I don't think there was anything Edwards could do to improve his standing in Iowa. And based on the absolute disaster it would have been to nominate him, I think we Democrats should be thankful that was the case.
He had campaigned in the state for years, he had a definite following among those who supported him over Kerry in 2004, and his message was known by most Iowans.. but it didn't resonate. I believe this was primarily due to his authenticity problem; his message was concern for the 'little guy', spoken by the mouth of a lifelong 'big guy'.
Hillary, on the other hand, could easily have won Iowa.. upsets happen because the favorite underestimates the underdog. Once she began taking him seriously, she did win just about every state with a Democratic machine and a low African-American population. She really had two options..
1. She could have started the opposition research on Obama very early, and those sharp drops in his popularity after some of the more interesting associations came to light would have been at a time that would have sent Obama's campaign straight to the bottom of the primary ocean. In reality, she started this assault at a time when her gains didn't really help her regain the type of commanding lead she was given at the beginning. If her attacks had been made very close to the start of the Iowa caucus.. he might never have recovered.
2. Another option, more Clintonian.. subtly prop up Edwards behind the scenes, helping him win Iowa where he was 'expected' to do well. In a caucus setting, this would not have been difficult to do. An Edwards win in Iowa would send Obama in search of a victory without anything resembling momentum.. Edwards would have been eating up the news cycle. When the primary shifted east.. Clinton would have destroyed Edwards, Obama would be the 'unlikely' candidate, and the coronation would be complete.
It's a simple choice, without bringing gender or age into it at all.
Vote for Obama, or live with McCain.
If that isn't enough of an argument for you, then enjoy your McBlog points! I understand they are offering a lovely lime-green golf visor with the motto "A changing leader you can believe will work for America's lobbyists."
You may wish to assume that the people responsible for the ad did not intentionally make him look darker. However, even a reasonable explanation as to how it could have unintentionally happen doesn't prove it was, in fact, unintentional.
It is telling to me that every attack on the appropriateness of gay marriage either involves circular arguments ("it's wrong because it's wrong") or raving hypotheticals about of all the other things that will somehow have to be legalized, too.
When no one can actually argue against the specific effects of a bill, it's only a matter of time until it happens.
It was a great sadness to me that Obama supporters invaded that site and found the most virulent comments they could find to bring back here like cats with mice in their mouths. It was such a violation of our privacy and safety.
So, virulent attacks on a Democrat were posted to Hillaryis44.org.. and the people who really should be ashamed of themselves are the people who exposed it? It didn't exactly require catlike cunning to uncover them, either.. the administration of that site approved of such postings, as long as the target was Obama.
If they wanted wanted privacy and safety.. the site should have been 'by approval' only. But of course that wouldn't have satisfied the Republican participants desire to cast their net as widely as possible, using a few well-meaning Hillary supporters as their cover.
The site is.. excuse me, at least 'was'.. dedicated to electing Democrats. The Democratic nominee for President in 2008 is Barack Obama. Anyone posting diaries that are designed to lessen the chances of an Obama victory in November are.. again, excuse me.. 'were'.. against the purpose of the site, and are therefore unwanted trolls.
I admit.. Jerome doesn't make it easy to make blanket statements anymore.