Obama Increases Lead In Iowa: 32-25-25

Cross-Posted @ One Million Strong

While the full poll has yet to be released, Political Wire has gotten an advanced look at a Strategic Vision poll that shows Obama with continued momentum and subsequently increasing his lead in Iowa to a full seven points over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards: 32%-25%-25%.

This is but the latest in a series of early-state polls that show Obama is gaining traction at a torrid pace and largely closing the gap between him and Hillary.  Two recent New Hampshire polls show him within single digits of Hillary - a win in Iowa would, without a doubt in my mind, catapult him to the front of the pack in the Granite State just like it did in the case of John Kerry back in 2004.

While it can't be said with certainty before the full results are released tomorrow, I suspect, based on previous polls conducted by the firm, that the Strategic Vision poll will be much more credible than the two polls the Clinton campaign was touting here a couple of days ago.  The two polls that showed Hillary in the lead in Iowa had incredibly large margins of error and were sampled over a period of as many as three weeks.  The previous three Strategic Vision Iowa polls were taken over a three day stretch and had margins of error of 4-4.5%.

The momentum is palpable - we need to keep it up.

•  Can you imagine

  what a Gore endorsement would do for Obama?  I had previously thought that Gore would sit out the primaries unless Obama or Edwards significantly closed the gap between them and Hillary.  Now that Obama has, I think it's much more likely he'll endorse.

  by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

  •  I dont know

    I think a Gore endorsement would be great, but I dont think Obama needs it to win. I think, in general, there are going to be a lot of big endorsement over the next couple of weeks.

    by jj32 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:02:34 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't need it to win

      but Gore is the single biggest potential endorser in either party - can you fathom both Gore and Oprah stumping for Obama?  It would simply be incredible.

      by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:05:25 AM PDT

      •  Oh Really?

        Why do you think Gore is the single biggest endorsement?

        What about are boy king, George "the Chimperor" Bush?  

        Ha ha ha

        I crack myself up.

        by nisleib on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:33:14 AM PDT

        •  Ummm... I hate to break the news,

          but this election stopped being about Gore quite a long time ago.

          Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

          by nicejoest on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:21:16 AM PDT

          •  No, it isn't about him.

            But name a non-candidate Dem whose endorsement will make more news. Oprah and Babs are nothing compared to him. If it happens, it will get at least two weeks of good coverage. Same if Edwards gets it.

            by pureproductofamerica on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:48:35 AM PDT

            •  Well....

              If Bill Clinton endorsed Obama it would probably make more news.

              by TooFolkGR on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:07:34 PM PDT

              •  Hee hee!!!

                by nicejoest on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:15:43 PM PDT

        •  Here's why

          besides having a tremendous following and a huge Rolodex, Democrats have come to respect Gore more than any other person in their party (evident by the support he'd have if he chose to ran).  

          He's won the Nobel Peace Prize, Live Earth, NYT Bestseller, Oscar, Emmy...all in the past year.  Those are some serious street creds.

          by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:50:51 AM PDT

      •  Right. Bill's ensorsment means diddly...

        ...because Hillary's running. Unless, of course, he endorsed someone other than Hillary!

        by Hesiod on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:51:17 AM PDT

        •  Did Bill endorse Obama?

          kidding ...

          by Kdoug on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:54:18 AM PDT

          •  He'll say he did...

            ...right after Obama wins the nomination.

            Bill will claim he ALWAYS wanted Obama tro win, but was supporting Hillary out of marital necessity.

            Once she loses, of course, the divorce proceedings begin.

            by Hesiod on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:56:47 AM PDT

            •  Tacky n/t

              by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:09:21 AM PDT

              •  very

                by Reviser on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:38:46 PM PDT

    •  Now THIS is a Surge!!!!

      ...and one we can get behind!!!

      by serrano on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:27:16 AM PDT

    •  Agree - kick ass, Obama!

      Is a seismic shift taking place in Democratic politics? Only time will tell. But it is starting to look like the grassroots/netroots shift that had such a powerful influence in 2006 may be starting to make itself felt again.

