So - big news this week on Edwards and the whole running for President thing. Let's start with a story that comes to us from National Journal, subscription only. Since it's subscription only and even a day pass costs 25 bucks I'll excerpt it heavily and give you an overview. And my opinion - sorry. Get a subscription if that doesn't work for you.

Where's Edwards? by Marc Ambinder

"The decision to skip the early campaign exercises widely considered mandatory appears to be the result of confidence, not lethargy."

John Edwards, the Democrats'vice presidential nominee two years ago, might be expected to be among the most visible of the pack. Yet he has all but disappeared from the Washington political tableau--even from the jockeying for staff, support, and money that goes on offstage.

Edwards is doing the opposite of what tradition suggests that he should and yet, somehow, it's working. In early June, the Iowa Poll, a respected measure of public opinion, indicated that voters in the state to hold the first caucus are more inclined to support Edwards than any other Democrat, including Clinton.

Ambinder is referring to the DMR, Des Moines Register, poll that came out June 11, 2006. Not only did JRE best Hillary 30-26, but he showed up that very day in Iowa to campaign with the Democratic nominees: Chet Culver, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack. That was a big story, Edwards called the poll a "nice gift" because it was his birthday and by showing up to surrogate for the Dem slate, the first out-of-towner mind you invited by Iowans, he maximized the effect of the news. "John Edwards was in town today, blah blah blah, after his surprising first place showing in the DMR poll." That sounded a lot better than, "oh yeah, someone took and poll and Edwards came in first... In other news..."

Little has been made of this poll at kos by many kossacks and even if you think it's a big number - it's bigger than you think. Many posters have said, "big deal, he got over 30% in 2004 - so in fact he's lost ground." That's a false assertion for the following reason. On caucus night in Iowa many voters showed up with Edwards as their second choice. Dean and Gephardt, shockingly, were failing to meet the 15% threshold required to get any votes at all across the state. Once they failed threshold, Dean to a much lesser degree, their voters had to go and align themselves with other candidates in their caucus. Many chose Edwards; Kucinich also stated for the record that he wanted his people to consider Edwards as an option. There was some inside baseball there, but the DMR poll shows that Edwards is at a real 30% now and not after the maneuverings required by the system.

Ambinder continues:

Perhaps most bewildering to some inside-the-Beltway Democrats is that Edwards doesn't seem to care whether they think he's making all the wrong moves. So, has he lost the fire in that famously taut belly? Apparently not. He recently told a group of Democrats in Washington that he's "seriously considering" the 2008 race.

Edwards's rivals speculate that, by having drastically lowered expectations about what he will raise, if Edwards pulls in, say, $5 million in the first quarter of 2007, he will instantly erase whatever doubts may have developed about his ability to compete.

Bewildering for sure, this money thing has the establishment is in a real state. Look at the Hotline rankings for last month. Edwards is up to 2, "not vaulting into position" from 4. They had to put him there because of the results from the Iowa poll:

He's not vaulting into this position -- he's actually been a bit of a sleeper -- but some of his early moves confuse us. His PAC has no money; he's not courting fundraisers; he rarely gives interviews. His first-place finish in the Iowa Poll surprised D.C., suggesting that his strategy is working. Edwards already got commitments from his high command for '08. His focus on politics gives him a laser-like ability to position himself. This week, for example, he jettisons (ok, "advances") Two Americas for a "new social contract." The problem: Folks know Edwards and seem to like him. What if they think Edwards 2.0 isn't as... authentic?

Hotline themselves reported that Edwards has raised 6.5 million for down ballot candidates in the last year, as Ambinder reports that's second only to Clinton at about a million more. Thing is he's not doing it the traditional way by raising the money through his leadership PAC and then cutting checks from his office in DC. He goes out to headline the events himself and on his own dime.

Iowans like version 2.0 according to the DMR poll. 71% of prospective voters consider Edwards an acceptable choice for the nomination according to last week's Gallup poll, more than Hillary or Gore. A full 86% give Edwards a thumbs up on favorability according to the netroots survey by Chris Bowers, this puts him 16 points above his closest rival in the poll, Feingold. Gore was not on the list.

