Edwards: Tonight's Results Show That Change Won, And Hillary Lost

Comments (66)

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 10:26 PM:

The choice of 62% of Iowans:

ANYONE BUT OBAMA!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Jmac wrote on January 3, 2008 10:27 PM:

The whole thing seemed kinda shameless. I mean there's spin, and then there's telling a bunch of sad stories and exploiting them for your benefit.

DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 10:30 PM:

That was an odd speech given the moment, but as I noted before, the bottomline is that if Edwards can pass Clinton in NH, then he might still have a chance.

Michael wrote on January 3, 2008 10:30 PM:

Edwards spin, yes, tries to turn it into a race between him and Obama, but it also seems to be a tacit endorsement of Obama for any of his supporters who are ready to abandon ship after seeing him lose decisively. He's basically said, "Obama and I are really alike, and we're both really different from Clinton"

Chino Blanco wrote on January 3, 2008 10:37 PM:

CalD, if you're not getting paid for your trenchant analysis, you really should be.

All the obvious good news you're reveling in tonight aside, doesn't it kinda suck for you that your candidate couldn't even break 30%?

Derek wrote on January 3, 2008 10:37 PM:

The choice of 71% of Iowans: anyone but Hillary.

The choice of 70% of Iowans: anyone but Edwards.

The choice of 2.75 million Iowans: we don't give a sh*t

To spin this as anything other than a victory for Obama is silly. However, this race is FAR from over.

Finally, it's very heartening to see this many Dem's (particularly the youth vote) turn out. Bodes well for the general election, no matter who it is.

good reverend wrote on January 3, 2008 10:39 PM:

Heh. He didn't even bother to congratulate Obama. Gracious in defeat.

But a damn good candidate nonetheless.

Dusty wrote on January 3, 2008 10:40 PM:

Christ, Huck is now on saying how he loves Iowa..he is forever grateful to Iowa..

Don't get excited Huck..once you leave the bible belt..it won't look so rosy.

Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 10:40 PM:

Derek, I have to agree with that sentiment. Generally people who vote in primaries and caucuses will also vote in the generel election.

What's the point of voting in the caucuses/primaries if you are not going to vote in the general election?

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 10:41 PM:

Chino: Get a sense of humor.

Dusty wrote on January 3, 2008 10:42 PM:

MSNBC is reporting Chris Dodd is the first fatality:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22484066/

dcshungu wrote on January 3, 2008 10:44 PM:

Congrats to Obama for a decisive win tonight. Also congrats to the DMR/Selzer poll AND the last Zogby tracking poll for getting at least the winner right. The DMR poll also got the spread about right, as well as getting Clinton and JRE virtually tied (within the MOE). Though it was was an "outlier", it was the more predictive (accurate) poll, which should elevate and solidify its reputation as the poll to watch.

Remember that this is just the beginning...On to NH and beyond!

DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 10:46 PM:

It looks like neither Biden nor Richardson are going to do better than 2%. It really might be down to a three person race unless someone surprises in NH.

Optimus wrote on January 3, 2008 10:48 PM:

Edwards' speech rocked. He was impassioned and talked about what needs to happen and the problems he needs to change. And he's right, the status quo lost and will continue to do so and that's bad news for a Clinton.

Hillary came on after him, and talked all about herself and her qualifications and thanked Iowa. It was a world of difference between the two, and quite indicative of who they each are. Hopefully Obama will show the passion Edwards did tonight in his speech.

And now Huckabee's on there, with Chuck Norris' giant head right behind him.

DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 10:55 PM:

By the way, I am pretty sure ARG is not pleased with how badly it blew this one. In contrast, Selzer, Zogby, and Strategic Vision all came out pretty accurate in the end. Insider Advantage also pulled out the right order with a late reallocation result (although they still muffed the margins).

moondancer wrote on January 3, 2008 10:57 PM:

Most interesting to me is the exit poll shows for the number one issue for those who voted for both winners: change of direction for the country.
That is very bad news for two groups, the GOP and perceived establishment types.

Bigsky in Iowa wrote on January 3, 2008 10:58 PM:

So here's how it went down in North Central Iowa at the demo caucus tonight.

