I'm curious about this little tidbit

USA TODAY, a Gannett newspaper like the Register, jumped the gun just a bit on announcing the release of the Iowa Poll, when it reported in its Friday edition that the poll was "due in Sunday's editions" of the local paper.

It is possible that was the original intended publication date, but perhaps finding enough -- and the right mix -- of likely caucus participants is taking longer than expected this holiday week.

Watch the Swamp this evening for a posting on the Iowa Poll numbers.

Anyone from Iowa -- desmoinesdem? -- have any thoughts on this?

The Obama campaign has to make this argument, one way or another.

I made almost the same comment at OpenLeft in reply to Chris's latest "Nomination at a Glance" post. This is the money part of his post:

I will say, however, that I think the Edwards rise in Iowa has slightly improved his chances to win the nomination, but also improved Clinton's chances to win the nomination. Right now, I say that based on the likelihood of the scenarios I presented above, Clinton has a 60% chance to be the nominee, Obama a 30% chance, and Edwards a 10% chance.

At the political predication market, InTrade, Hillary has risen from a low of 56% to her current 70% probability of winning the nomination in the last 12 days. Hillary's nomination odds have been climbing in lockstep Edwards's Iowa odds (increase from 15% to 30%). Edwards's nomination odds have gone from 4.7% to 7.1% in that period.

Edwards's Iowa success helps Hillary a lot more than it helps Edwards. As long as there are two anti-Hillary candidates, they split that vote and Hillary slides right on through.

We are looking at eight years of transactional and triangulating politics. Time to buy stock in lobbying firms.

Obama was Hillary's biggest threat. He caught her off guard last winter, and hit her with fund raising shock and awe in the spring. She stumbled as Obama rose in November. But notice that she is no longer really attacking. She's sitting back and enjoying the show as Obama has to fight off Edwards. In fact, she has never really bothered to attack Edwards much. No wonder.

Edwards has such low nomination odds in part because of where he stands in polls, but also because of his financial problem which, because he accepted matching funds, cannot be repaired even if he wins in Iowa.  

As Chris pointed out long ago, an Obama Iowa win would probably lead to an Obama nomination after New Hampshire and South Carolina fell his way like dominoes, creating a wave right on into Feb. 5. That defeats Hillary and Edwards.

It's not as clear nor as bad as Nader voters electing Bush in Florida, but ironically, the Edwards voters in Iowa may be helping to elect the least progressive of the the viable Democratic candidates. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.

Bill Clinton claimed voters were "rolling the dice" with Obama. Bill's a smart man. Don't play poker with him unless you are really good at math and reading bluffs. Odds are he's smiling when he sees people rolling the nomination dice on Edwards.

The attack may have had currency if started earlier. Now 2 days before IA- no- it comes across as fear.

He is going negative just like any other pol who is trailing in the final days.

The trendline shows both Obama and Edwards holding at a steady tie over the past few days, with Clinton just barely ahead of them both. But by all means, keep pretending Obama has peaked.

Anyway, if Edwards can win in other states despite having little invested in them, it would be a great boost for him. It'll be much harder to ignore him then.

But it is fair to wonder if he can translate an Iowa victory into wins in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, where he's decisively trailing in third place. A victory that's too narrow could leave Obama and Edwards splitting the progressive vote and let Clinton walk away with everything.

The timing is is obviously calculated but it's probably about the best time to be putting out such a message. Had he put a message like this out too early, Iowans may have resented it and he could've come out a distant third, but if he put it out after Jan 3rd, it'd be a much clearer sign of desperation.

Screw you Obama. While you have talking talking talking, and saying very little as far as I can tell, Edwards has been using his law license to make a difference in people's lives by bringing corporations to justice in the courtroom.

Obama, you sound just like a republican like Condi. Talk, talk, talk, just meaningless words meant to sound good to everyone, while you take $200,000 from HMO's and pretend because the money comes from state lobbyists instead of federal lobbyists, it spends differently. Hypocrite.

We already have a president who thinks he poops rainbows. We don't need another one.

EDWARDS will take the nomination. GO Edwards GO

for Mr. Truth and Light. He could have barnstormed the state reminding people that he was right about Iraq, or something. Instead he's

1. trashed Edwards because he was a trial attorney (rightwing frame number 1)

2. blasted unions by calling them a "special interest" (rightwing frame number 2)

3. blamed Clinton for Bhutto's death

4. called Edwards "angry" (rightwing frame 3)

5. used an electability argument against Edwards focusing on money (when he's outspent Edwards three to one in Iowa)

is nothing new. This is from a Washpo piece on November 9:

"If John wants to make the comparison between the work I did as a community organizer -- or as a civil rights attorney or as a state senator taking on special interests -- to him working as a trial lawyer making millions of dollars, I'm happy to have that discussion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802459_ pf.html

that Obama supporters still lead their criticism of Edwards with supposedly objective explanations of how he's unelectable.

Do you know how many stories are out there today about how the Obama campaign totally blew their  take on Edwards thinking it was going to be a two-person race?

Do you know how many stories are out there today from the ever-skeptical MSM describing Edwards' momentum not only in Iowa but in NH?

Give it up guys.  You can keep moving the target, but fewer and fewer people are going to buy your story.  First it was John Edwards couldn't win in Iowa.  Then it was that if he somehow wins Iowa, he can't do squat in NH.  Now it's even if he does well in Iowa and NH, he can't go the distance in the later states.

