Edwards and Obama Tied in Iowa (22% each; Vilsack at 12%; Clinton at 10%)

Edwards and Obama Tied in Iowa

A new Research 2000 poll in Iowa shows John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama tied among likely Democratic caucus voters with 22% each. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trails with 12%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at just 10%. All other potential candidates are in the single digits.

Among Republicans, Sen. John McCain leads with 27% followed by Rudy Giuliani at 26% and Mitt Romney at just 9%.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/21/edwards_and_obama_tied_in_iowa.html



Skipping Iowa isn't an option - not if you want to win the nomination. The momentum will start in Iowa.

Vilsack doesn't knock Iowa out as the first real race for the nomination.

Hillary needs to get to work.

Edwards looks like the favorite for Iowa. Obama is bad for Edwards.

:)

I think he'll take Iowa.

Barack Obama's position against the sale and possession of ALL semi-automatic firearms is not widely discussed in these circles, but willll be. In the interest of constructive criticism, maybe the senator from Illinois should hear from a lot of Dems about his position so that he may -- ahem! -- modify it early. This is a swift-boat coming on like a fully-loaded barge.

I can tell ya right now if he truly holds that position (I wasn't aware of that if he truly does), it won't bode well for an Iowa campaign. Lots of hunters/shooters in Iowa and all semi-auto weapons is a pretty big brush to paint with.

Do you have any links to him supporting that?

small-caliber self-loaders are the most popular centerfire target/plinking rifles in the United States.

He would be wise to renounce support for the Feinstein ban and similar crap, sooner rather than later. He said some things a few years ago that gave me the impression he had fallen for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, but I don't know if that has changed.


-------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (2004)

I live in Cedar Rapids, one of the larger areas of blue in Eastern Iowa and Obama hasn't been here once, Edwards either (although I believe he is or will be in Des Moines in the coming days).

We don't even have all the candidates announced and participating yet. Edwards may fare well in Iowa, but you surely can't call that based on a poll more than a year out from caucus time. No one even has any labor endorsements or any of that crap yet.

woman president. Hillary will be a good president. Her vp should be Obama. Is the governor of Illinois a dem? Would he select a replacement for Obama? I know that NY now has an elected dem for guv.

that ticket would be asking to get beat

I am glad she hasn't gone over 40% in any of the polls in which she is match against the Democratic field. She is beatable.

He voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act.

Yes, I know he's "apologized," which is easy to do when the tide has turned.

Personally, I think Edwards is no better on FP than Bush. All fluff, no substance.

This is a legitimate question of you because I know you're not a common "bodice ripper." :)

to call edwards a triangulator like hrc is just astonishingly wrong. follow the news, friend. edwards is doing, everywhere he goes, and with everything everything he says, whatever is the opposite of triangulation.

as to the IWR vote, one day you will all recognize the fact that EVERYBODY in the world, outside of the DU clark camp, believes the general was for the war before he was against it. by the way, it's my humble opinion that there is nothing wrong with shifting positions. frankly I think that anyone who cannot change positions is not thinking fully, or is divine (which I prefer less).

It may be your opinion, and you may know others who share it, but it's not only people in the DU Clark camp who believe that Clark was not in favor of going to war in Iraq. You can start with Michael Moore, who was about as anti-Iraq war as it gets. Or Paul Wellstone or Ted Kennedy, who both credited Clark's testimony to Congress as helping them vote against the IWR that passed. I agree with you though that the ability to change one's position is important and positive.

and I suspect neither one of us want to get into it, AND I am obliged by the truth to say that Clark has been an eloquent voice in opposition to the war a great many times.

my problem is with those who say that he was born railing against the Iraq war. It's just plain that, in small doses at the very least, he was a proponent of containing Saddam militarily. Mainly, I don't think there is anything wrong with this, especially given that his conversion to absolutely anti-war stance was early and strong. But you must admit, or some other posters must, at some point, admit that there was some Clark support for an invasion, even if not as w did, finally, execute it. Fair?

First, absolutely agreed that he was a proponent of containing Saddam. Militarily? If need be, I suppose would be a fair way to put that. Clark believed that the U.N. should continue to monitor Saddam, and he supported insisting on the return of inspectors to Iraq. If Saddam refused to allow inspectors free access, he would not be in compliance with U.N. resolutions, and a threat of force against him at that point was part of the leverage Clark agreed with.

