For those of you Bourbon Room loyalists, you well remember — or may have been trying to forget — my near-rhapsodic take on the Los Angeles debate, the first Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama tilt of the campaign.

No need to rhapsodize tonight. Instead of my thoughts, tonight I will pose a series of questions that may help us decide what mattered most and how the debate did or did not change the arc of this fascinating and historic Democratic pursuit of the presidency.

Note: Some questions I will answer for you. Have no fear, the answers will lead to other questions The Bourbon Room promises not to answer.

Here we go.

1. What does camp Clinton consider THE most important moment of the debate?

The lengthy and “passionate” exchange over universal health care?

No.

The debate over whether or not to impose a five-year moratorium on adjustable rate mortgages, as Clinton proposes and Obama opposes?

No.

The debate over how Clinton would restore “fiscal discipline” by ending Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and ending the Iraq war to invest in new infrastructure and start new “clean green jobs”?

No.

The answer came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson in the form of an e-mail sent to reporters at 9:57 p.m. EST, mere moments after the debate ended. The full contents of the Wolfson e-mail are reprinted here:

“What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. Her strength, her experience, her compassion. She’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.”

Question: Do you agree and do you see anything relevant at all in the near-instantaneous framing of the “moment” by Sen. Clinton’s campaign?

Question: Does the following e-mail sent to reporters at 10:15 p.m. EST by Bill Burton, national spokesman for Barack Obama’s campaign, carry any weight with you?

“Clinton tonight: You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about.”

The Burton e-mail then includes this quote from John Edwards: “What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.” The quote comes from a Democratic candidate debate on Dec. 13, 2007.

UPDATE from the Obama campaign at 11:35 p.m. EST:

Burton sent this e-mail: Yet another line lifted for what was her “best moment.”

Clinton tonight: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I’d been blessed and that I was called upon by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.”

President Clinton: “When the history of this campaign is written, they may say, well, Bill Clinton took a lot of hits in this campaign. The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that people in this state and country are taking every day of their lives under this administration (Aug. 14, 2000).

Question: Does this second Obama e-mail on the Clinton “moment” matter to you or suggest anything to you about the degree of concern camp Obama has about the “moment”?

Which leads to a related question. Did you consider Clinton’s line against Obama on the question of lifting lines (or trading them) from/with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick memorable? To jog your memory Clinton said: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.”

Next question. Do you remember Clinton saying more frequently she agreed with Obama or Obama saying more frequently that he agreed with Clinton? Your answer, based on your recollection of the debate is more important than the actual answer (which, to be honest, The Bourbon Room doesn’t have).

The related question is this: Generally, considering the current context of the race and Obama’s 11 straight victories (Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary today), does Clinton agreement with Obama on issues do more for Obama than his agreement with her on issues?

Question: Does it matter to you that in a 2003 questionnaire, Obama said he favored normalizing relations with Cuba (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html), but tonight said he would not normalize relations with Cuba unless it pursues human rights and democratic reforms.

Question: Do you think the gap between Clinton and Obama narrowed or expanded on whether the next president should negotiate directly with U.S. enemies such Cuba, Iran and North Korea?

Question: Can you remember a significant difference that emerged in nearly 10 minutes of debate over how to revive the U.S. economy?

Question: Do you understand the difference between Clinton and Obama on the pursuit of universal health care coverage? Does it strike you as an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin difference or a crucial philosophical divide?

Question: Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s assertion the Iraq troop surge represents a “tactical victory” that is hopelessly ensnared in major “strategic blunder”?

Question: Do you believe Obama’s surge answer, if he’s the Democratic nominee, will be viewed as one of strength in the inevitable Iraq debates with Sen. John McCain?

Question: Which is the logical sequence in a republic as politically complex as ours: change then solutions, or solutions then change?

Question: Did Obama look to you more or less presidential than in the previous 18 debates?

Question: Did you think Clinton faced the hardest debate of this campaign in light of her poor post-Super Tuesday performances and, as such, deserves higher marks for pluck, poise and determination?

