messaging her campaign has maintained. There was a time Hillary's biggest problem was among women; and she didn't solve that until the sympathy factor for the Lewinsky mess kicked in. I think her biggest worry should be the defection of young women who I'd argue aren't as wed to her campaign as many pundits suggest.

I agree with your number three: but I think Obama managed to look thoughtful and substantive in his MTP interview.

I think the Edwards campaign is in real trouble. Despite an excellent debate and giving a good speech at the JJ dinner I feel like Edwards isn't simply treading ground - but losing it.

Edwards will fold if he doesn't win in Iowa. Coming in second again means nothing for him politically. Obama will continue if he loses because he has a good chance in New Hampshire with the cross over appeal he has for Independents and Republicans and in South Carolina he has decent shot there too even with an Iowa loss. I'd argue all Obama truly needs to be able to make a case is to come a close second to Edwards. Basically, the Obama-Edwards camp need Hillary not to come in first or second. And Obama only needs to be in the top two I'd say to make a decent rational for staying in the race.

Posted by Rhoda | November 12, 2007 3:00 PM

Obama needs to win Iowa, the JJ Dinner thing was the first time in six months Obama didn't look like a disappointment. He needs to turn it on to avoid permanently securing the 'does not meet expectations' tag for a long time to come.

Posted by AJ | November 12, 2007 4:39 PM

The media wants a horse race now, so they want to talk about things that the Clinton campaign has been doing since the beginning.

It would be so great if the public was smart enough to see it without the media deciding to change the narrative, which was "Clinton's running away with it," to "Clinton's losing ground," subtext being, "pay attention to the other candidates again, because a runaway victory is boring and we want a close race going into Iowa."

Nothing that's going on now matters any more than it did 3 months ago, because the American people are sheeple who get led by the nose to wherever the big money television news media takes them, and I'm frankly sick of it.

When the media said it was all Clinton v. Obama, Clinton and Obama were basically split in the national polls like 32 to 29 percent for months.

Then the media said for around seven months that Obama was fading, and Clinton was winning every debate, and Clinton this that and the other, and she jumped up to the 50 percent range in Democratic polls.

Now the media is bored with that narrative, and they say Clinton stumbled and she's in trouble, and she's slipping, and then "MAGICALLY," the polls all of a sudden show her slipping again.

Clinton should have never gotten to the lead she had anyway, because she didn't do any different in the last debate than she did in the others...THE MEDIA JUST CHOSE TO REVIEW IT DIFFERENTLY. She got booed at the AFL-CIO debate twice in Chicago, and they said she won that freaking debate. That's how biased they were for her.

Now, they say she's in trouble, and the polls start reflecting it, as usual.

So, when it gets close enough for the media to be satisfied, then they are all of a sudden going to once again start praising Hillary Clinton so that she doesn't REEEALLLY LOSE the race?

Probably, because the people are clearly going to do whatever the media tells them to do.

Posted by framecop | November 12, 2007 5:21 PM

I just read about an interview Bill Clinton gave in the last day or so, about what the next president ought to do, and also a few comments about what he might have done better (beside the obvious of not screwing around with an intern).

He basically pointed to a notion of working with Republicans better - both for the future and the past...

Okay, did Bill just endorse Obama? He says this while his wife is simultaneously trying to "turn up the heat" on Republicans, while Obama is talking about building a bridge across the partisan divide.

This could be the story of the season. Did Hillary just do something to piss off Bill enough to where he's torpedoing her campaign?

Posted by Paul | November 12, 2007 5:23 PM

Obama will be the nominee; Edwards better get on the VP track! Posted by Daniela | November 12, 2007 2:39 PM

The fact that you even used John Edwards' name in the same sentence with VP proves that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

John Edwards has already run for VP once, said that he didn't enjoy it at all, and would never do so again.

"If Obama is the nominee, the Democrats are toast."

Sincerely,
The Real World

Posted by framecop | November 12, 2007 5:24 PM

I just remembered that some people are scandal-driven, so let me explain:

I said, "If Obama is the nominee, the Democrats are toast."

I said that, sarcastically, not John Edwards. I do realize that some people's minds are so twisted, that if I talk about John Edwards in the same post that I put a sentence like that in order to make a point, some people are going to think that I was saying that John Edwards said it.

Posted by framecop | November 12, 2007 5:27 PM

Can you see the new media frame forming?

They can't stand Edwards, and they want it back to a Clinton v. Obama horse race?