But that raises two key points about timing. First, if Saddam did agree to provide unhindered access to U.N. inspectors, Clark considered Saddam safely contained, with no need to then threaten military force against him unless evidence emerged that Saddam was trying to develop a dangerous offensive WMD program. That in fact is what actually happened in fact. U.N. inspectors returned, after some pushing and shoving that got full access to search, and they found no evidence of an active WMD program. Under that scenario Clark must certainly opposed invading Iraq.

The other point of timing is also important. Had Saddam refused to cooperate with the United Nations, that would have opened a door to Clark possibly supporting military action against Iraq, up to and possibly including an invasion of Iraq, at some future point. Clark still would not have supported invading Iraq when we did however. That is because of two points. One, Clark thought it wrong for the United States to initiate military conflict with another nation unless there was a compelling need to do so for reasons of self defense. Because of the seriousness of taking preemptive action, Clark thought the burden of proof for doing so would have to be high. He needed evidence that Iraq was far down the road to developing nuclear weapons with an intent to directly threaten our security, to give one example, before a preemptive strike would have been justified against Iraq.

Based on what Clark Knew about Iraq, he did not see it as an immanent threat even if Saddam refused to cooperate with the U.N. Clark thought that left us a lot of time to develop a broad international consensus to contain Saddam, and later disarm him militarily if need be if Iraq moved toward becoming an active threat. Meanwhile Clark thought the U.S. should focus on Al Quada, and prioritize reaching agreements with North Korea and Iran to prevent pending nuclear showdowns with those nations before we overly concerned ourselves with Iraq.

So in that much broader context yes, Clark did not rule out a possible future need to invade Iraq, if events developed over time in the least favorable way possible.

Edited to add: Of course, as we all know now, Saddam never was developing an offensive WMD capacity, so there never would have been evidence of a compelling nature that Iraq was becoming an immanent threat to the U.S., and therefor, Clark would never have supported invading Iraq, neither then nor later.

Your description of Clark's position coincides with my memory of that time. My point with Clark supporters is that this is EXACTLY what the IWR proposed. Allow inspectors to do their work, and hold the threat of military action over Saddam's head, in case he blocks them.

Well, as we know, Saddam didn't block them, our horrid, pathetic,lying president did.

My argument has always been: the votes for the IWR can be condemned only because bush violated the resolution - he did not give the inspector's time. Many people (outside of the heroic Scott Ritter) believed Iraq had WMD. Clark believed it. Edwards believed it. But they would not invade before Saddam had an opportunity to be confronted with the evidence, and destroy it. This is what the IWR called for.

Bush violated it, and here we are, the world going up in flames.

So, I get very frustrated when I hear the Edwards has 'murdered' American soldiers by his vote, and that's why only Clark can lead us.

(I know YOU are not saying that - you have always been composed and rational, and pretty persuasive).

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays

The other matter of course was that Clark supported an IWR resolution, Levin's, that would have required Bush to return to Congress for a vote before attacking Iraq. Plus, unlike some other Democrats at the time, Clark never said he thought Bush did the right thing to invade Iraq, and Clark in fact warned that doing so was a bait and switch from going after Bin Ladin, and would actually help Bin Ladin recruit to have the U.S. invade Iraq.

But I have no doubt that had any of our 2004 Democratic candidates (other than Joe Lieberman) been President instead of Bush, war with Iraq would not have started how and when it did. Bush is the man accountable for what happened.

Nope.

I totally misread something, so I have deleted it. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

I think my response was merited.

I was SPECIFICALLY asking Indiana Green, who is solidly against the war, why he would lump Edwards in with Clark when the two don't really share a lot in common regarding the Iraqi War. I think it was a fair question.

I didn't, however, ask that question to be flamed by Veneble who thinks my only motive was to say something anti-Edwards. And since I was asking a question of a specific person, and not to the board in general, then it shouldn't have been answered (well, it wasn't even answered - it was turned into flamebait) by someone else.

Everyone's commented on other comments. However, I really didn't care to hear what Veneble's reasons were - since he DOESN'T lump them into the same category.

I already deleted it, I guess while you were responding to it. I had too many posts on this thread and I got it mixed up and wrong and thought you were talking to me when I wrote the original above reply. It seemed odd to me at the time, obviously that's because I had it completely wrong, lol. I was just trying to find a non offensive way to respond, is all.

Thanks for understanding what I meant. :hi:

The post you responded to was about HRC, and you chose to answer the HRC question by stating that Edwards was "All fluff, no substance". How is that a relevant response to the HRC comment?

