The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Face facts: Edwards and his toupee are FINISHED and not a minute too soon. Don't underestimate this loss: he has spent the last 4 years campaigning in Iowa, forsaking two small children in the process. (No problem there, he bred them to serve as campaign props.) Now maybe he can return to his mansion in N.C., chase a few ambulances, and take care of his love child. Good riddance, you loser.

An 'O' to wish... An 'O' to hope...

It is an old saying that you can wish/hope in one hand and @#%? in the other. That sticks with me over the results in Iowa.

The week before the caucuses 3 different polls had 3 different results for leaders in Iowa. First Edwards leads in the Lee Poll, then Hillary in the ABC/WP poll, and then Obama in the DMR poll just prior to the caucus.

I have to say it is interesting that Tim Russert and NBC's "MEET THE PRESS" gave Obama a very nice 30 minute Campaign Commercial taped directly at the NBC affiliates studio just the Sunday before the caucus (HUCK got the other 30 minutes). The reason I call it a commercial is because Mr. Russert stood 45 feet away lobbing softballs in for Obama to hit over the fence.

Here's the thing, the political advertising dollars in this race scares me, actually the political advertising dollars in politics scare me. I think the Obama victory gives credence to that. The Media in this country wants the candidate with the 125 million dollar war chest because it comes back to them in advertising. In Iowa alone Obama spent nearly 9.5 million in TV advertising, Clinton spent 7.5 Million, Edwards only 3 Million. This is not to mention what was spent in phone bank, mailings, flyers, newsprint, radio ... With the conglomeration ownership of our US media it is in their best interest to have the party candidate with the most dollars to spent in the race no matter what they represent as long as they won't mess with campaign finance reform. That is the strange thing Edwards is the only candidate talking about how the entire campaign finance system is still corrupt and how it is not about message it is about dollars.

Someone will now post what about "HUCK", he will be down for the count by Super Tuesday and the Republican Machine will fund whoever their candidate is regardless. That is where they truly stick together.

If you look at who went out and voted for Obama you have to realize that those numbers will not translate in a national race. As much as I would like to see 53% of voters under the age of 30 (MSNBC numbers) it is never going to happen nationally I don't care who you put on the ticket. The upper Midwest has extremely high voter turnout nationally (2004 - MN 1st 77.2%, WI 2nd 76.2%, IA 7th 69.7%) and I wish the rest of the country was like that but it isn't (2004 - NH 4th 71.1%, ME 3rd 73.4%). http://www.nonprofitvote.org/resources/todata/?gclid=CKL3-Nvo3JACFQYBkgod40riOQ None of those states are going to decide a national election by themselves based on their electoral college value. I want a ticket that did what Regan did in 1984 a clear and decisive victory. I also had 2 neighborhood kids home from college from Iowa on winter break that went back early just to caucus for Obama. I wonder how many college students from WI, IL, and MN flocked back to the state and help make up that 53% of voters under 30 that MSNBC reported.

Edwards has the best populist message that resonates to electorates across the country and reminds us of T-REX, FDR, JFK, RFK, and Jimmy Carter. He can win states in the south he can bring trade workers back to the party that left for Regan's economic message and never came back. Make no mistake about it; there are real differences with the change candidate. Edwards health care plan covers every American and leaves no DOUGHNUT hole( http://obamatruth.org/ ), he is against the trade deals that our congress has recently passed while Obama voted for hurting our US Agriculture and Manufacturing. Not to mention he has skirted key votes in the Senate while campaigning, like the Iranian Guard vote. He basically said it was a mistake and he was busy running for president. Where does that leave us as Americans in the future if Iran becomes an issue and the war drums beat again? If he is President in January of 2009 he can say he never voted for or against it so now we can go in and it is business as usual - no voting record behind him on that issue so where does that leave us. His message of hope scares me; I hope to win the lottery. Does that put it into perspective? I think he may be the best public speaker running for office, he reminds me of the tent revival evangelicals of old of any of the Sunday morning sky pilots who have the direct link to the almighty himself only rather than GOD he preaches of hope and Unity. It reminds me of GWB in 2000 who ran on compassion and the really scares me. When he speaks of hope it is his version of hope with no substance of what makes up his vision, just as GWB spoke of compassion, but his version of compassion ended up being far different than the general public's. All I am saying is the rhetoric must have substance and answers behind it, not just words that are put to a focus group and make us feel good. He very well maybe the "future candidate" of the Democratic Party but I do not think he is the "present candidate"

Edwards is the candidate that can get out there and bring in the most diverse cross-section of the electorate, protect current House and Senate seats and probably gain margins there as well.
Edwards beats every republican candidate in the CNN general election poll in mid December that weighted the front runners against each other. He wins every general election poll (all posted) against all republican candidates listed on real clear politics by the widest margin. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Edwards is the choice for America's working class.