      I for one am going to what I can to add to it. I've already contributed to Obama's campaign twice, and am visiting my first Obama organizational meeting tonight. I am now planning to begin organizing in my area in Western Sonoma County.

      It's time for a real change in the Democratic Party. It's time to clean out the DLC/establishment Dems, so palpably represented by Hillary. It is these people who have enabled Bush for seven long years. (Yes, Hillary. Your AUMF vote might be the very thing that brings you down. That, and your campaign's obvious contempt for anyone who doesn't toe your Establishment line.)

      by The Lighthouse Keeper on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:36:19 AM PDT

  •  Obama will get more good endorsements

    but I don't think anyone will get Gore's.

    by Femlaw on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:04:37 AM PDT

    •  I wonder...

      I tend to think Gore will want to weigh in.

      Given his lack of success getting the Clinton's to act on Kyoto - I doubt he'll want another go-round with them.

      He'd be smart to endorse.  I think he will.

      by snout on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

      •  After the Dean thing

        I think he'll want to wait.  But I think Obama is his most likely choice given Iraq war, economic and environmental issues.

        To tell you the truth, none of the candidates, in my mind, is the person that I would say jumps out as the environment candidate.  Kucinich is strong on the enviormment, but he's really a fringe guy.

        by VaAntirepublican on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:28:55 AM PDT

      •  I believe

        he's already said he's not going to endorse. Isn't that right?

        by mrblifil on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:49:59 AM PDT

        •  Actually

          he has said he will likely endorse...he hasn't said he will definitively though.

          by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:58:34 AM PDT

          •  Before the convention?

            I'd be shocked if that were to occur. It would do nothing but harbor ill will among the opponents of whoever he favors.

            by mrblifil on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:02:51 AM PDT

            •  Yes

              in an interview back in September he was asked whether he will endorse:

              Will you endorse a candidate in the primary?

              Odds are that I will.

              by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:14:58 AM PDT

              •  Thnx

                Interesting. I appreciate the link.

                by mrblifil on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:49:15 AM PDT

    •  It makes me sad

      to think one of these candidates will be president before Al Gore.

      by Number5 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:18:45 AM PDT

      •  but it doesn't make Gore sad

        he simply doesn't want that job, and I don't blame him.

        by hollywood politcaljunkie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:27:38 AM PDT

        •  Not quite true

          he has actually said that he would love to be President.  What he doesn't want to do is campaign.

          by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:59:23 AM PDT

          •  We need a proclamation

            All of us shouting loud enough at one time. Like Horton Hears a Who.

            by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:10:48 AM PDT

      •  Funny

        It doesn't make the god formerly known as Gore sad, though. He doesn't WANT the job.

        by young montana voter on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

      •  who cares anymore?

        he's not running. he will not run. not now, not ever. he will not be president. ever. it is over, and time moves on.

        by RabidNation on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:32:20 AM PDT

        •  yes

          And that is why I finally signed up. Need to find a candidate.

          by Number5 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:58:38 AM PDT

        •  I dunno. He's still young enough.

          He'll be 68 in 2016. That's still in the ballpark.

          by Fonsia on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

          •  Or

            hopefully we wont need him to run then, but he'll only be 64 come 2012.

            by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:18:09 PM PDT

      •  I hope so

        While I am sorry that Gore not being President makes you sad (me to), I would hope that one of the Dem candidates is President before any repub candidate.

        If a Dem does not win in 2008, I could imagine Gore running in 2012 or even 2016, he's still certainly young enough.

        by mndan on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM PDT

    •  I concur...

      If Gore endorsed and the endorsee does not win then Al may have a harder time selling his agenda to the eventual nominee.

      by Zueda on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:19:42 AM PDT

      •  I agree

        Gore has bigger fish to fry than even the Presidency of the U.S.  And I think he will try to protect his access to whoever wins.   And I don't blame him for that.

        Of course, if he decides to endorse my guy I'd be delighted.  And I think Obama is the candidate most aligned with him in terms of an overall framework - the one person who is thinking about a world beyond the war between markets and government - where government can do what it needs to do for the public good, where markets do what they do well, which is innovate, and get regulated in the ways they do badly, which is distribute the benefits of innovation, and everyone just focuses on how to get the work done that needs to happen for a better society.

