But, I think Obama's ground game is much better than Howard Dean's was (the archetypal candidate with wide national support but no understanding of how to turn it into Iowa caucus numbers) and I think he'll come in ahead of Edwards. In particular, he strategy of "running against the lefties" will, thanks to the Iowa rules, allow him to bus in "Independents" and "soft Republicans" (who are apathetic about the R primary) and slap Edwards down from the right.
At which point he's likely to roll all the way to the nomination. But I hope I'm wrong and you're right.
One thing I'll say for Obama, as an aside: I think what Obama got right, win or lose, that the eventual nominee should note was tying together an infinitely superior general election theme. Edwards's theme is great for primaries, but I think Jonathon Alter of Newsweek made a fair point when he said that you have to be careful with the confrontational style. Played correctly, it's solid. But, played incorrectly, it will turn people off, allow your opponent to attack from a defensive position (or, worse, belittle you the way Cheney was able to do to Edwards in 2004) and destroy your campaign. Edwards can deliver such a theme convincingly, and I hope that if he does win tonight he'll have taken note.
The reason I don't see Edwards winning is that I think he's going to pay a price -- a small one but a real one, unfortunately -- for a certain depression factor. I think there will be a few people who, despite leaning towards Edwards, go for Obama working with the assumption that Edwards won't beat Hillary.
It's a dumb assumption to work with, in my view, because people should, to put it in as cheesy a way as possible, "vote their hopes, not their fears," but that's the major problem I see for Edwards. And, as it hasn't really been discussed directly in the non-blogosphere arenas, it hasn't really been addressed directly.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see him losing a bit for that, and a bit lost is a catastrophic loss for Edwards, I'm afraid. (That's one point on which I think the press got it right without needing to manufacture a gain or loss of momentum.) His campaign is sort of like the NFL teams who have to pray for a certain combination of wins and losses from others in order to make the playoffs and have a shot at the Super Bowl. Or, for the one-game analogy, it's a bit like hoping for the (one-win) Miami Dolphins to beat the (undefeated) New England Patriots. There was a chance, and it had its exciting moments, but (hope though we Dolphins fans did) it just didn't happen.
I believe beating Hillary is critical to the next four years. Again, that's not because I think she'd be a bad president or because I hate her or because she's a woman. Hillary is incredibly intelligent, hard-working and probably tougher than I could ever dream of being. I really do admire her for putting up with all of the horseshit -- from the Republicans, from the press, from her white-trash husband, all of it -- she's had to put up with for so long. But I believe we've got to beat her, because she'd be mediocre (as Clintons tend to be) at a time that really and truly calls for a candidate with the potential for transformational leadership. Any of the others in the top five, with the possible exception of Richardson, have that potential. All that said, I must admit I, too, am fearful that Hillary would bury Edwards. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