Think about this - "Edwards/Obama 2008" - That ticket could do for the Democratic Party what Regan/Bush did for the Republican Party. They could get this country in an unbelievable place over the next 16 years. That ticket could change the world. An 'O' to wish... An 'O' to hope...

Gov. Bush: 'I'm a Uniter, Not a Divider'
and "Yes. Well,......First and foremost is to tell the truth."
February 29 2000

I respect the Edwards supporters on this thread for trying to talk up their candidate's chances but spin is spin. Obama won because, like him or not, he offered a positive unifying message compared to Edwards' "us vs. them" negative message.

Posted by: danielhancock | January 4, 2008 10:24 AM

I beg to differ with you daniel. Most of us aren't talking Edwards up because we are too busy trying to keep the media from talking him down. You too should be concerned about this deceitful trick being used by the media because if your candidate ends up as our nominee they can do to him in the general election what they have been doing to Edwards in the primary. Wrong is wrong and good people, no matter who they support, should be speaking out against it.

I can not wait to have our country sit down have unity under the logos of Exxon Mobil, Cargil, KBR, ADM, and NewsCorp.

Unity ? How about a united middle class that can afford to have one care giver who stays at home while the other goes to work? How about united middle class that can afford health care for their kids? How about a united middle class that take a vacation to visit their middle class friends on the other side of this united country? How about a united middle class that just wants to be represented for once at the table when they meet to split up the wealth of this country?
Ask yourself who are the people so afraid of Edwards? Why do they not want him as president? Read the book "Four Trials" and you will see why they do not want this guy in the White House. The power elite have faced this guy before and they lose every time. If you want your constitution and your country back you better send someone to the fight who knows how to fight.
But maybe you do not want to "rock the boat" maybe you do not want to fight, maybe freedom and justice to you are just words that sound good in speeches. John Edwards believes in the real meaning of Freedom and Justice and he is willing to fight for us in the way Wood Guthrie sang for us, Joe Hill organized for us, and my dad's shipmates on the USS West Virginia died for us in Pearl Harbor.

As others stated, this is a surprising headline relative to the headlines/stories on Clinton. Yes, one would think by reading just the headlines that Edwards was thrid or fourth...simply strange.

I respect the Edwards supporters on this thread for trying to talk up their candidate's chances but spin is spin. Obama won because, like him or not, he offered a positive unifying message compared to Edwards' "us vs. them" negative message.

Positive campaigns that try to unify have a better chance than campaigns based on hate and class envy that seek to divide.
It is not going to get any better for Edwards from here on in.

Last night was the first shot in the attempt to remake the Democratic and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Republican parties. The two winners stress inclusion, the ability to cross party lines and draw Independents. For the Democrats, it's a generational change a big move away from Clinton and all the 90's three ring circus.

Edwards did ok in Iowa. Is it enough? No! New Hampshire will probably end up Obama, Clinton and possible Richardson with Edwards in fourth. Why?

Edwards's class warfare tack has never played well in NH and his roots and accent don't play well either. I place a bet that after South Carolina he'll join Biden, Dodd, Gravel and the rest who ran out of money and dropped out.

Good candidate and an honorable person. Several reports this morning say his political career is over. It's too soon for that, but it may be the beginning of the end.

He was outspent by Obama 3 to 1.

He was outspent by Hillary 2 to 1.

He was outspent, in words and pictures, by the corporate owned media by ONE HUNDRED TO ONE.

Yet it was still, essentially, a tie.

I despise the media and hope they will one day have to pay --- in market share or even a class action lawsuit --- for what they have done to this nation.

- John Haag, Columbus, Ohio

The Washington Post couldn't wait to try to knock Edwards. You people are pathetic. First you wanted us to coronate Clinton and now Obama. Do you mind if we actually have an election?

Fact: The media have given Edwards short shrift.

Fact: The media are controlled by big corporations.

Deduction: Edwards is considered a threat by big corporations. He may be just what the people of this country need to push back the control exercised by big corporations over our government.