        I think this is a place where Gore has been living for some time now, and it explains why he's doing what he is doing.

        by Femlaw on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:44:27 AM PDT

  •  Sure helped us on Dean n/t

    by privatewl on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:13:49 AM PDT

    •  Gore had NOTHING

      to do with Dean's free fall --- if you look back, you'll actually see that Dean's numbers actually got a bump after the endorsement.

      But that's all irrelevant because a Gore 2008 endorsement is much, much more powerful than a Gore 2004 endorsement.

      by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:17:26 AM PDT

      •  not exactly

        the Gore endorsement served as a media focus point

        there was no real mechanism relating to the behind-the-scenes stuff, perhaps ... or perhaps it served as a raise-in-stakes moment for the guys behind the "independently" funded attack ads, and for the execs who did not take kindly to Dean's trust-busting statements regarding media ownership

        i think a Gore endorsement (of Obama) before Iowa could signal that it's over for all but two candidates, and could wind up causing the second tier folk to negotiate themselves into this cycle's Gephardt - a self-immolating candidate who attacks and flames for the benefit of ...

        i suppose it could be fun, trying to guess whose side Biden and Richardson would take, and where Kucinich plans to walk his non-viable Iowa supporters (those PDAfolk sure do manage to maintain discipline, even in the face of logic)

        wystler's seat of the pants guess: if they've got Gore lined up, they're gonna hold his endorsement in reserve ... i'd expect it some time post-Iowa, prior to February 5, if at all

        by wystler on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:33:31 AM PDT

        •  My bet on Kucinich?

          He throws his support behind Clinton.

          by nolalily on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:37:24 AM PDT

          •  i don't think so

            his campaign is likely looking for a quid pro quo

            and i'm not really sure the 2004 walk-to-Edwards came from Dennis per se, but, rather, from the PDA folks who served as his on-the-ground organizers ... they did that, in part, not to boost Kucinich's candidacy (duh) or his platform, but instead to boost their own grass roots organization's viability ... one of the keys was their knowledge that it was going to be a two-way street, with Edwards not being viable at more than a couple of caucus sites ... they managed to send a few extra PDAfolk to the state convention through that deal

            there's more going on at most caucus sites, especially when non-viable backers are up for grabs, than presidential politix

            by wystler on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:08:33 AM PDT

            •  Thanks for expounding!

              n/t

              by nolalily on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:39:43 AM PDT

          •  Richardson is the one

            you should be worrying about. His percentage could put Clinton over the top.

            by mrblifil on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:50:47 AM PDT

      •  Yes...

        Gore had NOTHING to do with Dean's free fall

        Dean's post-Iowa fall in the polls may have had something to do with CNN, and every other network, playing that one piece of video over, and over, and over, and over. They were out to ridicule him and destroy his campaign. Mission accomplished.

        Today of course the same ones who set out to destroy Dean in 2004 whine about Bush.

        by assyrian64 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:47:57 AM PDT

        •  speaking of ridicule....

          anyone see the trivialization of Dennis Kucinich in the Washington (com)Post today?

          I'm not even a Kucinich supporter, and I absolutely DETEST this coverage. I don't care that it's in the style section; it still trivializes his candidacy by virtue of the total lack of coverage of his positions in their paper. Why don't they put something about universal health care on the front page instead?

          by billlaurelMD on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:06:06 AM PDT

          •  I did read it

            and honestly I don't have a problem with it.  Why?  Because Kucinich loves it and plays up his wife on the campaign trail every opportunity he gets.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was Kucinich's idea for the story.

            by NYPopulist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:13:21 AM PDT

      •  anyhoo----even without a Gore endorsement,

        Obama seems to be doing just fine all by himself.  People see qualities in Obama they want in the next president.  There is something special about Obama which people are responding to.  This is the kind of candidate we've been dreaming about----one who truly inspires and interests thousands to show up to see and hear him everywhere he goes.  
         How about having a candidate that voters are actually excited about voting for?

        by dotster on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:53:49 AM PDT

        •  Yes im so tired of

          the having to vote for the lesser of two evils line. Thats what its been for 25 years, except for Bill Clinton's first run.