51 people showed up (up from 19 in 2004)in my precinct and this is in a town of just under 3K. We had three delegate spots to fill.

1st tally had (roughly)
Edwards with about 15
Clinton with 14
Obama with 10
Richardson with 3
Biden with 9

A candidate needed at least 9 people to be viable so the Richardson people split up and the second tally was
Edwards 15
Obama with 12
Clinton with 13
Biden with 10

Under the 'rules' since we had only three delegate spots we had to winnow it down to just three viable candidates which meant that the Biden group had to realign and they ALL switched to Edwards...
Final tally
Edwards 25
Clinton 13
Obama 13
and each got one delegate.

So, in response to the posts above, I think Edwards did pretty good and deserves to feel good about the result. If you define change as either Obama or Edwards than I think he's got a point that change won here in Iowa.

This was my first Iowa caucus and many of the criticisms that I've heard of the Iowa Democratic system are valid. For instance, tonight many of the candidates got aced out of any delegate votes because of the winnowing effect described above. And even then Edwards got half of the precinct vote but had to split the delegate total evenly with other candidates who each received half his votes.

On the other hand, my wife and I thought we were going to see about 10 neighbors, based on 2004 turnout and it was a pleasant surprise to literally stuff ourselves into a small classroom at the middle school with 50 other political animals!

I think I still prefer the 'one person-one vote' primary but it was really a good experience and probably the most social political experience I been to with neighbors standing on their hind-legs and making a pitch for the issues and people important to them.

Whew! The best (only) reason to live in Iowa is, sadly, past now and I'll have to watch the rest of the country regain the momentum but it has been a heck of a ride here if you are, like most of us, a junkie.

Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:00 PM:

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 10:26 PM: The choice of 62% of Iowans:

ANYONE BUT OBAMA!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Next time you should try.

No do-overs in politics

Paul wrote on January 3, 2008 11:03 PM:

This result thoroughly discredits ARG as a polling outfit. Clinton by 9? Ha! They have had similar poll numbers in favor of Clinton in NH and SC. And it reinforces the respect that the Seltzer/Des Moines poll has earned. They called it just about right - Obama by 8, with Clinton and Edwards fighting it out for second.

dcshungu wrote on January 3, 2008 11:06 PM:

Whew! The best (only) reason to live in Iowa is, sadly, past now and I'll have to watch the rest of the country regain the momentum but it has been a heck of a ride here if you are, like most of us, a junkie.

Wait! Don't go into withdrawal just yet! There is November to be looking forward to!

john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 11:09 PM:

Third Place for Mrs. Bill
We just turned out the incumbent

Live by inevitability die by it

No coronations in the Democratic Party

Obama 38 Edwards 30 Clinton 29 Turnout Demo Caucuses 2004 - 125,000 Turnout 2008 - 220,000 Obama won on EVERY issue in entrance poll. Obama beat Clinton AMONG WOMEN among INDEPENDENTS among DEMOCRATS. Obama brought independents and new voters to the Democratic party and THAT is the story of tonight and the lesson for Dems nationwide

Vote Different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

colonpowwow wrote on January 3, 2008 11:10 PM:

Although Hillary can't be real happy about the evening's results, you know who's really hurting. No, not Chris Dodd - his initials are JRE. He's done and they know it, that's why he doesn't even congratulate Obama for thumping him in the Iowa ABH sweepstakes.

Congratulations to Obama and his supporters for a well-earned and confidence-building victory.

Now on to New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Super Tuesday - where registered Democrats will have their say by casting votes in actual direct primary elections.

moondancer wrote on January 3, 2008 11:12 PM:

The reported massive turnout of first timers and even republicans for Obama is indeed impressive. I am so concerned about my core issues that I missed the energy he is creating.
While I still favor Edwards, I feel good about Obama if he emerges.
The good news: either will swamp any gooper slime that stand against them.

Genghis wrote on January 3, 2008 11:14 PM:

Edwards has been playing nice with Obama for months. Even when he goes after him, he holds his punches, in clear contrast with his attacks on Hillary. It's clearly not just because Hillary is the frontrunner, because Obama is becoming the frontrunner, and Edwards is still playing nice.