The spin from CNN and MSNBC all day is, "OBAMA ON THE MOVE." "OBAMA IS GAINING."

Obama, Obama, Obama.
Obama, Obama, Obama.

If it wasn't so overt it might be funny.

Back to square one. Ignore John Edwards, get the race to a Clinton v. Obama horse race, guarantee a Democrat who has zero chance of winning in November, which neither Obama or Clinton will, as I have explained in the past, and will not do so again today.

God, I hate these "PUNDITS" on Cable News who are basically leading people by the nose to the desired end of the very special interests that dominate DC and buy air time on the networks.

Posted by framecop | November 12, 2007 5:48 PM

I'll have to watch the Russert interview again, but I actually thought he was very strong. Very good on foreign policy, on gay rights, on domestic politics. It is worth noting that the bulk of the Dem FP establishment has reacted favorably to him. And his nods to Biden were also very politic. His weakest moments were on the topics of the documents and Rezko.

But I admit perhaps I am biased, my spouse who is uncommitted, agreed that he sounded good, my two-year old, on the other hand, asked me who it was, then turned off the tv--so much for the youth vote; luckily, he is not caucusing.

As for the campaign, I hate to say it, but Obama needs to get every delegate he can, 2 or 3 out of 4 early states at least, a sweep if possible, even then he would have to make some deals at the convention to get it done. Even though he is, to my mind, far and away the better candidate, the Dems will go with what they know and Hillary can lose a bunch of early states and still clean up on supertuesday. Unless Obama can make a point by getting the endorsement of voters in states where he has campaigned extensively, unless he gets endorsements from some major players, unless some bombshell his the Clinton campaign, he is still an improbable long-shot. His chances in the general, on the other hand, are much better.

Posted by JC | November 12, 2007 5:58 PM

Oooh, the MSNBC Obama love fest continues with Tucker Carlson's headline:

"OBAMA STORMS IOWA."

CNN is preaching, "CLINTON IS SLIPPING."
MSNBC is preaching, "OBAMA IS GAINING."

Both ignore the fact that Edwards was only 6% behind Obama in the last Iowa poll, and only 4% behind Obama in the last New Hampshire poll. THE MEDIA MUST IGNORE JOHN EDWARDS AT ALL COSTS.

They want a horse race now between two Democratic candidates who are weaker General Election candidates than John Edwards would be.

So, CNN and MSNBC are tag-teaming.

One says, "Clinton is slipping". The other says, "Obama is rising."

This is almost as fascinating as when everyone in Cable News was repeating the same neocon talking points leading up to the Iraq War.

The media is disgusting, and I hope that John Edwards wins the nomination so that he can OBLITERATE the Telecommunications Act and the media conglomerates, and these disgusting frontmen for the special interests that run DC.

After all, that's why the media hate him.

Posted by framecop | November 12, 2007 6:09 PM

Framecop, a lot of the recent coverage is coming off the JJ dinner, which I attended. Edwards's speech was decent, but in essence, it was just another one of his stump speeches and not particularly memorable.

Furthermore, Edwards doesn't have the following that Clinton or Obama have, which means that reporters are less eager to follow him. Yes, they are picking horses, but it is not because of some grand conspiracy to prevent telecommunications reform. You have to wonder why the media seems to "hate" Dodd and Biden more than they "hate" Edwards. The answer is simple: they have even less of a shot.

As for Clinton and Obama being incapable of winning, I think that you drank a little too much Edwards Kool-Aid. Every one of the candidates will have their challenges should they become the nominees and of the viable candidates (this excludes Kucinich and Gravel), Clinton will have the hardest time simply because of the amount of animosity directed toward her (you perhaps have seen the Zogby poll that said that 50% of likely voters said that they would never vote for her).

But even she is not incapable of winning. A majority of the country is against the war and of the Republicans, only Ron Paul conforms to that position.

Now as for Obama, I do not see how Edwards has such a large advantage. There may still be significant racism in America, but the vast majority of voters who would not vote for a black man for President on that criterion alone would not vote for a Democrat at all (Remember, Edwards doesn't want those people's votes).

Furthermore, Obama has had a more consistent record than Edwards, and broader appeal outside the Democratic Party (having polled third at times among Iowa Republicans, something that can't be said of any of the other Democrats). And of the Democratic candidates, only Obama has had any tangible effect among Evangelicals, who have been a major part of the Republican voting block.

If you think experience is an issue, then I don't have any clue why you're supporting Edwards, who is actually the least experienced candidate of the bunch (6 years as US Senator is the extent of his public service).