Question: Did either Obama or Clinton answer the final “crisis” question and does that matter to you?

The answers are yours. The election is yours, especially in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on March 4 (remember Texans, early voting is occurring NOW).

Share

The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue – such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

Net winner by a slim margin: Obama.

Share

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses. The turnout was massive, well above 115,000 and far and above any pre-caucus predictions (except those of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who was closer than anyone with a prediction six months ago of 100,000).

Massive turnout did not propel Barack Obama to victory, as it did in the Iowa caucuses. In two consecutive states (New Hampshire and Nevada), large turnout has lifted Clinton and lifted her where it matters most — among core Democratic constituencies such as labor households, women, and Latinos and lower income households. Yes, Hillary had the support of most of the state’s most prominent state and county Democrats and once led by as many as 25 points two months ago. Obama did close the gap and gave Clinton a tough race. But he still lost. Wins and losses leave consequences in their wake.

In politics generally and in this race particularly, some things matter more than others. Two-straight victories for Hillary based on core party voting blocks means more than the current stir here about Nevada’s delegate allocation.

Right now, the Clinton and Obama camps are arguing over who won the most delegates in Nevada. The issue in Nevada is how delegates will be apportioned from urban centers and rural counties. Obama won 10 of Nevada’s 16 counties and carried the sparsely populated rural counties by lopsided margins and thus may collect more delegates than Hillary, even though she won the turnout and precinct battle .

Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby disputes this and she should know. Here is Derby’s statement: “Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Delegates matter in the big picture, but this dispute is a side-show and here is why: Nevada had 25 pledged delegates to allocate and either Clinton won 13 and Obama won 12 or just the opposite occurred. One delegate either way doesn’t move the needle in any important way.

Whoever captures the Democratic nomination will need to win 2,025 delegates. Viewed in isolation, Nevada is a fraction of that amount. And a one delegate shift between 13 to 12 doesn’t change the trajectory or strategy of this race nearly as much as Hillary’s victory in the raw turnout and precinct-by-precinct contests.

Nevada is about momentum and electability. Hillary leaves Nevada with more of both than she arrived with. That’s what matters. Hillary lost two things in Iowa — the aura of inevitability and the sense that she was genuinely the most electable Democrat. With her New Hampshire and Nevada victories, Hillary can now more credibly assert she is at least as electable — and possibly more electable – than Obama.

Clinton won the union vote here by carrying 7 of the 9 casino-based at-large caucus precincts even though the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama and applied intense last-minute pressure to mobilize their members on Obama’s behalf. As The Bourbon Room observed before the caucuses commenced, there is every reason to believe the Culinary endorsement came too late to push Obama across the finish line first. It also means that Hillary arrived in Nevada with a pre-existing following among Culinary workers and their loyalty translated when and where it mattered most — on caucus day and at their assigned precincts. That was especially true among Latino members of Culinary. Of today’s caucus turnout, Latinos comprised 15 percent. Of those, 64 percent voted for Clinton and 26 percent for Obama.

The Latino vote in internal campaign polls before the race had a roughly 65 percent to 35 percent Clinton/Obama split. Notice, Clinton’s actual performance closely matched the pre-caucus polls but Obama’s did not.

It may be that the UNITE radio ad that described Clinton tactics here in the form of a law suit filed against the at-large precinct caucus sites as “shameless” and showing a lack of “respect” backfired on Obama. Of course, Obama’s campaign had nothing to do with the content of the ad, but Obama could have denounced the ad’s content as Clinton’s camp requested. When it did not, Obama gave rise to the perception that he agreed with the ad script which both John Edwards and team Clinton regarded as malicious and out-of-bounds.

If the Nevada race reverberates anywhere other than South Carolina, it’s in California. The Clinton campaign worked very hard to make sure Spanish radio and television were aware of her Latino outreach and the nasty nature of the UNITE radio spot. As one senior aide put it to The Bourbon Room, “we’ve been attached at the waist to Univision and Spanish radio for the last couple of days.” Pro-Clinton surrogates with deep ties to the Latino community, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragosa and Delores Huerta chief among them, intend to leverage Hillary’s strong Latino showing and the Obama-sanctioned hardball on Spanish radio. Why? To motivate Latino voters in California, the biggest prize by far on the 22-state Super Tuesday calendar (370 pledged delegates).

