From tonights debate: Obama-Edwards tag-team on Hillary was effective.

Whether you want to say it's fair or not, and whether it competes against the positive and hopeful messages both campaigns have made in this race is up to you.

But Barack Obama and John Edwards effectively painted themselves to voters as the agents of change, and helped push Hillary into being seen as the status quo candidate.

Again, you can argue how fair it is. That's up to you.

But Obama just won Iowa. He needs to win New Hampshire to make solid his frontrunner status.

And Edwards HAS to finish strong in New Hampshire to compete in South Carolina, Nevada and the Feb. 5th states.

So for both campaigns, it was good to try and push Clinton out of the mix.

Now they've set it up with change (Edwards/Obama) vs. status quo (Hillary)

I wouldn't be surprised if the two campaigns worked together to try and knock Hillary off the road to the White House.

As fair as strategy, it's really good for them. Get rid of Hillary with her well oiled machine of a political operation, her high level endorsements, boat loads of money, and high profile status. And make it a two person race, and debate which agent of change is better.

but it was only Edwards, from what I saw. He was the one tying himself to Obama. To me, it smacked a bit of desperation - when a politician says something nice about someone he's running against, it's obvious there's a self-interested motive.

They know it's good to knock Clinton out, and make it between them too.

Edwards knows Obama would be easier to defeat.

And Obama knows Edwards would be easier to defeat.

Hillary's got the money, organization, and power. They see weakness, and they're pouncing...and together at that...

but Edwards couldn't stop himself from mentioning Obama. He's trying hard to manufacture something, to bask in Obama's glow. I don't think it will work, myself.

And Edwards mentioned Obama.

They almost seemed to feed off of each other to present the message of change.

Maybe John did most of the dirty work in presenting Hillary as the status quo candidate, but Edwards is very effective in his speaking. So that's understandable.

If you saw the debate, and didn't notice Obama-Edwards clearly trying to position it as a two person race--you're crazy.

Obama only seemed interested in Hillary when it came to her attacks on him.

the Edwards camp is just trying to manufacture a relationship. Edwards was all over Obama, trying to position the two of them together. It almost seemed he couldn't stand on his own, he had to be tethered to Obama. But this is just my impression.

Hillary attacks it's considered mean-spirited, vicious, dirty politics, Chris Mathews calls it "the bottom of the barrell", etc. Yet when she is attacked, when she gets a smack down from both Edwards and Obama then it's smart politics.

Had to work...sounds like it was a good debate, everyone got their points across. :)

In a 3way, Edwards gets ditched by the media. In a 2way, he gets to smash Obama's progressive pretentions.

Obama fights smart. Two way or three way, he'll dispatch Edwards. And Obama actually has a REAL progressive record going back 2 decades. Edwards? Not so much.

:boring:

She is the one who ran on a platform of quasi-incumbent. That isn't resonating with people and she is too invested in it now to reinvent herself.

and when she spoke with the fire and passion against edwards comments it showed and she scored points on them both. She scored points on edwards about all his talk about this is personal and when she said his bill did not become law that was a plus for HRC. Obama in my opinion came off as lackluster. His answers at times were rambling and incoherent. If that is what it takes to be presidential and stay above the wray then please do not come across looking like the national director of morticians.....

Delegate count from Iowa.....obama 16 clinton 15 edwards 14


"The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible." HRC 1969

But from my couch, I saw Hillary showing anger.

Her passion came off as anger.

And whether that'll turn the voter off or not is up in the air, also.

I think the line about Edwards bill not becoming law was very desperate and low looking. I'm not sure how the undecided voter will see it. But I guess I look at it through a biased pair of eyes lol.

So your vote tally can change at any time.
Iowa shouldn't have counted them in the first place since they aren't set in stone.

Thanks for your candor. :eyes:

I look at it as a defining moment in the campaign.
Something people can understand and it definitely should have been done way before now.

They seem to have a fair amount of overlap in their positions. Would the winner of the primary, whomever it turns out to be, select the other as their running mate?

Two politicians with their own personal vested interests in advancing to the finals identified with a slogan and sought to unidentify an opponent from that same slogan. Change has always been an Obama buzz word. He does represent change of course by being an African American, and as Hillary pointed out she represents change by being a woman. But her point was that representing change does not bring about change, effective work brings about change. Richardson focused on the real value of experience in getting things done. Obama in turn pointed out the power of words in moving people etc. There is much to discuss on the topic of how does change happen and more than one way to look at it. Much of the debate revolved around that and it was fascinating, and acutally a useful discussion to have. But your post glosses right over all of it. Two politicians try to patent a positive buzz word in a double team against a common opponent and you think that was a defining moment in American political history? That is sad.