That's piping in with the standard (usually, though not always Clark supporters') anti-Edwards attack when the subject is someone else (HRC, in this case)

Your post was an unprovoked attack on Edwards, and I responded to the attack. That is hardly 'flamebait'. It is a response to a post on a board, not a butt-in to a private, overhead conversation. Come on, now.

There are some very reasonable Clark supporters on DU who make excellent and persuasive arguments, many of which have altered to the positive my view of the General. Your post was simply an attack on a potential candidate. Look closely, and I think you'll see that.

You must strongly dislike Edwards to make that statement. Of course, he's better than bush, who's a narcissistic sociopath, and dim witted to boot. The truth is, even people with extensive FP creds can be terrible Presidents. Edwards is smart and perceptive, and evidently has the ability to listen. He spent 6 years in the Senate. Bush had no FP experience and had little interest in anything outside the borders of Texas. Stupid comparison.

But, it's not a stupid comparision - not to the specific item I named: Foreign Policy. Edwards has no experience (save a committee) on the subject and seems to have little interest in it.

I didn't say he was a dolt in other subjects.

Someone's not doing her homework.

he is visiting all those countries to boost his foreign policy experience.
http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wapo20061031/

the last couple of years traveling to third world countries, your post seems a bit subjective. Nothing wrong with that, but please allow that your subjective opinion is contrary to most people's, and seems indifferent to the actual facts of Edward's life.

At least that is my thinking as to why people like Edwards but won't accept Hillary. Yea he flip-flopped on the war as far as I'm concerned and at least when Kerry did it he eventually came out and took a brave stance for a quick pull-out.

I think the perception is that because Edwards is making poverty a central theme, he has given up triangulating. I don't believe that personally and I do want to hear Edwards talk about foreign policy more. Don't get me wrong, poverty is an important issue to me but foreign policy is my number one issue, Iraq in particular, because I believe that with all of the money we are spending over there it is crippling our ability to do anything we want to domestically.

BTW, I don't think it's fair to say that Edwards is no better than Bush on foreign policy. Edwards is actually intelligent and Bush is a moron. Edwards may not be savvy with foreign policy like Clark or Kerry but he's a smart guy and has the capacity to handle tough decisions. I won't deny that he would certainly have a lot more to learn than Kerry or Clark, though.

while talking about foreign policy, Wes Clark clearly stated that any of the men and women up there on stage with him would make a better President than George W. Bush. Clark also campaigned with and for John Edwards after he got the VP nod. Although I have problems with the experience Edwards has on foreign policy, and the judgements his experience led him to make in the past, Edwards and the team he would appoint would be vastly superior in every way to Bush and the team he appointed (with the possible exception of Powell - who got sidelined but who at least told Bush if you break Iraq you're gonna own it).

That is one of the many reasons I like him so much. I know my faults are such that I simply cannot forget some of the assinine things some members of the Democratic side of our Congress did - I can forgive some of them because I think some of these members have the background to completely understand where they went wrong - HRC and Kerry included.

But I simply cannot get over the fact that, in my gut, I believe that Edwards' only motive for apologizing for his vote was one of political expedience. He seems to have done that on other issues, too.

I have other personal reasons for the bad taste I have in my mouth regarding Edwards and his decision-making processes.

I'm sure his poverty work has helped some, but I don't see it as having the impact some people seem to think it has. I also don't think he has much to offer outside of his niche.