I've speculated a number of times on this site that Obama and Edwards have a deal. If Edwards can maintain his second place, we might have a good Edwards-Obama battle, but I predict that he falls to third place, and then it's a only a matter of time before he drops out and sends his supporters to Obama in exchange for a cabinet position or (if Obama really wants him or needs his supporters to win) a place on the ticket.

Either way, Clinton's done. She might be able to beat Obama with Edwards in the race, but with Edwards supporting Obama, there's no way.

The door wrote on January 3, 2008 11:18 PM:

Would someone please show Hillary ....

john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 11:18 PM:

I dare Greg Sargent.

Put up the video of Obama's victory speech tonight

Dare you

Dan wrote on January 3, 2008 11:19 PM:

Jmac, if you think Edwards is posturing by giving the stage to those who have suffered as a result f the prevailing orthodoxies and policies of the corporate political complex, then I can only assume you are a terrible judge of character. When I hear Edwards speak, when I hear him engage with his attackers (e.g. Wolf Blitzer), I hear perfect arguments, delivered with inscrutable conviction. And I'm a realist, if not a cynic.

john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 11:22 PM:

Sargent totally missed the essence of Edward's speech..economic populism..esp the part about the poor and the homeless

Edwards stands tall

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 11:23 PM:

Classy speeches by Clinton and Edwards (no screams, sorry). I guess we can forgive a little chest thumping on Obama's part. He should tone it down for New England though. People around here can tire of narcissism pretty quickly.

Heretic wrote on January 3, 2008 11:26 PM:

What a surprise that Obama won amongst a group of people who represent no one. I hope new hampshirites don't drink the koolaid. Whoever Iowa picks is a guaranteed loser in the GE. McCain in '08. Woo-hoo!

john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 11:28 PM:

I dare Greg Sargent to put up the YouTube of Obama's speech.

Then see what CalD has to say

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 11:32 PM:

Speaking of narcissism, there will no no living with John Zogby after this. If you thought he was a shameless publicity whore before...

nogo war wrote on January 3, 2008 11:32 PM:

The Long Road to Denver

Obama 17 Delegates
Edwards 14 Delegates
Clinton 14 Delegates

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/IA-D.phtml

Kucinich for prez wrote on January 3, 2008 11:33 PM:

Edwards gave an all time great speach. Best of the night.
He mentioned poor people. Something I never hear American politicians do.

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 11:33 PM:

John,

I just watched all three speeches in their entirety and I already said what I had to say.

DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 11:35 PM:

I understand that Clinton's supporters will keep fighting, which in part means continuing the spin efforts. And it is indeed possible she could turn this around and still win.

But wow--Obama gave a nearly perfect speech for the occasion, and I highly doubt it will not play in NH.

lambert strether wrote on January 3, 2008 11:36 PM:

You know, I expected some hits from oppo researchers on how Mike Huckabee's son killed that dog. But I didn't expect them the very minute the damn polls closed!

http://www.correntewire.com/let_the_oppo_begin

Wordie wrote on January 3, 2008 11:39 PM:

While it does seem that Edwards ought to have congratulated Obama, his comment that "change won" tonight was right on the mark. It also struck me that since he hasn't been treated fairly in terms of the coverage of his campaign by the msm, which for months consistently portrayed the Dem race as one between Obama and Clinton alone (and mostly Clinton!), Edwards was taking advantage of the rare opportunity to make his case on national tv to Dem voters in other states.

john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 11:40 PM:

The results tonight absolutely destroy Hillary Clinton's reasons for going forward

Andrea Mitchell

Becky Glynn wrote on January 3, 2008 11:50 PM:

If the Clintons really do what's right for this country, they will astound us all by pulling out of the race (with 60% of Iowa voting against "them"), and put their support behind either Obama or Edwards, who are both exceptional candidates. That one gesture from the Clintons would do more to put this country back together than anything else they will ever do.
Peace

DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 11:56 PM:

john mccutchen,

That was a pretty brutal segment by Mitchell, although I happen to agree with most of what she was arguing.