I do not think edwards is a man of conviction at all, but a power hungry trial lawyer,who turns the good ole boy charm on and off at will,including the drawl. He is decidedly, solid, middle class,close to privileged, and his story about growing up in such dire straits is laughable.He is phony and the Iowans know it. He did nothing to help kerry.He is a lot of hot air; a true wind bag pol!He is not electable!

Edwards did a great job! It's too bad that the media, and some mean-spirited posters here, choose to give his performance a negative spin.´ The other candidates went into the race with bags and bags of corporate cash and so it's no surprise they had an edge. All that said, Obama did a very good job organizing his campaign and deserves to be congratulated by us Edwards supporters and everybody else.

This article (by Alec MacGillis) is typical of coverage we've seen of Edwards' campaign. It's all subjective, with the objective facts de-emphasized or ignored.

NEWS FLASH: Edwards beat Clinton.
HEADLINE: Edwards comes in second, in surprise finish!

FACT: no analyst predicted an Edwards 2nd place finish. Everybody imagined a 3rd place finish for Edwards, with Obama and Clinton seen as competing for first vs. second place.

FACT: Edwards has improved his standing in the contest as a result of the Iowa caucuses.

Ok, enough with the "DIVISIVE" name calling by Obama supporters who seem to be so proud of calling themselves unifiers; man, talk about hypocracy, you guys sure take the cake.....

If the news media had given John Edwards any where near the fair coverage that they gave to either Obama or Clinton, John would have won by a wide margin.........

This article is yet more of the corporate media's attempt to bury their one threat: John Edwards. To those who don't look beneath the surface Obama seems sweet, but he's almost as much a supporter of corporate interests as the Clintons -- he's basically Clinton-lite. And in the general election he would be toast, as all his cheerleaders at Fox, MSNBC & CNN know. Edwards is the one Dem that Fox et al. consistently go after because they're afraid of him. At the very least he will bring VA, NC, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana & Florida into the Democratic column, and is the only Dem who is SURE to win general election, regardless of who the Republican nominee is. Go John & Elizabeth!!

Obama-Gore in 08.

Obvious choice.

As a newspaper editor, I have to echo the questions about running this piece however. Clinton's supporters in NH have to be FAR more bummed than Edwards' crowd. Clinton remains unelectable.

usjmail:

You don't have to win the south to win the presidency.

In 2004, John Kerry won exactly zero southern states (including Florida), and was in a position where only one state, Ohio, could have flipped and given him the White House. With Ohio trending blue, this is a strong possibility in 2008.

Additionally, an Obama nomination will explode black turnout, forcing the GOP to spend time and money in states that are usually a mortal lock: Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and possibly the Carolinas.

Couple that with his ability to mobilize the 18-29 bloc of voters, and you could be looking at a landslide.

Edwards is pure slime, and he will make americans wish bush was back. I'll vote for any republican over him - he is the least honest and least trustworthy of any of the candidiates.

The republican strategy has always been race baiting in the south, and without the southern states being elected president is unlikely.

Only in a fantasy will the rabid racists in the south will vote for Obama..

There is no way in hell America is going to elect a black guy as president in the current system of elections.

Unlike most "smart" Democrats, my candidate Edwards is --- was, too, 4 years ago --- a calculated choice:

Just like 4 years ago, or perhaps more so this time around, Edwards is likely the strongest to beat another White guy.

Folks, let's not be coy with our words and thoughts here. We are all grown ups here...

Hilary or Obama as president, being a American of racial/ethnic minority, I am all for it!

But to think the BIGGER chunk of the middle of the road folks --- the socalled independets, who, for the most part, are middle aged WHITES --- are going to vote for a young, 46 year old Blacks, in THE GENERAL.... simply because OPRAH and a whole bunch of college students are holding hands, singing sharing-songs... that's not very realistic.

And wishing that America (a sizable chunk of it anyway: and a chunk which VOTES faithfully, too!) isn't still, presently, subtly racist is a good wish; but it ain't true.

Fact is, over 90 percent of Democrats would vote for another fellow Democrat, if it is Democrat vs. Republican; and likely 95 or more percent of GOP folks would vote for their guy.

But two parties combined to be no more than 75-80 percent of total voters. A substantial chunk, around 25 or so percent, is neither Democrat nor Republican.

The person who is likely to get a 5 or so percent advantage out of that middle of the road chunk of voters is NOT going to be either Hilary or Obama.