If you weren't able to push the narrative that Edwards can't win when he was being totally ignored by the media, derided by the punditry, and shut out by the powers that be, why do you think he (or his supporters) are going to curl up and go away now?

It's almost time for the first set of cards to be laid on the table.  

Why don't we wait until then to decide who's really holding the strongest hand?

As an HRC supporter, it is amusing to watch Obama finally catch a little heat.  Hoping the DMR also spells bad news for Barack so he too can experience the politics of "pile on".

EEK- his attacks on Edwards are almost..... embarrassing.  I mean, they are true enough but he should have been doing it earlier - now it DOES seem desperate- although he's so right about the 527- total hypocrisy.  BUT anything could still happen- nothing surprises me- but Obama is acting like he is falling apart and it doesn't look good at all.  I'm glad it's him and not Hillary though.  And I'm glad someone else is taking the heat- at first I thought all of Hillary's attacks in the beginning was because people HATED Hillary- but I was wrong- people hate the FRONTRUNNER.  And Obama has been seen as that- in the early states- so he has been getting what Hillary got- at least on this site, I think- that is why it's been one attack diary after another about him. It's interesting- but the great thing it has put Hillary in a great position- and I don't have to spell that out- so for me, it's been a good thing.

Now Obama is adapting Clinton's autobiographical tropes in an attempt to invalidate Edwards?  Similar to Clinton, he eschewed lucrative opportunities in the name of public service?  But even worse, he claims representing ordinary Americans who are the victims of corporate negligence is not a form of social advocacy?  Not only is Obama once again deploying Republican clichés during the final days of campaigning before the caucuses; he is inadvertently highlighting one of Clinton's strengths.  

God, we'll be hearing that ad nauseum from the Obama campaign after Edwards wins Iowa.

As we watch the house of cards come crumbling down.

Atrios:

Please Stop Wanking

Is there a right wing talking point Obama hasn't rushed to embrace? Going after trial lawyers?

Jeebus.

If you click the link you can see Edwards' rebuttal to the trial lawyer argument.  Rather effective, in my view.

Most of the commentors here seem to have missed the point. If Obama were to drop out right now, Edwards would be finished because of the African American vote. If Edwards were to drop out, I think a lot of those voters would go to Obama.

Even if Edwards wins Iowa, he appears to have no chance to go on to win the nomination because he's way behind in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and he has no organization on the ground in the Feb. 5 states. That's if Obama stays in; if Obama loses Iowa and drops out, Edwards is finished immediately due to the black vote going back to Clinton.  

If Obama wins Iowa, he's already tied or ahead in New Hampshire, so that falls his way. South Carolina is easy street and away we go to February 5, where he's got organization on the ground in 17 states.

So, a vote for Edwards at this point, will most likely be a vote for Clinton in the end.

A few humble observations...
Anyone who saw Obama give his speech in 2004 knew he was special. However, he has been tethered by the same man who tethered Edwards in 2004.
Edwards was unafraid to be specific last spring when Obama hesitated...
It is too late now for Obama to assume the stances Edwards already has established.
As for HRC? Between 65-70% of Dems do not believe she is the one...

Edwards and Obama do NOT represent the anti-Hillery vote. They represent Dems that want to push further.
I am not anti-Hillery...I am not anti-Obama. I am however pro Edwards...

John and Elizabeth Edwards really know that no matter the odds...there has to be a fight...
They know "the pump don't work cause the vandals took the handle."

Happy New Year...rock on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xIulyVs G8

You folks like to be played I guess.  I don't.  I don't like the fact Edwards campaign fucked up and lost the ActBlue matching funds and then magically a 527 pops up to save the day with Bunny Mellon chipping in $500,000.  What does Forger get for that?  And you call Obama supporters naive.  Get real.

Here is Elise's vacuous defense of Obama:

I'm pounding the pavement for Obama (12+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
smijer, diplomatic, mainer, badlands, Chicago Lulu, sick of it all, steve nelson, Albatross, Miles in WesternWA, Quicklund, recusancy, whitetiger
this week. And I have to say - thank god people in Iowa have more politial sense than bloggers. This is yet another absurd post to add to the growing list this week.
Yeah - Obama is the one who adopts right wing framing!

Of course, let's overlook Edwards' record in the Senate and his co-sponsorship of the fucking blank check that got us into this war and - last I checked - killed nearly 900 soldiers this year.

And let's overlook the fact that Hillary hasn't even admitted her vote for a blank check (which one of them? I don't know - take your pick! There are a few!) was a mistake let alone will she ever apologize for it.

We have one shot in a generation to change things and put our country on a different course and you're going to whine about Edwards getting the facts put in front of him?

Obama is the only candidate running on our side who has walked the walk. He is the only one who can beat every Republican and pull the country together. Most people who are looking at this election can see that we can't allow Republicans to win - to the point where Bloomberg may enter if it's Hillary v Huckabee. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to see it.

Oh- and enquiring minds want to know - will you be tossing half a million to a 527 to help Edwards out? Or will you stand by and let Hillary win it all and let her keep up what she's been doing so well the last few years - which is nothing. I can't tell you what her message is. I can't name a bill she's written and passed.

But let's shit on the one candidate who will actually change the status quo. That will help!

Oh- and how easy do you think those down-ticket races will be with 48 percent of independents coming out to vote against Hillary regardless of who her opponent is.

Yeah...this is a brilliant strategy to promote progressivism. Just brilliant.

I'm a hopemonger.

by Elise on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:42:49 PM PST

Elise's insipid response is the rejoinder one would expect from a low information voter.