If you think Edwards is best equipped to win because he has won in a Southern state before, look at his approval rating in his home state when he was running for President. He isn't as strong in the South as his campaign would have you believe.

Now, I'm not going to say that Obama is the perfect candidate to maximize a Democratic win, but the perfect candidate isn't running and Edwards isn't really any closer to being that candidate.

Posted by Meng Bomin | November 12, 2007 6:47 PM

I thought Senator Obama's speech Saturday night was one of the best he has given. He is a combination of MLK and RFK. And he did very well on Meet The Press even though I'm sure he had very little sleep. I'm glad that MSM is finally waking up to the sleeze of HRC's campaign. Why does she need to plant questions? I heard yesterday on Chris Matthew's Sunday show that there's been alot of dirty phone banking from democrats in Iowa. I wonder who's campaign is doing that? Sounds like the Clintons sliming Obama to me.

Obama will win Iowa BIG and then New Hampshire and then South Carolina and Hillary's sleaze machine will be in BIG trouble. People are finally seeing her true colors, it's all about power, no policies that mean anything.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | November 12, 2007 6:49 PM

You Obama supporters are in for a big disappointment. Other than give a good speech with a rather disturbing off and on southern accent.Talk is so cheap! free media is priceless... I have yet to see this man lead on ANY issue this entire campaign. Are you all so naive to believe the empty rhetoric of a good speech, just because the delivery was good? The problem is there is an actually voting history that is real, NONE of his actions in the Senate (when he actually shows up to vote), supports these lofty ideals he is trying to mesmerize you with. Why does he continue to vote to fund the war he states he was so vehemently opposed to?
All I have seen is a semi charismatic, arrogant egotist riding a wave of extraordinary media publicity, who can give a decent speech occasionally, who appears to havebought into his own "rock star" status.
What I do know is he has drafted behind Edwards this entire campaign.

Posted by Jeanne S. | November 12, 2007 7:28 PM

I've been trying to watch the MTP interview but they yanked it. What gives?

Posted by Phoebe | November 12, 2007 7:38 PM

Jeanne S.

Obama has talked about increasing government transparency, he has passed legislation increasing government transparency (Coburn-Obama).

Obama has talked about fighting terrorism sensibly, he has passed legislation to fight terrorism sensibly (Lugar-Obama).

Obama has talked about curbing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, he has passed legislation curbing the influence of lobbyists in Washington (Feingold-Obama).

Throughout Edwards's 6 years in the Senate, what legislation did he steer through on these issues?

Posted by Dave | November 12, 2007 7:58 PM

You also mention Obama missing votes, it's worth pointing out:

Whereas Obama has missed 33.7% of votes this term (second fewest of all Senators running), Edwards, by way of comparison, missed over 60% of his votes from Jan. 2004-Nov 2004 (John Kerry missed over 90%, only showing up to vote 17 times).

Data is here.

Posted by Dave | November 12, 2007 8:06 PM

Dave Dave Dave,
First I will address the votes, it's not the amount of votes missed it's the importance of the ones he has dodged. Think about the most recent one eg. Kyle-Lieberman ring a bell? it's easy to say after the fact you were against it, but why not cast the vote then? political expedience, especially when we now know Hillary voted FOR it he can remain pure. No vote, no foul, is not acceptable and its just not leadership.

Obama proposes a bill about transparency and yet is harping on Clintons lack therof and when pressed about his own senate records just recently, can not account for any of his records as a state senator... uhmm glass houses anyone...

As for Edwards he co-sponsered with John McCain and Ted Kennedy
A patients protection act HR1052

Co-sponsered with Rep. Porter HRES.76 A bill to address human rights violations in The Peoples Republic of China

HR2310 w/ Rep Porter to amend the Internal Revenue code to exclude from income capital gain
from sale of a principal residence.
To name a few...

Posted by Jeanne S | November 13, 2007 12:56 AM

Jeanne,

Kyl-Lieberman is a sense of the senate resolution. When you say Obama opposed it "after the fact" that's a pretty silly argument. He went on record that same day and said he opposed it and laid out why. The point of a sense of the senate resolution (it is non-binding) is precisely that, to get a sense of where people stand on the record. He did that by saying where he stood- firmly against the resolution. The point Obama makes against the resolution is that the "sense" the Senate provided could be interpreted as condoning the use of forces in Iraq as a means to curb Iranian influence, thus tying the length and extent of deployment in Iraq to Iran inappropriately. I fail to see how Obama not being there for the vote (which, by the way, he was told would be postponed and instead was brought up with one hour's notice) at all undermines his opposition to it. Please explain.