Yes, SIMPLY because she is a woman and he is a Black American. "Reality" is not always fair sometimes; but it is still reality.

Again, wishing otherwise, is good; but it is also foolish.

We, therefore, are heading for another major disappointment, in the Democratic party.

I have no pity for Edwards and his supporters in NH have every right to be dejected. Edwards as run the most devisive politics I've seen in a long time. Trying to pit the working class vs. the poor. There are many middle class Americans who just don't tolerate that kind of message. Good riddance Edwards, you can try again after Obama as served his two terms as president.

Well done Iowa. As an ex-pat working in Costa Rica and seeing and hearing what the rest of the world thinks about US, Obama is exactly what we need. The momentum is now palpable, even from a few thousand miles away.

"People will have to take a good, hard, look at Obama now, and will come to their senses that he may not be able t get elected.

We all know this." -- Posted by: river845

Yeah, because "we all know" that Iowa has an unusually high number of black caucus goers, giving Obama a huge advantage.

Be glad your guy beat the DLC Queen, but don't be delusional.

Thank you Bronxnative, I could not have said it better myself.

Yes Obama has it correct; this will be seen as one of the great defining moments in the history of our nation.

And truly, for those of us of color, who have lived this life having to always swim upstream while remaining constantly guarded yet maintaining the audacity to hope this day would come; it has arrived; and holds a sweetness that only we can feel. I will cherish this feeling, this love I hold tonight, forever. This, is what America is all about.

As Bob once said;
"The times they are a changin,"

finally...

I must agree with the questionable nature of the editorial decision concerning this article. As an Obama supporter, I am very enthusiastic about the results of Iowa caucus tonight. However, the very fact that Edwards came in second speaks volumes about his resonance with voters. I know the media would love to write him off and make this a Obama-Clinton race, but a spirited competition between quality candidates like Obama and Edwards would bring about a far more substantive debate and, in the end, benefit this country far more.

The idea that Obama, a man who has a positive, inclusive outlook who espouses a noble vision of a United States which is capable of getting beyond its petty partisan, class, racial and other differences to improve the lives of all its people may not be electable; but Edwards, a man who preaches a negative, oversimplified view which divides America into those who are rich and those who are poor; those who care and those who don't care; is somehow more electable, is news to me and is not something that I "know."

And it is not something that "we all know."

It seems to me the surest way the Democratic Party will lose the Presidential election in 2008 will be if its primary voters fail to vote for the best candidate because of some racial or gender prejudice, which those voters try to justify by rationalizing that America is not ready to elect an African American or Woman president.

And when I "take a good, hard, look at Obama now" and the Obama family, I see a man and a family that would make America proud as its President, and as its First Family.

The editorial decision to run this article seems really questionable to me, and I'm an undecided Democratic voter. Most of the reactions it describes were when the incoming tallies had Edwards in third, but he finished in second. Edwards clearly comes out of this in a pretty strong position, but the story is about dejected campaign workers. This may have been appropriate - if it was talking about the Dodd, or Biden campaigns, or any of the others who have been running for what seems like years and didn't crack the three percent level. Bad editorial decision on this one.

Sure, those of us in the Edward's camp are dissapointed that the guy with actual plans didn't come in first, but when you consider how well Edwards did considering the small fraction of money he had compared to Senators Obama and Clinton, and the lousy media coverage he had, his solid, second place finish is pretty impressive. He can run with the big dogs. We can't give up, we have to dig in! We have to believe that substance will prevail over celebrity. Edwards '08!

Good for America !

It really is Time to Rise and Shine again America.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America !

Really good people... really good.

Of course, Edwards supporters are sad that he lost to the (almost) local boy. That said, the big news is that he beat the "inevitable" Clinton. 70% of Iowa Democrats voted against her - and if she can't do better than that in her own party's primary, one can only imagine what her showing would be against a Republican.

And what was the mood at Clinton's NH hq?
This is typical coverage of the Edwards campaign- no one in the media wants to say anything positive about him (he's too angry this time, supporter's spirits flag, blah, blah..). He is now in a position to make this a race about who really can bring change, he or Obama. Also, if you listen to him you will see he is the candidate with specific ideas and plans.

Edwards has been given a boost from the Iowa election.

He beat the biggest political machine in the Country, and will be the anti-Obama.

People will have to take a good, hard, look at Obama now, and will come to their senses that he may not be able t get elected.

We all know this.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.