          What a change! Im tired of voting to keep the other guy out of office instead of voting for my choice to get in.

          by Unseen majority on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:52:24 AM PDT

    •  Dean got significant boosts from Gore's

      endorsement, both nationally and in IA. You can find a set of polls showing that here.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

      •  short lived

        As we know from Dean's unexpectedly poor showing in Iowa, Gore's endorsement, in the long run, didn't translate into votes. The first poll that genuinely matters will take place on January 5th.

        by Henry Pussycat on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:33:58 PM PDT

  •  Shhhhhh

    Don't tell anyone--I like there to be a cap on expecation--but Edwards is the the favorite in Iowa:

    On a conference call held to talk about Iowa and the new Bruce Braley endorsement of John Edwards, deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said that the Edwards campaign has trained at least two precinct captains in more than 87 percent of caucus precincts statewide.

    Generally, campaigns don't release this kind of info, but in Edwards's case, it reinforces the case made by rival campaigns privately: if the caucuses were held tonight, based on organization alone, Edwards would probably win

    by david mizner on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:18:11 AM PDT

    •  I'm perfectly fine with Edwards

      being the favorite.

      As long as that is the case an Edwards-Obama-Clinton finish is really good for Obama in the long-run. (since he's the best organized in the Feb 5 states)

      by bawbie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:19:53 AM PDT

      •  Keep thinking

        that Obama doesn't need to win Iowa. Please.

        by david mizner on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:40:14 AM PDT

        •  he'll have to win it now.

          He's the great media hype.

          by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:48:22 AM PDT

          •  did someone say "hype?"

            

            by sgary on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:03:55 AM PDT

            •  Very ugly

              Did you get that from a Republican site? (and no, I do not support Obama).

              by klw1963 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:05:14 PM PDT

          •  Yes - the media plants cardboard

            people at all his events - those THOUSANDS of people who show up to see him everywhere - and who donate money all the time - they're just created by the media!

            by Elise on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:45:55 AM PDT

        •  I would think he would survive a loss to Edwards

          but not Clinton, but you might be right.  Although of course, the same goes for Edwards...if he can't win there he's done.

          And of course, a 3rd place finish for HRC seems devastating.

          by hollywood politcaljunkie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

          •  I think Edwards stays in until SC

            If he doesn't win SC, he's done.  If Clinton wins Iowa, it's almost done.  If it's Edwards-Obama-Clinton, it's down to NH and anything could happen.

            by Webster on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:52:48 AM PDT

        •  Say Edwards wins Iowa

          then what?  Hillary takes the rest?

          by pamelabrown on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:28:14 AM PDT

        •  He and Edwards don't need ot win Iowa

          --as long as one of them beats Clinton, and the other is essentially tied with her, they're fine.

          by ogre on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:47:25 AM PDT

          •  She has now legitmated staying in

            By making personal attacks, Clinton has legitimated Obama staying in the race to become the antiClinton whenever the others are forced to drop out.  

            by Lois on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:32:58 PM PDT

      •  Obama doesn't need Iowa

        but Edwards does.  Which is why I'm heading there to work for him (Edwards).

        My wish is for it to be Edwards in first, Obama in second. Clinton in third would finally put a stake through the heart of the "inevitability" meme that's so annoying.  As if nobody really just has to vote; let's just assume she'll win & get on down the road.

        IF Obama can turn enough people out in Iowa to win outright, it means (to me) that he really can do more than exciting younger voters & those who have become disenchanted with the process. It means that he can actually excite and inspire them enough to actually turn out to vote.  There's a difference between "liking" a candidate & showing up for a caucus. That's why Edwards should do better than current polls indicate.

        But if Obama pulls it off, that's really something.  I'll be happy to get behind him.  That energy of the new and returning voters would give us a win next November.

        That said, I prefer Edwards on the issues and will work my heart out for him in Iowa.

        by countrycat on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:48:28 PM PDT

    •  And what will he do about his money problem?

