Reader W:
I was a staffer for Bill Richardson's campaign in Iowa for seven months prior to the caucuses, and I want to thank you for pointing out how fallacious the Wolfson "minus Edwards, Hillary wins Iowa" theory is.
The depth and breadth of the disdain for Hillary Clinton among Iowa Democrats is something that didn't get enough attention in the months before the primary. Some of Edwards' strongest supporters--committed Democrats all--were unsure if they'd vote for her should she be the nominee. Given how strong antiwar sentiment was among Iowa Democrats--especially Edwards Democrats--without him in the race, Hillary would have been crushed.
I attended a caucus in Eastern Iowa where John Edwards was not viable. Clinton and Obama had split into two groups that were more or less equal, and when the 15 Edwards (and 5 Richardson) supporters were forced to make second choices, three-fourths went into the Obama corner.
In reality, Hillary and Edwards did as well as they did by winning small, rural, delegate-overrepresented precincts throughout southern and western Iowa. Obama crushed both of them--had it been a straight vote, he'd probably have won by 12 or 13 points.
| 