Authentic? Check out the Gnomedex tape at YouTube, authenticity was a theme that the techies kept on bringing up again and again. Edwards aced it, because he's got it.
Edwards at Gnomedex - Part 2
Edwards at Gnomedex - Part 3

Everyone realize that Edwards has a golden ticket as a trial-lawyer. When he needs money from well-established donors he can get it. In 2004 he was one of the early buzz candidates because he raised 10-14 million before anyone cast a single vote. And he can do it again. No one will equal Hillary's war chest in the race, but they don't have to. They just have to have enough to get by with; I figure that's about 10 million before the caucuses. Edwards doesn't have to "introduce" himself to the voters this time around, this time they're on a first name basis with Johnny - especially in Iowa.

He's also connecting with labor in a real way through his work with "Justice for Janitors", "Hotel Workers Rising", AFL-CIO and anyone else that calls the house in Raleigh. We all know his firm commitment to provide labor with a means to make it work out there in the country. He has said, "unions are the best anti-poverty program ever invented," and that, "just as industrial unions built the middle class of the 20th century so too service unions can build the middle class on the 21st century." He's also showing up almost anywhere a union picks a fight, like that really ugly one in Miami with UNICCO and UMiami. In Person. And on his own dime, which he has few of - in his PAC at least. He even went all the way to Hawaii to rally the troops for "Hotel Workers Rising / Unite Here" and delivered a rousing speech on the beach. Palms trees swaying in the breeze and all that jazz.

Then Ambinder starts in with "the poverty issue", but I think he commits himself well in this piece. He gives Edwards the respect that the issue deserves and discusses at length the path that Edwards took to get there.

Some on the periphery of Edwards's political team told closer advisers that focusing on poverty was a bad idea. But his political staff dutifully began building around Edwards a structure to translate his "personal passion," as one current aide calls it, into a credible 2008 campaign.

Edwards made another early decision: He was done raising money--"shaking the trees," as he told one adviser. His wife was fighting breast cancer, and his young children needed his attention. Besides, dialing for dollars would look unseemly given the issue that he had decided to call his own...

And now Edwards has begun to use poverty in America not just as a way to describe his vision of a better tomorrow--in a National Press Club speech last month he boldly talked of eradicating the problem within 30 years--but also as a way to depict himself as more principled than front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Got it?

Now Edwards has three golden tickets. Money, ground troops in labor and vision with a "new Democrat kind of fighting spirit" that he can stand on against anyone in the race. Voters just love a fighting Democrat standing up for the little guy. He's got big ideas and it all comes from a place of truth, not just politically. He was years ahead of this Katrina thing that ashamed and disturbed the entire nation and he's just been taking it to a new level everyday since the horror of the Superdome went down right in front of our very eyes on the tube.

How many times have you heard Edwards say,
"I don't want to hear any more weasel words on health care,"
or
"I don't want the Democrats to be a party of incrementalism, I want Democrats to stand up and show some strength and courage and backbone."
Because he says it a lot. That's a key element of my support for this candidacy and that message has legs, especially at this time in our history. At the National Press Club last month, he said, the following. "These times are critical, so let me be clear: in this battle for the soul of our Party, there is no less at stake than the future of America and the future of the world." It's a battle that he's planning to fight come '08.

I. Just. Can. Not. Wait. For that one - Senator. Sign me up! Click on the embedded video links above if you want to hear him say it yourself, the National Press Club link is to the full speech and audio. I'm getting ahead of the story here, my apologies. Ambinder continues:

To Dethrone the Queen

Most of the Democrats now running several furlongs behind Hillary open their argument for their presidential campaigns by questioning her viability: She can't win the general election, they declare or--more often--whisper. Sen. Bayh of Indiana, and former Virginia Gov. Warner, for example, stress their redstate credentials. All but one of the horses in the pack seem to be positioning themselves as the alternative to Hillary--should she stumble.

The exception, Edwards, is maneuvering to actually trip her up by exposing her as too cautious, too calculating, too lacking in dedication to any cause except her own advancement. Edwards aims to be Clinton's foil, an exemplar of unflinching fortitude who is unafraid to take clear, strong stands. Unlike almost everyone else chasing Hillary, Edwards probably has zero chance of becoming the vice presidential nominee a second time. So, unlike the others, he has no reason to hold back in contrasting himself with her.