Edwards for his part was just reading the polls. He needs to do some immediate political historical revisionism. He finished less than half a percentage point ahead of Clinton in Iowa, with both of them being 8 points behind Obama. So he is strapping himself to Obama's "change" image so he can claim that it was he and Obama who "won" Iowa rather than he and Clinton who "lost" there. "I'm about change too! Change, that's me, just like Obama!" was his ploy. In fact most everything else he went on to say about how to bring about change was diametrically opposite to what Obama had to say.

Obama stressed building a working majority coalition to bring about change by finding common ground with non Democrats; Independents and some Republicans. Obama blurred Party lines in an appeal to all Americans. Edwards took a very strong economic populist position against the types of compromises that in fact usually build those types of working coalitions. There are reasons why Independents choose not to be Democrats in the first place, and for many of them it includes a rejection of that type of sharp edged populist world view.

Obama and Edwards conceptionally "teamed up" in name only; that name being the high polling buzz word "change". The actual debate discussion was real; the use of slogans wasn't. All of the Democrats up there are working for Change. Politically they teamed up to try to weaken a serious rival. Some no doubt will be swayed by that combination punch thrown against Hillary, but it can push different viewers in different directions. "Ganging up" has a negative connotation. If it comes off that way to some it will help Clinton with those people to see her stand up against two men coming at her in that way.

I think what people walk away from that debate having heard will vary from person to person depending on their own personal buttons and what they instinctively respond best to. When I tried to view it objectively I think all four of them were effective in making a strong cse for their candidacy and each made powerful points along their respective lines.

concept of "change'.That is a slogan he cribbed from Edwards .From the very beginning Edwards is the candidate that has advocated "change" and stipulated that the system is broken and has to be replaced. Obama has always stressed bipartisanship and working within the system.Hillary has always cited her "experience" with the system.Edwards is the original "change" candidate and the only one who has had the guts to call the system "corrupt". I think Edwards won tonight and made his point but I also think they all did well, except for Richardson, who I like but who makes me want to tear my hair our in debates! I also found Obama a bit bland but he made no real mistakes, so it was a good night for him. Everyone looked fabulous next to the GOP!

Clinton's argument was that the proof is in the pudding. Advocating for dramatic change is not the same as bringing about dramatic change. It is not only a matter of who is advocating for the most significant changes, it is about who can bring about the most significant changes, and who has the better track record from which to predict an ability to bring about actual accomplishments beyond stirring rhetoric. It is possible that someone pushing for somewhat less dramatic changes can better position themselves to accomplish significant real changes than someone who makes the most dramatic arguement for change. This is all open to debate and of course that is exactly what was going on last night.

Of course Edwards has been an agent of change. But if any American is to get credit for originating the concept of "Change" I figure Thomas Paine has about as good a claim to that as any - but he didn't produce and spread his arguments solely from his own thoughts and actions either, many came before him and others stood with him also at the time of the American Revolution. What I said was that Obama was identified with the "Buzz" word of change now, not that he was the first and/or only Democratic candidate who calls for "change". That may or may not be fair to John Edwards but it is political reality and Edwards made a good tactical adjustment in relationship to that by connecting himself with Obama as "change agents" who "won" in Iowa.

Edwards exectuted his game plan very well, and I hold no grudges against any politician for having game plans meant to score an advantage in an electoral contest. The ability to do so well often seperates the winners from the losers, and Democrats can't afford to lose Presidential elections to Republicans. I agree with your bottom line conclusion completely: "Everyone looked fabulous next to the GOP!" Indeed!

For most of my long and dreary life I have heard the "change" meme in one form or another from political candidates, election after election.

Here's a scoop: There never is any change. It's the prime bullshit line from people running for office because prospective voters like to hear it and the best part -

- those prospective voters never ask the candidates to tell them exactly what changes they are talking about.

So stand there with mouths open and gawk at the change-makers. All you will get from them is more fancy rhetoric with murky definitions or explanations and hearty condemnations of the "status quo".

Oh yeah! There's another mottled meme: the "status quo". Don't get me started on that one.

Even if you accept the frame that Hillary represents the staus quo and Edwards and Obama represent change it doesn't make sense for either Edwards or Obama to attack Hillary... It makes sense fot them to attack one another because there is still a contingent in the Democratic party who likes the status quo if by the staus quo you mean the way things were in the nineties...Those people aren't abandoning Hillary and they represent 30% -40% of the vote in any Democratic primary, anywhere...As long as there are two change agents and a defender of the status quo in the race they can split the vote , more or less, evenly...