He was in a legislative position in Illinois. All his floor speeches, all his votes are on the record. The state has archived what exists of his documents. He didn't have a staff with the responsibility to keep a schedule, and what would the schedule say of his "experience" anyways? You can see what he championed and what he got passed: health care expanded to 150,000 Illinoisans, death penalty reform after 13 innocent men sent to death row, bill to stop racial profiling, biggest ethics reform in Illinois since Watergate (including a lobbyist gift ban), expansion of earned income tax credit, expansion of early childhood education programs, hospital report cards to let patients know nurse-patient ratios and medical errors among other things at hospitals, etc. etc. etc. What more do you want from the guy? He was in the minority party most of his time in Illinois and STILL managed to get all this PASSED (not just introduced/cosponsored). I am so tired of people pretending that he doesn't have a public record. Look it up.

In contrast, Hillary's "experience" is based on a quasi-executive role as first lady. Therefore, understanding her "record" is much more reliant on the archived records because they will shed light on what exactly her leadership skills are. Otherwise, all we have to go on is the health care debacle, which does not speak too well of her leadership skills.

As far as not showing up for votes, I think you should hesitate to criticize on that. I remember Edwards not showing up to vote on McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00420

If you want to talk about an important symbolic vote, the number of supporters for that bill at the time was a huge number for environmentalists to tout as a way to show growing acknowledgment of climate change as a serious problem. Despite being an environmentalist myself, I do not hold it against Edwards that he didn't show up. He was on the trail running for president. Everyone misses votes when running for president. The important thing is to be there when the votes are decisive and to go on the record about these issues so you have a mandate if you become president that is based on your true stances. I admire and respect John Edwards' positions on the environment. His energy/environment agenda was a bold start to the policy arena in which the Democrats are now operating. I would note also that Obama's agenda is just flat out better, but I do believe Edwards coming out first helped make people more receptive to Obama's ambitious proposals.

I would just caution you against making opportunist arguments, not just because one can find contradictions that undermine your candidate using your logic (e.g on McCain-Lieberman), but because we should be honest about what is and isn't a failure of leadership. I think John Edwards is a solid guy and if we didn't have the most capable and ethical American leader of the last 40 years running in this election, he'd certainly be someone I'd consider casting my vote for. But we've got Barack Obama, so my choice is clear.

Posted by TarHeel | November 13, 2007 2:01 AM

I appreciate all your responses, however much I disagree with their content.

All I can say is at this juncture in our history we need to be more cautious than ever. This election is way too important! I fear our very future as a Democracy is in jeoprady.

I just came back from a month on the road I was in 8 states NC VA MD DE WV PENN TENN NJ trust me racism is alive and well. And many AA people I spoke with said were cynical that a AA man would be elected.

If you really are convinced a still racist society will elect a AA man, dream away, I wish it was different but it's not. The same way I truly believe that sexism is still alive and well. I hate it... but it's the way it is.

Don't forget, we live in a country that elected Bush twice.
The General population are not as informed or engaged as most posters on here, more's the pity.

As a pragmatic person I have come to realize that our only true hope is Edwards in the General, he is safe for the average voter and does have cross over appeal. In addition to being a populist. I would love to see Edwards take Obama as his VP that will be the only transition to the highest office in the land that I think John Q Public will allow. I know you disagree with me, but this is unfortunately the reality I see on the ground.
And I would be actually glad to be proven wrong. Not because I personally support Obama but because it would indicate the American people had evolved more than I had surmised.

This election is a tipping point for our country, it is just too risky to not think how the GOP and the corporate media will villify and destroy him in the media. I can hear it now, inexperienced, a shady muslim background(even though false) Hussein as a middle name... once again play on all these fears that the Bush/Cheney/Rove cabal have been masters at. Most educated people will see through it, however I have seen too much in my travels not to heed the red flags, and know better! And then again we are back to GOP rule over we the unwashed masses.

Posted by Jeanne | November 13, 2007 11:59 AM

Jeanne S.

At first blush, I'm not sure any of these bills really compare to the three pieces of landmark legislation named for Obama I cited above.

Looking more closely, it turns out non of these bills ever made it out of committee.

S.1052 - Latest Major Action: 11/19/2002 Held at the desk.

