crosstab from that shows when there is a union member in the house Edwards jumps up to 36 with Clinton at 26 and Obama still at 21.

When you consider the way the caucuses work and the fact that union members usually get election days off that is a really important number.

First because I think he's extremely beatable obviously. But also because I said he'd win the nomination several months ago and I like feeling smart.

He's only been trying to win over caucus participants for four solid years.  All that union support did wonders for Gephardt.

For Obama to be reasonably close and such a new candidate is impressive.  And Obama is not pandering to anyone in order to get their vote.

If Iowa is competitive and the candidates who come in second and third have strong organizations in other states, then Iowa will not be decisive.

It seems increasingly likely that with all the lead time for these candidates to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, the big blow may come on February 5th.  I think that the big three will still be standing going into February 5th.  Of course, one of them may drop off and someone else might come up.

Other scenarios are plausible.  Assuming that several candidates perform well between now and primary time (which is what I anticipate) this may turn out to be an unconventional cycle for the Democrats.  The contest may last for awhile.

The most interesting thing to me is what happens to Barack Obama over the next several months.  How does he grow?  How does he show people what he is made of? etc. 

Iowa may not be decisive, but when someone at the back of the pack over-performs in the caucus, Iowa traditionally can catapult forward a candidate who hasn't been in the national spotlight to quite the same degree before.  One example was Sen. John Kerry, who pulled out an unexpected win in the Iowa caucuses while the nation was focused on Howard Dean and the state of Iowa specifically looked like it might break for Gephardt.  Edwards' fundraising may not be on par with either Clinton or Obama, but he plays a strong ground game in Iowa and NH, and he hasn't received as much attention at all since his announcement regarding his wife's medical status.  Even edging out Clinton and Obama will make voters in the rest of the country put their commitment to the front runners on hold for a moment and re-examine what Iowa finds so darned endearing about John Edwards.

So in one sense, Dan's right, this is very good news for Edwards.  But unfortunately, I fear this may also be really bad news for the Party at large.  We may actually get sadled with a weaker candidate who can't raise money, don't energize people and won't go the distance once again by the great state of Iowa.

at the polls done state by state with our top 3 vs their top 3.

Edwards would be very very good for the party.

I can't say a lot of bad stuff about Obama other than point out that he bends too easily in the face of pressure. Too willing to throw his underlings under the bus when the heat comes down.

But I can point out stuff about how Hillary will FUCK the party. Profanity is entirely appropriate in this instance so don't give me any guff about it.

We WILL LOSE the House and Senate if she is the nominee. Most of the freshmen who have to defend were elected in some marginal districts that go fairly hard GOP in presidential years. I know of at least 4 districts that now have no good prospects for a Dem nominee because they can't run a good race in a presidential year in the districts they are in. I expect that number to jump over the next few months and if Hillary is the nominee then we will have a HELL of a hard time finding good candidates for those vital marginal districts. Forget winning those districts, Ain't going to happen.

Edwards will help us win in states like VA, AR, LA, KY and even GA. So don't spout some silly shit about Edwards being bad for the party.

How long has John Edwards been running for President?  He has 29% or 35% or whatever in Iowa.  Whoopedoo!  Wait six months while Obama campaigns.

Edwards is the one who through his bloggers under a bus, not that I am making that an issue.

All I am saying is give Obama a chance.  Besides, Obama has more political experience than John "One Term" Edwards, has thought more deeply about the issues (Opposed the "dumb war" in 2002), and has everything going for him.  I say he's irresistable.

Funny, because I'm resisting him right now while I back Edwards.  Apparently he's not.

Agreed Dannyboy. Edwards has taken a good lead in Iowa while raising less cash and getting less of the mainstream media attention that Obama and Hillary get. I have nothing against Obama, but I just think the only candidate more beatable than he is in a general election is Hillary. John Edwards ground game in Iowa and the primary states is working, and he has actually laid out detailed policy plans that resonate well. Not to mention, he's raised more cash in the South than all 3 top GOP nominees COMBINED. He can take the fight to their turf as well.

Now, don't take this as an attack just because I, like DanG, do not find Obama "irresistible". I would support him wholeheartedly if he were our nominee, I just think Edwards is the stronger candidate in the general if we can break the pretty boy mold.

Edwards will be a disaster as our nominee.  He's coming across as a tax and spend liberal - he's already stated he would probably have to raise taxes to fund programs he is advocating on the campaign trail.  It will be an instant replay of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all over again, with an expenive haircut thrown in. 

There is way too much of a disconnect between his public life and his political life - the haircut, the 28,000 sq., foot house and now the hedge fund - and the policies he advocates do not come across as genuine as a result. 

And many of those policies that he advocates are not going to sell in places like Georgia, Kentucky and Arkansas.  He'll come across as an upper class elitist and our party will be buried in the general election if he is our nominee.  And we will be buried by the same voters who he believes will be open to his polices. 

A messenger cannot deliver a message unless he or she is credilbe as a messenger - and Edwards is clearly not credible. 

You see and think like a Republican. There is no disconnect whatsoever. Anyone who makes the haircut argument is not intellectually serious. The house is a big ass house. That he paid a lot of money for. He made a ton of money going after GOP asshole corporations. He made it the good way.

And as far as his policies not selling in GA,KY and AR.... BULLSHIT. Economic populism beats out EVERY issue in these areas. And not just with Democrats, with everyone.

No way in hell does John Edwards come off as elitist. Have you heard him speak... He is the only electable candidate we have up there.

Romney is number one in the GOP right now. Edwards is the only dem that consistently beats him in the nationwide polls. Not just beats him but beats the hell out of him.

Give me a head to head between Obama and Edwards.  I dare you.

How long has John Edwards been in politics?

