Clinton has 37% not 38%. Still, ouch. By comparison, the last poll in New York shows Clinton getting 48% in a primary, and the latest in Illinois shows Obama getting 48%-51%. So Edwards really does poorly in his homestate compared to the others.
not really bad news for Clinton. The only thing bad about it for Clinton is while she is running away with the lead in national polls, in Iowa it's fairly close. If anything, I think this poll is good news for Clinton, good news for Obama, and bad news for Edwards.
Clinton is the one desperately trying to insist there is no difference between Obama and herself on Iraq. Bill was the one who said there is no difference in their voting records. I think it must irritate Clinton's people that one of their donors would actually contribute to/fundraise for another candidate.
His negatives, I think, are bound to go up. No way he will stay in the 19-20 range. But he has the potential to get his favorable up as well. If he does that, he will be the stronger general election candidate than Clinton.
Of all the candidates, I feel Edwards is the most calculating of all, even more than Hillary. He co-sponsored the war resolution, and defended it in 2003 and 2004 when it was popular. After he lost an election, and the country started to turn against the war, he decided to turn against the war too.