But of course Clinton has never really articulated a clear rationale for her candidacy. That is because the real rationale is providing a de facto third term for the Clintons (plural), although they cannot quite make that rationale explicit.

And despite the fact that Mitchell is right that tonight contradicted many of Clinton's overt arguments, that implicit argument might still work. But probably not if new people keep showing up to vote.

Me wrote on January 4, 2008 12:00 AM:

I think Obama is a nice intelligent guy although a bit of a lightweight. I think he is a little misguided to think there is any common ground to reach with the GOP. The GOP will never make concessions. Most importantly Americas dirty little secret is that subconsciously many Americans will never ever vote a black man president or for that matter a woman.

Yes, Dems will vote for women and blacks, but the GOP - never!

Dream all you want.

Edwards being a white male is the Dems only chance.

You don't believe me? Google "States Rights" and see how passionate the pro-white-male movement is. Smart GOPers will never admit it because it is bad for business but in the secrecy of the ballot box, come on, get a grip

And then there are the pro-GOP Diebold machines that you still have not corrected.

The GOP will steal this election again and all us Dems will cry "no fair".

For the last four years there should have been one issue only - fix the rigging of federal elections.

I predict Cheney retires to spend more time with his family/heart condition. Jeb gets installed as VP. Jeb/Condi go on to steal the election.

The next day the riots will be quelled by Blackwater and Jeb will declare Marshall Law.

Vote with your brains not your hearts.

zk0sm0 wrote on January 4, 2008 12:20 AM:

the fact that hillary came in third IS the story tonight.

even if edwards only edged her out by the slimmest of margins.

and even if obama beat 'em both by a handy margin.

but even though obama's margin was 'handy' this was still a pretty tight three-way group.

at the very least the story tonight is that this is a three way race and not the two way race that the msm narrative has been shoving down everyone's throats.

Matthew Wiseman wrote on January 4, 2008 12:22 AM:

What's with MSNBC and the "Hillary Hatred"? I know Chris Matthews has hated her ever since she de-nutted him at the AFSCME Forum, but you could see Olbermann, choking as the late returns were trending Hillary.

I'm fine with either Obama or Edwards as candidates, and will vote for the dem nominee, but geeze, to keep pushing the "Hillary is Third" story, when only a few hundred votes separate her and Edwards... not tomention that from a delegate standpoint, they both have the same amount. The spread on TV... Edwards has just enough to round up to 30% where as Hillary is .0003 percent away from this rounding bump. That's 67 votes.

Obama deserves a victory lap; and it will be interesting to see if his actions reshaped the caucus.

Edwards, too, deserves credit for getting as many votes as Hillary on about 1/3 the spending; but then he had campaigned there before.

MSNBC is also really pushing that Hillary will try to kill off Obama... What about Edwards? He needs to muss up Obama worse than Hillary. North Carolina will be interesting.

dcshungu wrote on January 4, 2008 12:25 AM:

DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 11:35 PM:

I understand that Clinton's supporters will keep fighting, which in part means continuing the spin efforts. And it is indeed possible she could turn this around and still win.

LOL. Meanwhile look at who is doing the spinning. The statement is actually rather ludicrous. Iowa just awarded Obama, HRC and JRE, respectively, just 17, 13 and 13 Dem national convention delegates (of more than 2k needed to win) and you expect Clinton's supporters to stop fighting? This race is still pretty much hers to lose. Remember that she even considered skipping IA altogether, but competing there turned out to have been a good move as it forced all her opponents to concentrate almost exclusively on doing well in the early states, which left Hillary to maintain her nationwide edge. As for the meaning of tonight's results,here's the unimpressive track record of Iowa and New Hampshire at picking presidents. Read and learn not laugh too soon for it might be your only laugh...

radlib1 wrote on January 4, 2008 12:25 AM:

Dear "Me" -- I couldn't agree with you more (although I must admit you're ahead of me with that Jeb-Blackwater "martial" law scenario.