What is he doing now?

What electorate is he accountable to?

Please.

...whats the deal with the negativity and the haste towards another Democrat? Wow! Good for the Democratic process that we do not have your way, and instead of a head-to-head, we have a field full of credible candidates ready to knock the GOP off its block.
Now, I'm an Obama fan, he's just not my top choice, which makes me find your arguments of comparison rather interesting.
In terms of experience, it sounds like you want a career politician in there. With the Webb-Allen race this past year, I think we proved who we'd rather have in office: the man with the best ideas! Also, if you are going to cut Edwards experience, you shouldn't do it with someone like Obama. Please keep in mind that I love the guy, but experience is never going to be one of the points he argues on the stump. You mention Johnny's "one term" in the Senate (keep in mind he left to run for VP) but you must take into account that is still longer than Obama has served, and if Barack is elected President or Vice President, would still be longer than her served in the Senate. I don't think the comparison makes one candidate better than the other necessarily, the argument itself is just silly.

And why write off Edward's high numbers in Iowa with a "whoopedoo"? He's logging 15% points ahead of the candidate you argue for, and does so with less money. True he's been running for a longer period of time, but thats part of his strength. Edwards has a fantastic network of experience in Iowa and several primary states. I'm just curious, but where does all this hostility towards Democrats come from?

Edwards is the only candidate who talks about "tranformational change" to correct not just the abuses of the Bush mafia but also issues ignored for too long, like global warming, health care, education.
I think taxes should be raised on the rich--as does Edwards. Anyone who thinks we should keep Bush's hand-outs to the rich in place is either selfish, greedy, Republican,(all three!) or just not a real Democrat.
I don't care about Edwards' mansion or haircuts--he's a tremendously effective and passionate voice for the underprivileged, having been there (poor). likely even more than Obama.
You say he has less experience than Obama, certainly not at the federal level. The next President will have to cope with all the cesspools of corruption, incompetence and internal bureaucratic dysfunction left over from Bush; I can't see Hillary or Barack firmly implementing change and resisting all the corrupting undercurrents in WDC and even within the Democratic party. Hillary is simply a corporatist- see this week's cover story in The Nation at http://www.thenation...
And dealing with the WDC bureacracy is where Barack may have problems, if he's not very strong and knowledgable.
But the most important things about Edwards are, in my view, how he's using his campaign to oppose the war and the kind of strong progressives he attracted. His campaign manager, David Bonior is just the kind of guy who could really help Edwards reconstruct and reform the federal bureaucracy because that's what the next President must do in additon to everything else.
I think I'm probably like most Democrats when I say that the Democratic field is so good--so much better than years past and so much better than the Greedy Oleaginous Party that the only real disaster for the progressive cause will in my view be Hillary.

People have to admit that Edwards has a decent strategy figured out. He's running to sweep Nevada (with union support), Iowa (with established networks), South Carolina (with local ties). And if he wins New Hampshire or even comes in second, the amount of free media he will get will dwarf anything you can buy in 20 states with 100 million bucks.

The Feb 5th States are looking to be a bitch of a problem for all the candidates.

What do you think of this scenario with these three huge Feb 5 states.

CA - Obama or Clinton or Edwards. (Edwards wowed a CA dem party meeting recently but Hillary and Obama will run strong here.
NY - Hillary (natch)
TX - Edwards (natch)

Coming out of these three states you see a lot of the March states suddenly becoming more popular and getting some attention.

I think it will be over on Feb. 5th...but who the hell knows.

People talk about fund raising like it's THE measuring stick. Remember, you can raise 10 million and waste 11 million and you're 1 million in the hole.  On the other hand, you can  raise 10, spend 2 and have 8 left over for the SUPER PRIMARY DAY that will determine the 2008 nominee.  Any one of the top 4 candidates, either Clinton, Obama, Gore or Edwards could win depending on how wisely they spend and how well they can finesse the press.  The one who raised the most may not have what it takes to go all the way.

On a side note, the Clintonistas apparently have "observers" ready with canned, insta-talking points posts. [ I didn't say "paid trolls", lay off me ]

And it illustrates well the problem with Edwards.  When you're spending the money you ARE raising on $400 haircuts, you're not budgetting effectively for an election that will ultimately be decided in November 2008.  Moreover, you're handing your GOP opponent free fodder for advertisements designed to make you look like you don't have anything in common with a working-class moderate American male from a Midwestern State who works with his hands and gets his hair cut for $12 at SuperCuts.

;)

DoGood is right on target - but I'll take it one step further.  In politcis, perception is reality, regardless how far away from the truth it is.  The $400.00 haircut is not something to be ignored.  It symbolizes much more - and the Republicans will use that, along with everything else I referenced and bury Edwards in a general election.  They will present him as a typical, rich trial lawyer, the limousine liberal type, who is totally out of touch with working class and blue collar voters.  And that is just the group we have lost in the last two general election cycles.

Wow, just went you thought it couldn't get any worse for John Edwards - the San Francisco Chronicle is now reporting that Edwards charged UC - Davis a $55,000.00 speaking fee - to speak to students on poverty.  Check out the Chronicle's article at www.sfgate.com.

He may not even get a chance to beat Hillary in Iowa :
http://apnews.myway....

Hillary Rodham Clinton's deputy campaign manager wrote a memo this week urging the Democratic front-runner to bypass the Iowa caucuses, in order to spend time and resources in New Hampshire, South Carolina and several larger states hosting primaries next Feb. 5.

The memo emerged days after a new Des Moines Sunday Register poll of likely caucus goers showed Clinton trailing rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama in Iowa, which is scheduled to hold the first voting contests next January 14.

Edwards is in deep trouble. If Hillary withdraws in Iowa, he's toast.