On MSNBC a little while ago, Keith Olbermann to Chuck Todd (NBC News Political Director):
I'm not disagreeing with the conventional wisdom about John Edwards, but explain, go through it, walk us through it, why a second place finish that actually exceeded Senator Clinton's by 1%, means that he's not a viable candidate at this point.
To Todd's credit, he doesn't take the bait. He says, "Let's see what he does in New Hampshire," but he goes on to trot out all the trouble Edwards will have to make a good showing in New Hampshire.
This, to me, was the culmination of a night of anti-Edwards spin.
Did anyone else notice MSNBC's slanted Iowa caucus coverage? Edwards pulls off second place, despite being greatly outspent by Clinton and Obama, despite being third in nearly every pre-caucus poll, and which way does the media tack?
This is a failure for Edwards, who needed to win Iowa.
Clinton and Edwards (NOT "Edwards and Clinton") in a dead heat for second.
Edwards’s performance with labor groups and lower income voters was disappointing.
Edwards? Edwards who? (They have been trying their damnedest not to say his name.)
What should be the talking point, when it comes to Edwards? Edwards narrowly defeats Clinton, despite being outspent by Clinton at least 2:1 (sorry, I didn’t make note of the actual numbers).
Grrr. Know what it is? Edwards attacks corporate greed. Guess who owns the media.