I too like Obama, nice guy, good speaker, etc. (and I don't particularly like Hillary -- except against any Republican on earth). But John Edwards is now truly the only progressive Democrat in the race. He is the Real Deal. He's out there speakng from his heart and his gut on behalf of the poor and the middle class in America. He could be the best, most progressive President we've had (no promises, though, I've seen too much) since the Rooosevelts, Teddy and FDR. I hope he's got the strength and I hope we can give him the backing.

Let's kick ass and elect John Edwards for President!

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 12:28 AM:

Me,

Recent data suggests you are wrong, in that today both Democrats and Republicans will vote for black people. For a good study of this issue, see here:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/408/can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 12:43 AM:

dcshungu,

Like I said before, I expect you to keep fighting and spinning, not to stop. As you just demonstrated.

CanyonWren wrote on January 4, 2008 12:51 AM:

Sorry, I think you're full of crap. Of course Edwards will declare this a victory, because it is a victory--he's in second place, ahead of the "frontrunner" for goodness sakes. I don't take his comment to mean the race is now about "two men"--how very crafty of you to spin it as such. What I interpreted it to mean is that Hillary--the candidate of status-quo--is in last place. That is significant, whether one wants to believe it or not.

Edwards' feelings of triumph for now are justified. He's spent the least amount of money, has had little to no press coverage, is basically ignored, and yet still is in second place in the first caucus.

Seems pretty promising to me...

Jess wrote on January 4, 2008 12:53 AM:

Cald: 70% says: anyone but Clinton!

~ Jesse

Me wrote on January 4, 2008 12:54 AM:

The corporate-owned pro-GOP MSM are heavily pushing Hillary or Obama because they know the GOP will eat them alive for the reasons I stated above.

Hillary and Obama are the GOPs favorite rivals - Dems are stupidly playing into their hands.

A vote for Hillary is a vote Bill so that is okay with me.

D'oh, sorry about the spelling mistake in my above post "martial".

DTM,
I am sure there are other studies that say otherwise.

I hope to see Wes Clark in the cabinet at National Defense.

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 1:02 AM:

Why is it that everyone who argues that a black man or a woman cannot win the presidency seems to write with complete and utter certainty, as if they've seen some secret, indisputable poll on what America really thinks. (I especially love it when born-and-bred New Yorks claim to know what rural southerners really think.)

I don't claim to know whether Obama will win the presidency, but I note that he won in Illinois, which does have some white people. Even one of those allegedly racist Red southern states, Tennessee, almost elected a black senator.

Does a woman or black man face challenges that a white man doesn't? Of course. But everyone out there has their handicaps, and I've never seen a poll that says Americans would prefer a thrice-married cross-dresser, an old man, or a slick flip-flopper, to a black man.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:03 AM:

Me,

Well, I'd be interested in seeing any such studies.

Until then, it appears to me your assertions are contradicted by the available evidence.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:14 AM:

Genghis,

That is the obvious problem with the logic in question. People seem to be thinking "generic black" versus "generic white", but of course real candidates have all sorts of other attributes besides race.

And it is already obvious that factors like partisanship trump race when it comes to electoral politics, as indicated in the Pew study. In other words, a black Republican candidate will get about the same amount of the Republican vote as a white Republican would get. The same goes for a black Democrat: he will get about the same amount of the Democratic vote as a white Democrat would get.

And given that, suppose you start with a candidate that appeals to both Democrats and also independents and even some Republicans. Will it really make a huge difference if you then imagine that person is black? No, because all the other reasons why people liked that candidate in the first place will trump race for the vast majority of people.

And all this should be good news. As always, I am saddened that some people are simply unwilling to accept this good news.

Me wrote on January 4, 2008 1:22 AM:

DTM,

Okay, you win. I am not going to debate the point. Who am I to burst your idealistic bubble?

However, on another point.
Maddow has a great breakdown on this Obama win (crooksandliars.com).

Obama won because he got the youth vote and the vote from newbies.

This took a ton of shoe-leather in a very small state. I am not sure this strategy could work nationally.

Basically he must get non-voters and youth on a national level to the polls. A very tall order because youth generally do not vote and non-voters are ... well ... non-voters.

Obama won on sheer tenacity. I do not think he or anybody has that much stamina to continue that strategy.

