Journal pudge's Journal: Desperation Breeds Delusion 12
John Edwards said that because of the Iowa results, it is now a two-man race -- literally, two men, Edwards and Obama.
That doesn't even make sense on the surface: Edwards only beat Clinton by 0.28 percent, and she actually leaves Iowa with MORE national delegates than Edwards, because of her strong showing in Iowa's Fifth Congressional District. So even though she came in a very close third, she actually did better than Edwards, who came in second.
So in fact, Hillary came in second in the way it counts: she has the second most national delegates in the state. And that is not even counting "super delegates," where she is far outpacing both Edwards and Obama.
But even if none of that were true, even if Edwards had left Iowa with more delegates -- in, or out, of Iowa -- than Clinton, it is still nonsensical to count her out, as obviously she is far stronger in many other states than she is in Iowa.
Of course, if you are reading this, you probably already know that. And that's the point: everyone knows that. So why would Edwards say that she is out of the race? It can only be for one reason: he's desperate, so he is resorting to baldfaced lying in the hope he can peel off some more votes.
And that typifies Edwards. He pretends he is the antiwar candidate, despite cosponsoring the authorization for the use of force. He pretends he defends the "little guy," when his extremely lucrative career was made on exploiting the "little guy." He acts like he is experienced, when he has spent only one term in the Senate. Then he acts like he is an unknown outsider (a speech he gave yesterday bragged about coming in second against two "rock star" candidates) despite being on the national ticket just over three years ago.
I've said it before, and it is unfortunately true: I would much rather have Hillary as President than Edwards. Those who know me -- even a little -- know that this isn't much about Clinton, but a lot about Edwards, and nothing good. But I would love to see him win the nomination, because he is such an easy target for the GOP. Too bad he has no chance.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Afraid of the Big Game? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason that you love Hillary so much is that the GOP doesn't have a candidate that can defeat any of the other Democratic candidates. You don't want the GOP to go up against Edwards.
Ha. I would MUCH rather go up against Edwards than Hillary.
He lies because he's just who he is: a trial lawyer.
I think that is backward: he is a trial lawyer because he lies. :-)
You hate him because he uses the power of the government to compel big settlements out of people just trying to help society, such as the Red Cross and doctors.
Yes, it is quite despicable.
Leave the Edwards hate to Wikipedia, where it belongs!
Wiki ... pe-dee-a? What's that?
aw (Score:1)
He's close, tho. He's right about it now being a two-person race, as a result of Iowa. It's just not a two-man race. Obama's win by a non-insignificant margin destroys a lot of the widely-held assumption of his unelectability (this early in his political career), and her finish not in 2nd bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still think Hillary will win
I'm not so sure, she seems to be imploding nearly as fast as Rudy did. As someone else pointed out finishing 3rd in Iowa is devastating to someone who's campaign is built on being the "inevitable" nominee and the one who's "turn" it is. If she does as badly or worse than the current NH tracking polls indicate, expect a huge Obama surge in SC and the Feb 5th states.
Both Edwards and Clinton need to beat expectations soon and continue to do so if they are going to have any chance at the nomination. SC is basi
Re: (Score:2)
I still think Hillary will win
I'm not so sure, she seems to be imploding nearly as fast as Rudy did.
See, I don't think Rudy is imploding at all. He never has a chance in Iowa or New Hampshire, and his campaign was always a longshot because of that (and other things), despite his high standings in national polls.
If she does as badly or worse than the current NH tracking polls indicate, expect a huge Obama surge in SC and the Feb 5th states.
Well, yes, that's the rub: she needs to do well on Feb. 5. That's the whole point, and Iowa and NH won't determine that. It may help Obama, but if she is as strong elsewhere as it appears, it won't matter in the end.
Both Edwards and Clinton need to beat expectations soon
Edwards is done. He wasn't strong anywhere except for Iowa and maybe some of
Re: (Score:2)
See, I don't think Rudy is imploding at all. He never has a chance in Iowa or New Hampshire, and his campaign was always a longshot because of that (and other things), despite his high standings in national polls.
Be that as it may, his campaign did suffer a huge collapse in poll standings over the last 30 days. I believe the same thing is happening to Clinton only faster.
Frankly I don't put much stock in the national polls. They are pretty much meaningless.
Well, yes, that's the rub: she needs to do well on Feb. 5. That's the whole point, and Iowa and NH won't determine that. It may help Obama, but if she is as strong elsewhere as it appears, it won't matter in the end.
If she loses the perception race in NH and especially SC as badly as she lost Iowa she's going to have a really hard time doing well anywhere outside of NY and NJ on Feb 5. She was leading in NH prior to Iowa, her support there has rapidly collapsed. I think the
Re: (Score:2)
Edwards best hope at this point is to collect enough delegates to be able to cut a deal at the convention.
Yes, but not for President or Vice President. That won't happen. But he could get something else out of it.
The other possibility is Clinton collapses so fast that Edwards is the only real alternative to Obama left.
Yeah, but it won't be nearly enough to beat Obama.
In a compressed election season there is little time to recover from a loss
But also little time to be HURT by a loss.
momentum is everything
I don't buy it. A few days isn't enough time to build a lot of momentum from one state to another.
Obama has the mo right now, if Clinton loses SC (at this point I expect she will lose NH) she's very unlikely to get the nomination.
OK. We'll see. I think she is likely to win it even if she loses NH and SC.
Delusion or confusion? (Score:2)
Let's not forget that we're talking about a guy who went to work for a hedge fund to learn about poverty. Fortunately, he's out to protect the return on the little guy's trust fund.
But I agree. I'd rather go up against Edwards than Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I definitely agree with that. I think she'd probably be better than Obama, too. I chuckle every time I hear him say that he's going to end partisanship with a party line liberal agenda.
Of course, as far as most [vocal] Democrats seem to be concerned, partisanship was a clever invention of Karl Rove to derail the Democratic Senate's agenda and allow the neocon army to continue to kill baby Iraqis by drowning them in all that bloody crude oil we're raking in. It's probably leading to global warming
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I definitely agree with that. I think she'd probably be better than Obama, too. I chuckle every time I hear him say that he's going to end partisanship with a party line liberal agenda.
YES! I was railing about that last night. It's very, in my opinion, dishonest. He wants government-run health care (of some size or shape). Conservatives want none at all. So he offers a "compromise" position: some government-run health care! Except that's not a compromise, that's a surrender, but when the conservatives don't give in, well, that's because they are being partisan.
It's so transparent, but people in this country don't understand the fight, because they don't understand the principles, s