That said, I've never called him "dumb." I don't think he's an idiot or anything - my problems with him are more with his motives, not his abilities to think.

~~~~~~

As for "Hil and Vil" ... ... fagettaboudit!

the fact that Obama and Edwards start with an advantage in Iowa (not negligeable, certainly).

Also interesting, though also very early, are the results of the same poll for the GE in Iowa.

http://www.kcci.com/news/10585392/detail.html

It shows that everybody is basically within the MOE of the two Republican favorites (better for Obama and Edwards than Gore, Kerry and Clinton, but still within the MOE) and beats Romney.

The caucus race will be interesting to follow.

be a problem for Obama but it doesn't seem to be one.

Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa already know Hillary, Edwards, Kerry and Vilsack.

The question of Gore jumping in late is also hanging out there.

It will be a fun race, I think.

for the last couple of months. He's been on the covers of the major magazines...EVERY network has done numerous stories about him...then stories about the number of stories being DONE on Obama.

Don't get me wrong - I like the guy, and would like to see what he plans to bring to the party. He may face some other problems at this point, but name recognition - hardly.

us. I read his first book two years ago.

If you turned on your TV at all, or went through the supermarket check-out! Obama: not just for news junkies anymore.

I am asking because this op is about Iowa, and I can certainly tell you that the MAJORITY of Iowans (read: rural Iowa) don't know much if anything about Obama.

every form of media that exists - yes, they have teevee in even rural Iowa. And enough of them like what they see to say they'd vote for him. But it's 2 years out. And winning the Iowa caucuses depends on not just "vague support", but organization, withstanding the hard scrutiny of the voters, withstanding the pressure...just ask Howard Dean.

a race.

It looks like a race.

I think Hillary wanted to skip Iowa and start in New Hampshire.

She isn't going to be able to do that now.

Not a FP wonk in the top bunch. With the Iranian test upcoming, I can't see us winning with any of those top folks.

this is a serious, non-combative question.

and I don't mean Clark, because I don't consider him any more gifted in FP than these others, I just think he is a very smart Army General, which is not the same thing as a FP wonk. Same reason I don't think Webb - who I really like - is a FP guy. I think both Clark and Webb should be at the table, but as military experts, not as diplomats.

So who do you think the Dems can put up? Kerry and Gore probably bring the most to the table in that regard. I personally think neither will run.

So, taking Clark, Webb, Gore, and Kerry out of the mix - just for the sake of wondering, who would you put up as the FP wonk, or brilliant diplomat?

And most outside of places like DU would count Biden also, not that I support him either.

I think it's pretty well set, though, that neither BR or JB have a snowball's chance in a hot place.

Thing is, the Republicans can put up nobody SANE with any FP experience. Romney and Giuliani have zip.

I think, also, that after the results of experienced guys (Cheney, Rummy, et al) that Americans no longer trust someone whose principal virtue is that they've been around the block a few times.

I think Clark is much more than just a military expert, kind of like how General George Marshall was much more than just a military expert, or I suppose even Colin Powell, faults and all, for that matter.

He is hardly the standard military figure (I grew up a military dependent)

My distinction is between a diplomat and a soldier.

Clark is clearly more than a soldier, but he is not professional FP wonk. Maybe I'm delineating too fine a distinction here, and, in any case, Clark brings more to the table in this regard than most other candidates, and VASTLY more than any Republican (I remove McCain from consideration on account of his clinical insanity...ie his experience is rendered meaningless by the arbitrary and zealous behavior)

I think the polls make it interesting.

Seems like just yesterday a poll said Edwards is way ahead!

Obama has not peaked yet in terms of name recognition. I am not saying this will happen, but Obama has a lot of potential growth in his poll numbers, as more people pay attention to him. Of course, as people get more familiar with him, the novelty might also wear off. However, IF he is able to mount an effective campaign, which is key to solidifying his lead, he could become an overwhelming favorite within a few months.

What am I going to do?

He has spent the most time in Iowa except for of course Vilsack. And it's actually not a bad poll for Clinton in my opinion. It shows that she is not the front runner and that she hasn't begun campaigning in Iowa yet.

& is tied with Obama.

Very, very interesting.

makes being in the lead precarius at best. That Obama made those kinnds of inroads in weeks and no infrastructure is quite interesting, very interesting.

don't mean a thing when your no longer the only popular candidate with name recognition.

Looks like Vilsack may be screwed. No one was really taking him seriously anyways.

Edwards did well in IA last time - coming in at a strong second.

I'm starting to think, depending on whether Gore or Clark decide to run, Edwards and Obama both have strong chances. Clark better decide soon whether he's going to run. Gore would turn the race upside down.

I especially like the idea of Hillary and Vilsack doing poorly. I really don't care for them.

Obama has no structure, no money, and hasn't been to Iowa much and is already leading Edwards, who is has a machine there and widely known. Once Obama actually starts campaigning and mingling, his numbers will only go higher. I think Edwards has reached his ceiling.

the money, and they know him. He has everything in place to WIN the caucuses.

I can't see Clark running this season - unless he is looking to be somebody's VP.

You are right about Gore. He will turn this race upside down if he enters.

