The biggest loser is John Edwards, who has really bet it all on Iowa and was counting on that second endorsement. They dissed him harsh:
Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.
Obama breaks even: since Edwards is hurt, this helps make him the Not Hillary. The second tier loses one more little bit of hope.
The second biggest loser is The Entire GOP Field for losing the endorsement to a guy who's running pretty openly on a Screw Iowa strategy. This was a Pox On All Your Houses endorsement, a None Of The Above.
Well, Clinton got the Reg. When I read the Times article yesterday about all the behind-the-scene lobbying by Clinton for the endorsement I thought they would hold that as a negative. I had too much faith in local newspaper. RIP. They can be bought easier than The Administration on Libya's nuclear power. But, if you read the comments, no one is buying it. I bet they all read the Times piece too and were like 'so that's all it takes? Villaraigosa?' Man, I am at a loss.. not for words, but a loss none-the-less. It wont have the effect that the Edwards endorsement had (unless you count putting her at 2nd as the same effect). Here's why - 1. People don't buy it. Here in Iowa, they've seen through HRC's facade, and they aren't turning back no matter what the est. tells them to do (unless they would have told them to vote for Barack!). People know that she is the est. candidate, and are not willing to coronate her for that reason. They need something else. And the Reg. did not provide that. They just parroted her line about experience which dissolves like toilet-paper under a faucet when you call it to question (which they didn't in the debate, and they didn't on Iowa Press on Friday), but they just let her repeat it as if it's common knowledge. 2. This endorsement puts Barack back as the underdog (sort of, with the momentum of a front-runner) - which will save him from front-runners' backlash (we still have 19 days until the caucus). And it will add credence to his 'change' theme, because anointed HRC is anointed for a reason. And it's really where he is at his best. His message for his entire campaign is based on being the underdog (you don't have to 'hope' the inevitable front-runner will be nominated). So, he doesn't have to prop up a lead (which he could do because he's that good). This is good because that is what killed Howard Dean, and so far it's killed Hillary. And I honestly saw it killing Barack. Give a front-runner enough time at the front and he'll be attacked off his/her perch. Look at Romney, look at Giuliani (not that they deserved a perch to begin with).
YanıtlaSil