Clinton and Edwards got the traditional voter support who most likely represent real voters.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:33 AM:

Me,

I find it interesting that I presented actual evidence, and you did not, but you claim that I am the one living in a bubble.

Anyway, the conventional wisdom was that Obama could not get young voters and new voters to turn out in Iowa (Dean being the commonly cited example). And yet turnout in those groups, and all others, exceeded the wildest expectations.

Now, maybe it is true that for some reason only young voter and new voters in Iowa, but nowhere else, are going to turn out this cycle. But maybe there is actually a new mood in this country, and Obama is the right politician to capture that mood.

The good news is that this process isn't over, so you will get to see a lot more tests of whether or not Obama's political abilities are real. I'll just note that for those of us who have followed Obama since at least the 2004 Illinois primaries, tonight was not a surprise.

Me wrote on January 4, 2008 1:54 AM:

DTM,

This is a left-leaning site with left-leaning think tank links. I personally have no problem at all voting for a woman or a black president.

Go make a couple posts at http://www.humanevents.com
These guys are hard-core conservatives. It is not a fringe site, they get millions of hits. Go sell your viability "evidence" over there and see the hard-core rebuttals.

They admit that their only chance is against Hillary or Obama.

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:02 AM:

Me, I'm not sure how being a hard-core conservative gives one a privileged appreciation of American voting habits, but I've no doubt that their arguments are rock-solid.

But let's all be friends. Edwards can be the veep.

Davidson wrote on January 4, 2008 2:03 AM:

OBAMA V. EDWARDS (Forget Hillary)

This is what should have been, instead the press only concentrated on Obama v. Hillary. God, wouldn't it be something if Edwards could've had the money to be in this race. Damn.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 AM:

Me,

Oh, you are far, far from being the only person here to have made the same assertions.

The funny thing is, I can never find anyone with actual evidence to back up those assertions.

Now, maybe things would be different at that website, but I suspect I would find mostly more of the same (a lot of assertions, very little proof). But if you think they would have good arguments and evidence, why don't you try your experiment, and if they come up with anything, you can report back here.

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:34 AM:

DTM, I wish that you would stop asking for evidence. Internet forums are for spouting baseless opinions as if they were indisputable facts. We don't need no stinking evidence.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:37 AM:

Genghis,

Oh. Come to think of it, that explains a lot.

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 2:46 AM:

Likewise for presidential campaigns

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 5:57 AM:

Obama's victory speech was electrifying. And now he has some numbers behind his message. Democrats and Independents, and even some Repulicans campaigned and enthusiastically caused for Obama.

People want Change in this country. Iowa said in no uncertain terms that Hillary is more of the same. Hillary is praying Edwards stays in the race, because virtually everyone of his supporters would switch to Obama in a heart beat.

Although he does not frame it exactly this way, Obama also draws the distinction between campaigning for HOPE and campaigning for hate.

Hillary and her machine campaign on hate and perpetuating the mean-spirited, partisan divisions that have paralized government's ability to address major issues. This is so very apparent on comment sites like this one.

Hillary's mean, aggressive attack dogs like

Colonpowwow
CalDC
dcshungu
pacc

spin lies, belittle and insult opposing opiinions, and try to intimedate others into supporting the very flawed Mrs. Bill Clinto. Their methods don't work here, and Hillary's mean methods don't work in the campaign. I hope they are hearing the early message from Iowa. This campaign is about HOPE, the future, and brinning the nation together.

Hillary is History!!!!!

dcshungu wrote on January 4, 2008 8:35 AM:

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 12:43 AM:

dcshungu,

Like I said before, I expect you to keep fighting and spinning, not to stop. As you just demonstrated.

How silly...Of course the fighting and spinning would continue...by everybody, including Edwards! I understand that you are giddy, but hold onto your senses! Why should anything stop when it's just started? Delegates awarded: Obama 17, Clinton 13, Edwards 13. That is it. More than 2k to go. You can call it a spin, I call it reality.

Cheers, mate!

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 9:17 AM:

Actually, Clinton's got 174 to Obama's 106 when you include the super delegates (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/delegates). True, spin never stops, and Obama has a long way to go, but I think it's a much different race today from what it was yesterday.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)