      Edwards can be loved all day long...that doesn't magically make him viable when it comes to money. Due to his public funding problem we will have no way to combat the GOP between February and the Convention. That's hardly going to help us win the General.

      In the end, Edwards would be better off endorsing Obama and running for NC Senate.

      by Elise on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:38:53 AM PDT

      •  If the Party's worried about it

        All it has to do is change the rule and have him certified the winner in February. No big deal, really.

        But that's a different issue. That's the alleged problem once he wins the primary.

        by david mizner on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:42:37 AM PDT

        •  alleged.

          Also left wingers should be hostile to big money.

          by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:47:43 AM PDT

        •  Oh that's all...

          The Party just has to change the rules so that a candidate that doesn't have enough delegates to be officially designated as the Nominee is defacto declared as one, negating slightly over half the other states that waited their turn.  That's all the "Party" has to do to cover for the fact that one of its candidates doesn't have the ability to raise any more money to compete after Feb. 5th (actually now, since he is already at or near the cap.)

          by Tempus Figits on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:14:37 AM PDT

        •  LOL!!! That is not going to happen.

          You know that and I know that.  He will impress me if he can win even 1/2 the states on Feb 5th and beyond, without any money.

          by icebergslim on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:43:23 AM PDT

        •  Wha? Thats a big rule to change. NO convention

          and delegates don't get to vote?  And all for the purpose of skirting and finagling public financing laws?  

          Where is the integrity in that?  My grandfather owned a small business and his motto regarding his employees was, "If they'll steal for you, they'll steal from you."  Subverting and end-running this law doesn't give me confidence.  

          Why would the Republicans and the media let the Democratic candidate get away with that?  Its nuts.  You take the bitter with the sweet:  He'll get $10 million in public financing and he'll obey the rules.  

          by Lois on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:38:20 PM PDT

      •  The Carpenter's Union is starting to run ads

        for Edwards.  And there will be other support that will emerge.  If he can beat the obscenely moneyed candidates in Iowa then he can win big elsewhere.  

        And $50M is not a problem.  He has plenty for a primary.  And he has to be smarter.  His public financing is an asset because he will owe the people not the corporate interests.  

        I still want an election not an auction.

        by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:44:49 AM PDT

        •  So the point of "campaign finance reform"...

          is to have 527's campaign for you so that you can appear to be following the spirit of the law when in fact you are relying on others to not?

          I like Edwards, but that is a hypocritical line that his supporters are espousing.

          by Tempus Figits on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:16:57 AM PDT

          •  Nope, it just means that other groups

            get to speak in their own voice and I think that is a good thing.  However people have different opinions and strategies.

            I just am not willing to buy into only one strategy - obscene amounts of money has to be raised to prove viability.  I think that $50M is ridiculous too.

            by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:28:19 AM PDT

            •  The problem is that most of it is already spent.

              I like Edwards.  If Obama wasn't running, he would be my choice.  However, calling on 527's to carry the ball because you can't anymore (he hasn't but his supporters have) will open him up to attacks that he can't defend against.  He will have problems getting his message out, let alone spending money on fighting off attacks that he is reliant upon the bane of modern campaigns to fight for him.  Its a no win scenario.

              Mizner's idea of prematurely calling the race because one of the front runners ran out of money that he was allowed to spend is also ludicrous.  It is not possible that anyone will come out of Feb 5th with enough delegates to be declared the nominee outright.  To call the race at that point would create so many uprisings that it might tear the party apart enough that Republicans not only win the White House but make up all their 2006 loses.  It is, again, a no win scenario.

              I agree that the current process is far to money dependent, but that is how it is rigged.  The answer isn't to bury ones head in the sand but to change it legislatively.  That is the only route that has a chance of working and even there it will be an uphill battle to get incumbents to pass laws against their own interests.  Obama has done it in the past and promises to do attempt it as President.

              by Tempus Figits on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:57:41 AM PDT

          •  Money needs regulation not elimination nt

            by RisingTide on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:39:13 AM PDT

        •  Thank you, pioneer!!! n\t

          by journalschism on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:21:10 AM PDT

      •  You know

        I think money concerns are something that inferior politicians are obsessed with. For instance Dubya, all about the Benjamins.

