As a Hillary supporter, let me be honest I would be ecstatic if John Edwards wins

[Herman Munster]

Obviously, having Hillary win Iowa would be ideal. But if it is not meant to be, Edwards winning is the second best option for Hillary. It stops Obama's momentum. It ensures that Edwards stays in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote with Obama.

Mark my words: The longer it takes for the anti-hillary people to consolidate their support against one challenger, the better Hillary's chances are to win.

Wherever this love child nonsense in the Enquirer is coming from. Don't look at the Hillary folks. We like Edwards. :)

[MadBadger]

1. I agree with you about what happens with an Edwards Victory.

If

[Pirate Smile]

3. Me too.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Just curious, why do you think that Hillary would have an easier time

against a well reported-on John Edwards as opposed to Barack Obama?

I personally don't think so.

[DURHAM D]

4. JE - no money. n/t

[MadBadger]

9. Neither does Huckabee, but he is prob the favorite to win the GOP nomination.

[DURHAM D]

13. Honest question - has Huckabee taken public funds?

If he has he won't go the distance.

[FrenchieCat]

25. He has, and that's why McCain is being ressurected.......

I guess. Cause McCain didn't accept matching funds and didn't yet opt out. McCain still can decide what he'll do, far as I understand it.

[Cameron27]

15. Yes but Huckabee isn't taking public financing is he?

[asdjrocky]

10. Name one election on a National level that failed because of money. nt

[Herman Munster]

18. when you take public funds

you have to abide by strict spending limits in the primary states.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Oh yeah.......Although I had been harping on the matching funds and their limits.....

I almost forgot about it, just like the Iowa caucus goers will.

But certainly I would be reminded by the end of February if Edwards was the nominee, without a doubt.

So yes, I can now see why Hillary would want Edwards and not Obama to win Iowa if someone had to win it that wasn't her.

[MadBadger]

5. Edwards' support is all in Iowa. Everywhere else it seems to currently be a two man race

Including in NH, SC, NV. But he may benefit from a long break between NH and everythign else.

[MadBadger]

6. Delete

[Pirate Smile]

14. Check this out - the effect of his taking matching funds.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/161229/03/44/423046

[Clintonista2]

7. A JE nomination would be MUCH BETTER than an Obama nom

If Obama gets the nod, we will not win 2008.

[loveangelc]

11. hahaha

you cannot be serious.

[TeamJordan23]

22. I'm sure he you thought the same thing about Obama v. Hillary. nm

[annie1]

30. why don't you think he has a good chance? Looks like he's got...

a great chance. possibly even better than hil's chance since her camp seems to have quite a history of flubbing.

[Selatius]

8. Why wouldn't the situation move both ways?

Like, if Edwards wins in Iowa with Obama second, isn't it also possible that Hillary would start bleeding off supporters to the Obama and Edwards camps with them being the top two instead of Obama and Hillary?

[Herman Munster]

12. because if you look at the internals

Hillary's supporters are the most likely to be "absolutely certain" to vote for her. She has the strongest core supporters.

[Selatius]

28. Eh, but that brings up the question: How big is her core relative to her base of support?

If her core were 50 percent, that means the other 50 percent could bleed off towards Edwards and Obama. What are the numbers here?

[maddiejoan]

16. I'm an HRC supporter

and I'd be ecstatic if Edwards won the nomination.

If Obama wins the nomination I'll support him, but I won't be ecstatic.

[mtnsnake]

17. In late November I predicted Edwards could win Iowa for this reason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3766947

[Inspired]

19. Thank you????

Love child nonsense is right. Thanks for BRINGING IT UP AGAIN!

Does the name Roger Altman ring any bells with you? He owns the National Enquirer - according to this link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E6D7153BF931A35752C1A96F958260

American Media is owned by Evercore Capital Partners, which is headed by former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger C. Altman, who is a close friend of President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguably the first family not only of the country, but of the tabloid press.

Now, the last thing I want to believe is that this has anything to do with the Clintons. But it is true that they know the most effective campaign strategy is to take your worst negative and use it against your opponents.

I also don't want to believe this is true because there is a chance I might have to vote for Hillary is she is the nominee. It will sicken me to do so if she had anything to do with this ridiculous story. But it's just politics, huh?

Tell me that there is no connection between a close friend of the Clintons...who just happens to own the tabloid publishing this nonsense...and Hillary's campaign.

[Herman Munster]

21. there is no connection

because it absolutely does not help the Clinton's in any way to take out Edwards. Their view on him is his national support and organization is weak. Obama is a much bigger threat.

Even if the Clinton's had dirt on Edwards, by destroying him, all they do is risk having his supporters move to Obama to make him stronger. They don't want that!

In other words, Edwards is perceived rightly or wrongly as an "easy kill" in the long-term by Hillary's campaign. Why take him out when he's helping her right now by splitting the anti-hillary supporters with Obama?

[Inspired]

26. Oh, so her close friend, who just happens to own the Enquirer

is sabotaging her efforts to NOT take him out? What a friend, huh?

Laughable.

[Herman Munster]

27. when you are public figures like the Clinton's

you have hundreds and hundreds of supposed "close friends."

You really think they all march lockstep for them like the borg? Life doesn't work that way.

[SaveElmer]

20. Sorry to part ways with you here...

Of all the candidates except Kucinich, Edwards is the candidate I would least like to see as the nominee...

[Herman Munster]

23. I hope you understand I am referring to Iowa only here

Him being the nominee is an entirely different story and one I wouldn't be happy about because of the public finance thing. Although if forced to choose between Edwards and Obama, Edwards is much more palatable to me because at least he might have a chance of winning, even with one tied behind his back with the public finance thing. Obama is a sure loser.

At any rate, I view politics a lot like chess. You have to think 6 steps ahead and sometimes sacrifice an important piece to win in the end. Hillary's team is first and foremost trying like hell to win Iowa as they should. But if they are also positioning things so Edwards can win instead of Obama if they know Iowa is a lost cause for her, it is very very smart politics.

[annie1]

29. wouldn't she be better off if she came in 2nd to obama, and edwards...

3rd rather than Edwards, Obama, Her.

that being said, anyone who thinks Hillary is being the edwards thing needs to move out of their parents basement.