I'm pretty sure that he will run, and the fact that there are many like you who have low expectations for Clark sets it up for him to do surprisingly well as a candidate, and once that starts to register, that is the line that the media will follow. Being a hot candidate in December 2006 rarely translates into being the hot candidate in January 2008.

I copied this chart from another DU thread on Iowa polls:

The LATEST Iowa poll, conducted by KCCI TV states the following:

Former Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina: 22 percent
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: 22 percent
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack: 12 percent
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton: 10 percent
Former Vice President Al Gore: 7 percent
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry: 5 percent
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: 4 percent
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio: 4 percent
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: 1 percent
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh: 1 percent
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: 1 percent
Undecided: 11 percent

It looks like both Clark and Kucinich are within the margin of error to rank up there with Gore and Kerry. Though I have no doubt right now that Gore and Kerry do legitimately poll higher in Iowa than either Clark or Kucinich, the point is that no one is running away from the rest of the field there, not even Edwards and Obama. And candidates who the media likes to talk about more than either Clark or Kucinich, like Biden and Richardson, are still down at at lowly 1%. It's way to early to be dismissing Clark. But of course time will tell.

I think Obama/Clark is an excellent team. Clark, as much as I like him, does not have the skills to run a successful presidential campaign. Obama does and he can connect with people. Clark would be a great VP choice for Obama, as it would give him credibility for the security/war issues that Fox News is going to be rambling so much about.

Also, note that both Obama and Clark were both against the Iraq war from the start. They were right and Hillary/Kerry were wrong. Edwards was wrong too but I think he genuinely knows he made a mistake.

:hi:

But you're dead wrong about Clark's political skills. There's no reason to think they're any worse than Obama's -- how hard could it be to beat Alan Keyes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to have read Obama lost his only really difficult campaign, for the state senate several years ago, correct? He's a smart guy; no doubt has learned some tricks of the trade since then. But the same can be said for Clark.

Clark is sitting at 4% in this poll, in a statistical tie with Gore and Kerry. Not bad for almost zero name recognition. When he starts campaigning in Iowa, his numbers will go straight up.

I also read just th'other day that Carter was at 4% in Jan '75. I doubt Bill Clinton was that far up by the end of '90. There's still plenty of time for any of them to win over the Iowa caucus-goers at this point.

I was a big fan of Clark for the 2004 Presidential Campaign, but was disappointed by his showing. I believe he is an incredibly qualified candidate, but I just do not think he has enough to go head-to-head against Clinton/Obama/Edwards. After all, he couldn't beat Kerry (sorry, but I have a disdain for Kerry). But I admire Clark lot, that is why I hoping for a VP candidacy for him. If not, I want him to hold a cabinet position if Dems win in 08.

But you are right about these polls not being an indicator for anything. They are way too early.

but not as a presidential candidate

Honestly, tho, he didn't do all that bad. Not for his first campaign ever, and considering he got in too late to compete in Iowa and after most of the professional campaign staffers (at every level) had been sucked up by everyone else. He outlasted some very sucessful, very experienced, career politicians. Now that he's been around the block a couple times, and if he can raise enough money to hire a competent staff (realizing that might be a very big "if"), I believe it's gonna be a lot different this time.

But hey, if you're right and he's not up to the task, we'll see it fairly quickly. Similarly, if Obama's political talents are being overstated, that should become apparent as well (altho I fear the media may make him seem better than he is for too long). There's no reason to make judgments this early; I prefer to let the process work itself out.

It does sort of trouble me that we seem to put more weight on who MIGHT be a better campaigner than who would do a better job in office. To me, it doesn't make much sense to relegate the guy with honest-to-God commander-in-chief and diplomacy experience (very successful at both) to "president of the senate" and put the legislator in the executive chair.

Eh, but what the heck -- it doesn't matter anyway. VP speculation always strikes me as sort of silly, since none of us can have the slightest effect on the result, but it's mostly harmless.

I'm an Obama/Clark person, myself, and in that order for the same reason you described. People generally vote for the president, not so much for the VP. I wouldn't have a problem with Clark getting top billing, except I don't think they would stand as good of a chance.

Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:

but not so much for FP experience, but for real world military experience, and a sense of seasoning that Obama, with all his gifts, can't muster. that team would still need around them a group of statesmen (former Sec.s of State, etc) to give the full, rounded international experience.

And Dem contenders can't skip Iowa like they did in 1992 when Harkin sought the nomination.

I'm sure a lot of people here can appreciate how fast polls change in Iowa.

That's infinity politically.

haha. re-elect kerry? wow.

And yes...

the man was never elected. he had no guts to stand up for himself during the election, nor after the election.