For these reasons, some things matter more in Nevada than delegate allocations. The Bourbon Room has attempted to listed the most important.

Share

AP Photo 

Before The Bourbon Room heads to the spin room, final impressions.The debate was a stand-pat affair. Unlike the New Hampshire debate, Clinton did not come in with a game plan to change the dynamic by driving issue differences with Obama. All three held close to well-articulated policy positions and made little or no attempt to draw blood or beat one another up. Clinton and Obama had strong moments, as already discussed. In the end, the debate was about holding ground already won in Nevada and if any candidate gained here it was probably Clinton because she more artfully and regularly brought Nevada themes and Nevada issues into the mix. Her level of confidence here was striking and smooth for a candidate who in the past made references to personal stories sound like something she was reading off an index card — tonight it sounded less formulaic and that, probably, made her tonight’s slight winner.  

Share

Share

Share

Share

AP Photo 

Race question right out of the blocks. Hillary says she and Barack Obama called the truce. Obama called for it on camera, Hillary followed with a statement — not exactly the same thing and important since Hillary’s camp often accurately points out Obama follows Hillary’s lead on some issues — health care and economic stimulus to name just two.Obama tries to rise above the race issue and get back to the terrain that has been safest for him all along — that of transcending race and seeking to build a bigger coalition. Edwards weighs in tangentially on the side of Obama by highlighting role of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  and those who conducted lunch counter sit-ins, not the legislative dexterity and power of former President Lyndon Johnson.On Tim Russert’s question of his campaign’s involvement in pushing the race story by highlighting comments from Clinton surrogates that had a racial component, Obama appeared to concede the point that his camp bore some responsibility and pledged to set a non-racial tone going forward. Obama also rejected the theory that in New Hampshire the difference between the polls and the final result had something to do with whites lying to pollsters about supporting Obama but voting for Clinton in private.  Obama’s comfort level can be described as minimally comfortable. He tried mightly, again, to steer it back to the change dynamic.Russert’s question to Clinton about Robert Johnson’s reference to what Obama was “doing in the neighborhood” that he wouldn’t described, Clinton said his comments were out of bounds but said in the campaign it mattered less what someone “none of us have ever heard of” said, but what the candidates themselves say. Johnson, one of the most successful media moguls (white or black) in American history, might be surprised to hear Clinton refer to him in that way. Johnson’s comments were widely interpreted as a reference to Obama’s admitted drug use (marijuana and cocaine) as a teen. Johnson later said he was referring to Obama’s work as a community organizer, an explanation neither the Obama camp nor many black talk radio hosts accepted.

Share

This is a story of how the Iowa caucuses can break your heart., even if you’re not on the ballot.

It happened in 2004 to Dennis Olson and, politically at least, he’s never been the same.

Dennis lives in Urbandale, Iowa, a suburb on the western fringes of Des Moines.

Howard Dean captivated Olson in 2004. Olson told me he’s never been so excited by a politician in his life and he threw himself into “Gov. Dean’s” candidacy with a joyous ferocity bordering on mania.

And unlike some of the stereotypical Dean supporters – the nose-ringed youngsters who dashed around the state in their blaze orange “Perfect Storm” ski caps – Olson was no starry-eyed idealist . Olson knew the caucus ethic of hard work, grassroots organizing that plowed so deep you not only know the names of your committed caucus-goers, you sought and won multiple commitments from them.

“I talked to people again and again,” Olson recalls tenderly now, a small clutch in his throat. “I looked them in the eye. I went over my lists again and again.”

Olson knew the caucuses from watching his mother and father caucus in far northern Iowa, back when caucuses in rural areas often occurred in a neighbor’s living room (it still happens now, but far less frequently).