        Put it this way, do you really think that the only thing stopping Dennis or Gravel from serious consideration is money. What about Biden, you don't think the credit card/banking industry would not love for Biden to win?

        I know Edwards is taking the hard path, but I think how you pursue a goal matters. If it didn't, there would be best selling diet books that endorsed anorexia and bulimia as legitimate choices for weight loss.

        Of course is not as if my fat ass is an expert.

        by bam bam on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:48:07 AM PDT

      •  Yawn...the "no money" meme...again...

        Links to money "problems?" Links to public funding "problems?"

        And not links to pundits' megaphoned suppositions that he has money problems, I'm talking about documented FACTS that Edwards has money problems.

        You won't find any because quite simply, he DOESN'T HAVE MONEY PROBLEMS!!!!

        by journalschism on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:17:48 AM PDT

        •  Oh - he doesn't?

          Well, last I checked he's limited to public funding...which means AT MOST he'll get $50 million. That's it. Kerry spent over $170 million between winning the primary and the Convention...and he lost because he STILL didn't fight back from the negative attacks well enough. How does Edwards propose to fight back from the negative attacks when he'll have less than $50 million?

          by Elise on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:21:20 AM PDT

          •  Kerry lost with tons of money because he was not

            the best candidate.  If Obama can't win Iowa with tons of money he is NOT the best candidate.  If Obama wins then he proves his point.

            Simple deduction.  I am willing to live with real results.

            by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:30:28 AM PDT

            •  Amen!

              by journalschism on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:43:18 AM PDT

            •  I am too. nt

              by Elise on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

            •  I hope you are right. But I recall Kerry being

              dark and the GOP whaling away at him.  Now correct me if I am wrong.  And the money is real one for me.  I worked on too many campaigns with no money.  And Feb 5th is a real date with 23 primaries/caucuses for me, and I would feel a whole hell lot better if I knew his plan.  He has no formidable organization in any of these states.  None.  Of course, Clinton will want Edwards to win Iowa.  Why?  She is confident enough that she will outspend him and drag his senate record in and make him the flip/flopper on practically everything he voted on in the senate.  Why do you think she has not assaulted him on his record?  She is waiting.  If he wins Iowa, she will paint him a hypocrite.  Oh, yes, he will say he apologized for the AUMF vote, but again, he did vote the same way as she.

              Yes, state I am wrong, but think like a strategist.  And we all know she does nothing without a plan.  Like her assaulting Obama to bring his negatives up, which is risky.  Why?  She knows she will not win.  She and Obama know the real numbers in Iowa and the internals are it is not on her side.

              by icebergslim on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:53:02 AM PDT

              •  She also knows you don't punch down

                She'll only attack people who are beating her.

                by Webster on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

              •  Edwards does have organization

                and you are discounting the union support and organization.  He is not opening any offices until needed and he will move staff.  He is using his money wisely relatively speaking - and this evens up the money game.

                However you want to paint it, Iowa is the key for each candidate, but with a slightly different narrative for each one.  And like I said if Edwards wins Iowa and the Feb 5th primaries having less money and less institutional support, he really is the better candidate and he will have a plan for the period up to the convention.  I don't think he needs speculation on that now and is wise to be silent.  However he works extraordinarily hard and I feel that people will rally round him.  

                by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:37:28 PM PDT

          •  How has Huckabee moved ahead

            since he's only spent a pittance, and Romney has spent millions?

            Money's not everything. Especially now.

            by mmacdDE on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:42:56 AM PDT

            •  No - money isn't everything NOW...

              I didn't say it was. I said it WOULD be absolutely necessary to beat the GOP AFTER the primary is decided and until the Convention.

              by Elise on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:44:48 AM PDT

          •  This is the MAIN aggravation for me

            with the Edwards folks.  Edwards unilaterally disarmed and kneecapped our party when he could have pulled a Kerry and mortgaged his house.  It appears his supporters believe in him more than he believes in himself.

            by pamelabrown on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:37:26 AM PDT

            •  He neither disarmed nor kneecapped anyone

              Stop it with the histrionics. If a candidate can talk it like he walks it, if he can punch back effectively (which Kerry, Shrummed, couldn't), then he'll be fine.

