Like it or not, Edwards strategy is smart.

Edwards strategy for months and months was win Iowa, and slingshot your momentum to other states and domino the primaries in your favor.

The strategy took a major blow when Edwards lost Iowa to Barack Obama. His strong second place finish, and the fact he defeated the national frontrunner narrowly--kept him in this race.

Last night, we saw John Edwards new strategy.

Make this not about change vs. experience. But change vs. status quo.

And paint Hillary Clinton, who is nearly tied with Obama in New Hampshire in most polls, as the candidate of the status quo.

And paint yourself and Barack as agents of change.

Edwards strategy? Ride Obama's momentum long enough to paint Hillary as the status quo, and knock her off to leave it with you and Barack Obama as the last two candidates standing to battle it out for who can best argue they can produce change.

Some people are saying John Edwards chances to win the nomination are over. But I beg to differ, and I think his new strategy is smart. Try and topple Hillary's remaining support, and chip away at her to knock her off. Then battle it out with the clearly easier to beat Obama for the nomination.

I have to say, that is not tradtionally a winning strategy.

It's risky, but since he got second in Iowa (not first) he's got to take a risk to succeed.

I think it's the lowest-upside, but lowest-downside strategy. He won't take first place by being Obama Lite (just like Obama faltered for a few months when he was trying to be Clinton Lite), but he stands an okay chance of avoiding falling into complete irrelevance.

I think time is running out for him, though. He doesn't have the financing or organizational strength to beat either Obama or Clinton on Super Tuesday unless he's running with a ton of momentum, and Clinton will certainly stay on at least until then, as she's comfortably leading there.

More like (in terms of message) Obama is Edwards Lite. BC Obama's strategy is "inclusion" vs "alienation" and Edwards is straight out "anti-corporate", "take no prisoners", "no holds barred".

Smart move on his part.

If you believe Obama is a weaker candidate than Edwards, well, why would the Republicans feel like torpedoing Obama's nomination bid? As Napoleon said, "do not interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

If you believe Edwards is a weaker candidate than Obama, well, I'm not sure why you're supporting Edwards.

If he can successfully make it Edwards vs. Obama, Obama would be a lot easier to defeat than Clinton.

Not saying he can, and it's risky. But he's got a fighting chance at least.

Unlike Edwards (and to a lesser extent Obama) she can afford to absorb some early losses.

Let me lay a factual foundation

Hillary Clinton is the Walter Mondale of this race; the traditional Democrat who is popular among many of the interest groups that make up the Democratic party; union members, older people, African Americans*, Jews, Hispanics,gays, and working class people...These folks are good for 35%-40% of the vote in any closed primary...Obama and Edwards are insurgents...A traditional Democrat isn't going to easily vote for an insurgent Democrat and vice versa... She can get at least 30% of the vote anywhere...

How does Edwards hurt Hillary by splitting the insurgent vote?


*that group is probably lost to her

in the recent Rasmussen poll. I think Edwards' plan is to keep Obama in so the race won't be over. He needs to keep it going as long as he can and if Obama is out, the race is over. He'll turn back on Obama if he thinks that's a better strategy.

I think Edwards knows that Obama has the lead, but it's a shaky lead. And Hillary is clearly wounded from Iowa. It benefits Obama and Edwards both to knock her off, because she's harder to beat for both of them. And make it a two person race, which Edwards tried to position it as last night with the change vs. status quo rhetoric.

Then he can go after Obama for the differences between them, and make his case. After losing Iowa, it's the only way he can still stay in the hunt for the nomination. It's incredibly risky, but he has NO choice.

It helps him to conform with Obama to talk about change vs. status quo, and then knock off Hillary early.

I seriously wouldn't doubt if Obama and Edwards campaign had some sort of communication about knocking Hillary out of the mix.

And I don't know what race you're watching, but the "populist BS" rhetoric made it's introduction in this race by your candidate of choice. If you look at Edwards and Obamas rhetoric, it shares many of the same themes and talking points. Edwards just been more aggressive in presenting his case.

Senator Edwards has just been more aggressive with the rhetoric.

Edwards has made it his entire theme. Obama has made healing the red-blue divide his dominant theme.

NGU.

NGU.

Does he have any ideas of his own?

no one can win on their merits. It sucks, I don't like it, but this is what it has come to.

Edwards is way behind nationally. He put everything on Iowa and still lost. How would Edwards turn it around against Obama?

Last night, Edwards practically endorsed Obama. Edwards plagiarized Obama's campaign theme. I can't see any case for Edwards over Obama.

But when you're backed into a corner, risky times call for risky solutions.

He's got to get rid of Hillary, then battle it out with Obama...whose easier to defeat than Clinton...

Time isn't on his side, however.

At a funeral, a preacher mourns the departed. An elderly lady yells out, "Why don't you give him some chicken soup?" The preacher responds, "Chicken soup won't help. This man's dead." The lady replies, "It wouldn't hurt!"

At some point he will have to deal with Obama's burgeoning charismatic appeal.