Olson also knew well the retail nature of caucus politics and fondly recalls meeting a stranger at an anonymous bowl of potato chips at a meet-and-greet in Iowa City in 1976. Olson was in a side room and saw the chips and began to munch. Moments later so did another guy. The two chatted for awhile about nothing in particular. Then Olson remembers the guy wiping the potato crumbs from his fingers, extending a hand a saying “Hi, my name is Jimmy Carter.” Olson remembers leaving Carter behind and thinking, “That guy isn’t going anywhere.”

Oh well. Olson had it backwards. The guy he thought was going somewhere, Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh (father of current Sen. Evan), went nowhere.

Dean was different. Olson knew he was going somewhere. “I just never felt the way about a politician the way I felt about Dean. He really excited me. He really took me.”

Olson signed up as a Precinct Captain for Dean and worked his Democratic neighbors feverishly, taking nothing for granted. Consistent with the requirements of caucus politics, Olson not only obtained multiple commitments, he arranged transportation to the precinct and made Dean available by phone and in his own home for fence-sitters to meet.

“I did everything I could,” Olson told me. “I mean, I went back to people, which is what you have to do. I went back and back again. We always kept talking. I kept asking, ‘Is there anything I can do?’ I arranged phone calls with Gov. Dean if I had to. It wasn’t easy. But he was willing. Some people even met him at my house. That’s how important it was to him. That’s how important it was to me.”

Olson did what the Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns are doing right now, right this minute and all across the state. They are compiling their supporter lists, nailing down commitments and dividing their labors between finding new caucus supporters and keeping the ones they already have.

Olson did this and he was sure he did it well.

Then caucus night came. And it happened.

In the closing days, the wind began to turn against Dean and suddenly John Kerry began to gain significant momentum. John Edwards gained too. The “Perfect Storm” had begun to spin out of control and suddenly hard-and-fast commitments began to breakaway like loose shingles.

“There were people I had groomed,” Olson said. “They attended every rally and the signed the supporter form. There were people who had made a personal commitment and signed the form that they would align for Dean. I remember one who I had Dean go to his house himself to get his commitment. And we got it. But then they started to get caught up in the press and they made the switch. I watched them go to other candidates right before my eyes.”

Olson watched Dean’s support slip away in his precinct and had a dreadful fear it was happening elsewhere as, indeed, it was. Olson knew his neighbors weren’t flighty. dishonest or novices. He understood they were with Dean. Hard. But then something happened and they lost confidence. And then they were gone.

That caucus night left Olson so glum he didn’t even stay awake to watch Dean’s now infamous “concession” speech.

“I never saw the scream,” Olson said. “I was too depressed. I had worked for almost two years and to see it all go away was so hard to deal with. I just didn’t feel like watching anything anymore. It took me two days to recover. I can’t remember if I cried or not, but I sure felt like crying.”

Olson said it’s no exaggeration to say the 2004 Iowa caucuses broke his heart and killed off a part of his political being.

“I’m still a part of it,” Olson said, referring to this year’s caucuses. “But it’s not the same. I’ll never feel that way again.”

Olson is an Edwards organizer and he will serve as his precinct’s caucus-night captain, a high-visibility role where he will oversee the caucus itself, enforce the rules and tabulate the results.

Above the fray. That’s the only role Olson says he can tolerate this year.

As for his 2004 caucus-night catastrophe, Olson has just one cautionary observation.

“What happened that night will happen to every candidate somewhere.”

That doesn’t mean any candidate this time will fall as far or as fast as Dean in 2004 (that would be some feat). But it does mean on the night of Jan. 3rd, organizers for every campaign will see what they can’t believe — caucus-goers they were sure would be with them drift into another camp.

And a feeling like betrayal will rise in the pit of their stomach. And it will be all they can do to swallow that welling anger and accept defeat face-to-face. Few things, it seems to me, could be any harder in politics or life.

And that’s how the caucuses can break your heart. A break that doesn’t easily heal. Just ask Dennis Olson.

Share

All day the titles of one Doors song and two Who songs (The Doors’ “5 to One,” and the Who’s “905″ and “5:15″) have been ringing in my head.

Why?