              Rove really has gotten you folks paranoid and scared.

              If you're still scared of these lying sacks of shit, get a dog.

              by journalschism on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:49:47 AM PDT

              •  Rove doesn't scare me 1 iota

                Sorry I enraged you, let's agree to disagree.

                by pamelabrown on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:58:20 AM PDT

                •  Not enraged, just annoyed

                  JRE will be fine. Fine now, fine when he wins the nomination. If he falters, it's because he's not communicating and counterpunching effectively. And it's not all about TV ads. It's about stopping the useless tactic of being nice to the opponent, when they clearly are not cutting you the same slack. It's about being proactive with the free media tools you have. Too often, our candidates are reactive and by that time it's too late.

                  Remember Kerry's mandate to be nice to Bush at the convention. Let's cut out all vitriol towards Bush. He was goaded into that by Rove.

                  Then what happened? The je(R)koffs unloaded on Kerry at their convention. Voter disenfranchisement and other shenanigans aside, if his campaign had ANY chance, it died that night.

                  by journalschism on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:12:21 PM PDT

                  •  You're correct on many of your points.

                    However, I don't think he'll be fine.  IMO, Hillary's strategy is to bloody Obama enough to allow Edwards to win Iowa.

                    And because Edwards has neither the staff nor funds to carry it to Feb. 5th, she acheives her goal:  stopping Obama.  Hillary wins.

                    by pamelabrown on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

                    •  "No staff"...yet another meme eom

                      by journalschism on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:38:04 PM PDT

        •  No money is why Edwards couldn't win except SC in

          2004.  Its wishful thinking that winning the Iowa caucus will cause ANYONE to drop out of the race and genuflect to the Iowa victor.  

          If it plays out that Clinton is embarrassed in Iowa, it probably helps the lower tier candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson) more than Edwards even if he wins because he'll have gone through so much of his allowed spending.  IOW, who becomes the next white male alternative?  

          by Lois on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:47:54 PM PDT

    •  whoa, even his *own people* are saying he'll win?

      that's very telling :)

      (edwards is my 2nd choice)

      by jethropalerobber on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:06:02 PM PDT

  •  i can imagine

    It didn't do anything for Howard Dean.

    by Henry Pussycat on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:33:47 AM PDT

    •  you're mistaken

      please see above.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:37:43 AM PDT

  •  a gore endorsement sounds like the kiss of death.

    he needs to stand on his own two feet and not appear to be propped-up by anyone.

    by d on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

    •  Agree; it wouldn't be attractive

      Oprah Winfrey coming to campaign for Obama is in a class by itself.   Other pols endorsing means nothing unless they are local pols who have a network they can get out to vote.

      by Lois on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:53:31 PM PDT

  •  Nuclear Power Plants

    Obama's position on this issue would seem to preclude a Gore endorsement.

    by SMucci on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:47:52 AM PDT

    •  wouldn't it?

      You'd certainly think so. My guess is that Gore may sit this out. He'll just lobby the winner.

      by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:54:14 AM PDT

      •  He'll campaign for the winner

        if asked.  And if John Edwards is the nominee he'll ask.

        by SMucci on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:00:05 AM PDT

        •  I imagine Obama would ask too.

          I imagine Hillary Clinton would not.

          by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

          •  That's what I was thinking n/t

            by SMucci on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:08:40 PM PDT

    •  I doubt it

      If Gore feels a need to get involved, he's not going to let an ISSUE get in the way.

      But I'd bet my own money he doesn't get involved at all.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:59:29 AM PDT

  •  It would not hurt him

    that is for sure.

    It would probably solidify him as the anti-Hillary candidate.

    by redcardphreek on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:49:54 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    Can you imagine what a Gore endorsement would do for Obama?

    I could be wrong, but think Gore will refrain from endorsing, since he will want as much help as possible for his environmentalism efforts, from whoever the next president is.

    by assyrian64 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:53:32 AM PDT

    •  Insttutionally the party is there