H.CON.RES.76 - Latest Major Action: 3/17/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

H.R.2310 - Latest Major Action: 7/30/1997 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Do you have any examples of any landmark legislation John Edwards took the lead on (particularly on the issues he's been discussing this campaign) that actually ended up passing? I'm not saying they don't exist (I'm sure he has some) but I haven't seen any that really compare to the type of legislation Obama has successfully lead into law.

(Also, Obama didn't "propose" those bills on transparency, he took the lead and "passed" those bills on transparency. And ethics/lobbyist reform. And weapons non-proliferation.)

Posted by Dave | November 13, 2007 12:19 PM

Actually, looking even closer, those last two bills don't involve John Edwards, they were sponsored by Rep. John Edward Porter, who is a separate person.

Posted by Dave | November 13, 2007 12:21 PM

Thank you, TarHeel, for articulately expressing my thoughts on this subject.

I think any argument of "the country is too racist to vote for a black man, so I won't vote for a black man" is contemptible, but it seems to be the position of many liberals.

I don't hear similar arguments that we shouldn't vote for Sen. Clinton because the country won't elect a woman, mostly because there are multitudes of other reasons why nominating her would be disastrous.

Posted by Dan W. | November 13, 2007 5:35 PM

I didn't catch Obama's speech at Saturday night's Jefferson-Jackson dinner, but I did watch (pre-recorded) the Russert interview from yesterday.

Agreed. Dreadful. Not so much in absolute terms, but dreadful compared to what it could - and should - have been. Obama came off as... a politician. (*SHRUG*)

Even when he gave a straight answer on favoring an increase in the ceiling for Social Security "contributions," under close questioning he came off as trying to backtrack.

Personally, I think his proposed Social Security fix goes in exactly the WRONG direction, but jeez... at least it comes off as straightforward and principled. Or rather it DID until Russert kept on going and instead of sticking to his guns and going on the offense, Obama tried to keep his "options open." (Ditto negotiating with dictators.)

One thing Obama could learn from the Clintons is how to take charge - hijack if necessary - an interview. Go on the offense - that's how you take on a guy like Russert.

BILL

Posted by William R. Barker | November 13, 2007 5:48 PM

Here's Obama's full response, which I think shows him in a much more positive light.
--
SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that’s what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. And since that time I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.

Posted by Jesse Holmes | November 13, 2007 7:03 PM

Jeanne S-

How many voters are there out there who wouldn't vote for a Black Man? (I'm guessing 25%)

And then of THOSE, how many would consider voting for ANY Democrat? (I'm guessing 25%)

And then of THOSE, how many are living in swing states? (I'm guessing 5%)

Wouldn't that be MORE than compensated for by what would surely be an EXTRAORDINARY turnout by the African American Community, which IS fairly heavily concentrated in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia?

This, by the way, is the great unsung story of the Democratic Primary and HAS to be the great fear of the Clinton campaign. Clinton is leading Obama among African Americans right now. If Obama can get some Big Mo coming out of Lilly-White Iowa and New Hampshire, her lead will evaporate overnight as the African American community walks away from her like she's got bad B.O.

That's why she's as desperate for a good outcome from Iowa as Obama is. Get Momentum heading solidly against her, and it will avelanche against her.

Posted by Greggie | November 13, 2007 7:31 PM

Good analysis in this thread. Quick summary that applies to the nomination and the general:

Is Obama too high-minded to do what is takes to win?

Is Hillary too unlikeable and robotic to win?

Is Edwards too light to win?

Maybe, maybe, and probably.

Posted by tomtom | November 13, 2007 9:29 PM

John Edwards chances of winning the nomination get slimmer with each passing day. He's not going to be our next President. And Obama has a real fight on his hands to overtake Hillary. I doubt he will be successful. The American people want a leader and that means a President with experience and full qualifications. Hillary for President!

She's the best chance we Democrats have to win back the Whitehouse.

Posted by Myra and Robert - NH | November 14, 2007 2:15 AM

I've been on the internet off and on all day and I must have missed all those "Edwards is Surging" stories. Can someone please provide me with links to them? Yeah, right. We all know better than that, don't we?

There was, however, a good cover story about Edwards at the New Republic.

The New Republic

Edwards's Scissor Hands
by Noam Scheiber
A candidate's amazing knife skills.
Post Date Wednesday, November 14, 2007

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=42580c2f-c35a-44a3-95b2-bdc206c061ef

Posted by pmorlan | November 14, 2007 10:02 PM