No other reason than to keep my toe-tapping to the relentless back-and-forth today between the Obama and Edwards camps over two union-affiliated 527 groups now airing more than $1 million in radio ads in Iowa that indirectly benefit Edwards. (Well, the fact that all three songs have “5″ in them may have something to do with it and that all are under-appreciated parts of both bands’ discography — but let’s not go there loyal Bourbon Room readers).

The groups (the 527s, not The Doors or the Who) are loosely backed by Iowa members of the Service Employees International Union and the Steelworkers union. The SEIU-affiliated group is headed by Nick Baldick, a former top operative in Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign.

There’s serious money behind these ads, more than $1 million by the Obama camp’s count and that’s enough to saturate the biggest media markets in Iowa — as the groups no doubt intend to do.

In Oskaloosa, Obama came right to the edge of calling Edwards a fraud when he said Edwards should denounce and end the ads.

“You cant just talk the talk,” Obama said with intensity. ”The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change during election time, you’ve got to look at how they act when its not convenient, when its hard.”

Edwards’ first response?

He blamed Obama’s complaints on a change of fortune in the Hawkeye state.

“Senator Obama’s attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows,” Edwards himself, not a spokesman, said in a statement.  ”As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can’t control them, but let me make it clear – I think money has corrupted our politics and these groups should not be a part of the political process.”

“Can’t control” is 100 percent legally true, as everyone in this game knows.

No one controls a 527 except those who bankroll it with unlimited and undisclosed donations and the operatives who cash those checks.

But as camp Obama swiftly pointed out, Edwards demanded in 2004 that President Bush step away from such no-can-touch legal arcana and stop the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads against John Kerry.

Obama’s chief spokesman Bill Burton gleefully e-mailed these Edwards’ riffs on Bush and the Swift Boaters.

“There’s one person, one person who can put an end to this today if he had the backbone, the courage, the leadership to do it. And that person is George W. Bush,” Edwards said in an Associated Press report on Aug. 24, 2004. “Every day that this goes on and the president refuses to say stop these ads,we’re learning more and more about the character of George W. Bush.”  Reporters traveling with Edwards today hounded him on this issue. By sunset Edwards not only told reporters he would call for the union-affiliated ads to be pulled, his campaign farily trumpeted the turn-around.Here is part of an Edwards campaign press sent 5:11 p.m. EST:

EDWARDS: STOP THESE ADS

Edwards calls on 527 groups to stop running ads

Des Moines, Iowa – Today, after an event in Coralville, Iowa, Senator John Edwards called on 527 groups to stop running ads: 

“I do not support 527 groups. They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads.  I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process.”

The 527 scrum now over, let’s quickly analyze it.

Obama wins by forcing Edwards to reverse earlier statements. But don’t count Edwards a loser. Edwards is now a big problem for Obama. Team Obama knows Edwards has a top-flight Iowa organization, knows Edwards is the second choice of clear majority of likely Democratic caucus-goers (every polls shows this), and, most frightening of all, Obama’s team knows if Hillary can’t win Iowa her next choice is to have Edwards win. 

If Edwards wins and Hillary finishes second and Obama third, Clinton can fight Edwards on stronger ground in New Hampshire and without the handcuffs of spending limits that Edwards must live with. 

Obama can’t afford to allow a single Edwards advantage to go unchallenged. And, of course, Edwards can call on the ads to be withdrawn but that doesn’t mean they will be because, as he correctly said, election law forbids any direct coordination between a candidate and a 527 — even if that coordination is to pull ads from the air. 

The larger point of today’s clash — other than putting three great rock songs in my head — is that Obama fears Edwards and can’t dare let a single tactical advantage of his go without a fight. Obama fought. He fought hard and, on points, he won. 

But as he returns to his corner, Obama knows Edwards has staying power and will fight to the death in Iowa. As The Bourbon Room has noted before, if Edwards doesn’t win Iowa, he’s done. 

Obama can take a second place finish in Iowa to Edwards, but not a third to Edwards and Clinton. Hence the pre-Chirstmas ferocity of his response.  

Share

]]>