Obama will have to deal with the fact that his "charismatic appeal" is not the only thing he needs, and he wil have to deal with the issues, and address them head on. That's what Edwards is waiting for. Without Hillary he has a good chance to push the fact that we need someone with real ideas to make the changes we need. While Obama is "charismatic" and the some voters are into that, it may be a different story when it becomes a two person race. That holds true if it gets down to Clinton and Obama also!

:-)

Edwards could have come out of Iowa and joined Hillary in attacking Obama in hopes of knocking him down a peg in New Hampshire. However, that would most likely have put Hillary at top and a victory there would've positioned her as being the leading candidate again.

The strategy Edwards is employing really isn't smart or dumb, it's the only realistic option. But I think he's done regardless, since if Obama wins New Hampshire, he'll probably win Nevada and then South Carolina, putting him up 4-0 in this race heading into Super Tuesday. That momentum will be hard to stop for Edwards and I don't see how he wins enough states on Super Tuesday, with the limited funds, to make it a race.

Just my opinion, of course.

number one, he can't compete with Clinton in terms of money. She'll outspend him everywhere they go. In a sprint, this isn't a big deal. In a marathon, it's going to come back to haunt him.

He could afford to be outspent in Iowa, because it's a small state that relies more on personal connections than money. But when Super Tuesday rolls around, he'll need big money for tv ad time. Will he have any by then?

Money isn't ALWAYS the end all.

Look at Huckabee and Romney. Romney spanked him in money spent, but Mike still got his message out and was able to win Iowa.

He's got the money to compete.

"He could afford to be outspent in Iowa, because it's a small state that relies more on personal connections than money. But when Super Tuesday rolls around, he'll need big money for tv ad time. Will he have any by then?"

It's difficult to make that case when this caucus was different from any in history because of all the independents brought into the mix, and the new people brought into the mix.

It wasn't the traditional Iowa Caucus.

Iowa and New Hampshire are the favored targets of the long-shot candidate for exactly those stated reasons: low population, and a history of relying less on ad buys than on personal connections. On Super Tuesday, well...you can't very well take an enormous personal-appearance edge.

He's picking off one opponent at a time. First he's distinguishing the Change-Makers from the Status Quo, then later he'll distinguish the Change-Makers, one from the other. It's systematically dividing and culling the herd. Obama will have his day as target when the time is once again opportune. Edwards (hopefully) will end up as the last one standing.




     Edwards '08 tees!

Edwards revealed how he'll frame his opponents when he was on Olbermann last week......

He said Clinton represented the Status Quo and Obama is the only other "Change" candidate but his approach is "intellectual" and "philosophical"...somebody who "just talks about it, for whom it's more of a political issue...the politicians are going to do the political thing."

Translation: just more of the same old-same old from - gasp - a politician, which will soon become a dirty word (and a handy frame in which to hang the GOP candidates too!)




      Edwards '08 tees!

He lost by EIGHT PERCENT after nearly living in Iowa for YEARS! He beat Hillary by 1/2 of 1%. It's funny how he's trying to make this a 2-person race as if they're neck and neck.

He cracks me up the way he's trying to frame this race. :hi: Check out these intrade numbers! http://www.intrade.com/

Its on realclearpolitics.com though. Obama is at 60, Hillary is at 37.5, Edwards is at 2.1. I'm surprised Edwards isn't a zero.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Thanks for the link. Edwards has no chance. I just wish someone would call him out on the fact that he didn't choose to take matching funds in order to "take a stand," but that after choosing to FOREGO matching funds, he didn't raise nearly as much as the other two so he flip-flopped and took matching funds, suddenly claiming it was for moral reasons, saying elections can't be bought (although he TRIED) and having the nerve to challenge the others to do the same.

He can't fight both of them at the same time.. and aligning yourself with the weaker of the two would only weaken himself.

He's doing the only thing he can possibly do to stay alive right now. But, I think it will be difficult for him to "Align" himself with Obama now.. and then flip-flop and totally disagree with him down the road.

Obama would certainly have the right to say "John.. we've had 10 debates and 10 months.. why are you just bringing this up now if it's really all that important?"

and hoping there's a dead hooker somewhere.

It will be difficult to differentiate himself from Obama to his advantage. Assuming of course that he can last long enough to see Clinton out (a big if) and that things continue to go Obama'a way (fingers crossed).

So I don't see how he couldn't if he somehow gets Clinton out of the way.

But to me his strategy is a long shot, and a sort of David vs. Goliath type strategy. I'm not saying it'll work, but I understand why he's doing it. Personally, I'm holding my breath. Edwards is my strategy, but things are looking...eh.

is that there isn't much else he can do.

That why just sent another $250 to the EDWARDS campaign. I was going to send $200 but $50 bucks more won't break me :).

BTW my retired mom send another $100 today!

It doesn't feel sincere.

It feels Iago-ish.

Just my opinion.

I really think it's over for him.

But since Edwards doesn't have a job or a political career any more, he's going to stay in it.

The condensed primary calendar doesn't give him a chance to duke it out later.

Use him and Obama as change vs Hillary. Knock Hillary out and concentrate on Obama. After Hillary's knocked out, Edwards will go with he's one type of change and Obama's another.

Edwards has a tough road, since Obama has so much support. Edwards needs to be first or second in NH. I think NH will end up Obama, Edwards, Clinton.