I like the sound of that and Mr. Ambinder is exactly right. Plus I think the other candidates are making a grave error, Hillary ain't gonna stumble. She's a pro and she's been playing the game at the highest level for decades now. She knows how to handle herself and "her tenacity is legendary," that means she's tough as nails - kids. I agree.

And what's the beauty of the strategy? He doesn't have to "whisper" anything to make the point, draw the contrast and present the voter with a clear and honest choice. He just has to go out and tell it. He can once again take the high road in the primaries that will be vicious to be sure.

Mr. Ambinder continues with a discussion of the front-loaded primary schedule.

James Campbell, a political scientist at the State University of New York (Buffalo), predicts that the front-loaded system "will work substantially to a front-runner's advantage, assuming that there is some depth to that [candidate's] support." The party operatives behind the calendar changes want the nominee to be crowned by the end of the third week of February. In theory, that works to Edwards's advantage: If he beats Clinton in Iowa or another early state, he'll need to survive only three weeks or so as the new front-runner to clinch the nomination--assuming, of course, that Clinton's support is shallow.

Clinton might well soldier on despite a major upset or two. She would assuredly have tens of millions of dollars to throw at subsequent states. And her tenacity is legendary.

Okay? So if she can't put Edwards away by Valentines Day 2008 then all bets are off. Also mentioned in this article is the Gore factor. If Gore runs then everything changes because it's no longer a Hillary - anti-Hillary race. I'm not going there because I don't think Gore is running. Ambinder also mentions that Feingold has a lot going for him in this race. If he can make the sale and get some results then he could be another candidate to emerge in a three-way race between Edwards, Hillary and Feingold. He's got legs and he doesn't need a heck of a lot of money to run a guerrilla style campaign. In fact, I think that's right up his alley.

...And then Saturday happens. Mr Ambinder didn't have the benefit of knowing what the committee to the committee would recommend. This changes a lot and it's a huge gift to Edwards - no question. The recommendations accepted by Dean are that Nevada will schedule a caucus after Iowa and before NH and then South Carolina goes with a primary the week after NH.

What do we know about Nevada?
The racial/ethnic makeup of the state is:
65.2 % White; 19.7 % Hispanic; 6.8 % Black; 4.5 % Asian; 0.9 % Native American; 1.4 % Mixed Race.

Nevada:

• Has three congressional districts
• Is nicknamed is "The Silver State" or "The Sagebrush State"
• Has an estimated population of 2.4 million
• Has many voters who are concerned about Yucca Mountain
• 25% of it's voters come from Union Households

What do we know about South Carolina?
The racial/ethnic makeup of the state is:
66.1 % White; 30.5 % Black; 2.4 % Hispanic; 0.9 % Asian; 0.3 % Native American; 1.0 % Mixed Race.

South Carolina:

• Has six congressional districts
• Is nicknamed is "The Palmetto State"
• Has an estimated population of 4.2 million
• Was the first to secede from the Union
• Is the birthplace of John Reid Edwards

In 2004, South Carolina went for Edwards, their small town boy, despite the growing chorus that Kerry was inevitable. Could South Carolina deliver the knock out punch to Hillary this time around? It remains to be seen, but if Edwards can secure a victory in Iowa, Nevada and finish in the top three or four in NH then a win in South Carolina instantly turns him into the front-runner before the primary window even opens on February 5, 2008.

Ambinder discusses that Edwards may be vulnerable with black voters and that Hillary is married to "the First Black President of the Unites States", but with the poverty piece in the Edwards message and the work he's done with the labor unions it's not a gimme. She has to do much more than just send Bill out to rally the troops. She has to deliver substance, can she do that with her DLC centrist message? To black voters?

Ambinder wrote a solid piece, it's sad that it was last month's news the day it came out because of the change to the primary schedule announced over the weekend. See ya round Mr. Ambinder, better luck next time.

Oh yeah, Edwards will be attending a Wakeup Wal-Mart rally in Pittsburgh next week. This is one of the best grassroots union organizations in the country. Stop by and give 'em some love at their website if you're as disgusted by Wal-Mart's working poor as I am.