I liked the article a lot.

Nataline, Valerie, James Lowe, Steve Skvara... I remember someone saying that you don't have to like the lawyer to vote his way on the case -- you just have to like his client. And Edwards is doing a great job of showcasing his client.

Wasn't head vs heart the frame we were supposed to buy between Clinton (as the head) and Obama (as the heart) ?
I would rather define this threeway race as the head vs the heart vs the gut.

I think... you need to watch more Oprah. :)

As much as Edwards has the "talk show host" aspect down of listening to his audience, if someone has Oprah's messaging down pat, it's Obama: Oprah's message, the vaguely hopeful notion that you, too can be a better person, if not a millionaire talk show hostess, offers the American Dream in easy, one hour installments. (PS Joel Osteen has this down pat, too.) It's Obama who offers this instant vision to the masses - a vote for me is not just about change, it's a chance for you, the voter, to raise yourself up.

In contrast, what Edwards offers is angrier, more confrontational, and by its nature, less hopeful. He's going to fight because... he's heard the cries of the common man. Oprah's not a lot about the crying. Or - if you're paying attention - the common. Obama's got that "be the best you possible" message, not Edwards. Though you're right - I think that's why Obama's winning.

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/01/bad-cases-make.html#more

Maggie Mahar's post seems to suggest that while the inclusion of the Sarkisyans might be good politics it doesn't seem like it will result in good policy. At best this 200,000 dollar surgery (I would guess that is the value since they asked for a 75 K down payment) would have added six months to her life (a painful six months).

In the end the following sums it up well:

not even Nataline’s doctors, has suggested that the transplant might have given her even one or two extra years of healthy life.

That year or two is a whole hell of a lot of time when you're a kid. Please, stop pretending that you're thinking of the kids here. You don't care if that 6 months would have been painful or not, you just want to be cheap.

I guess that's the good question, what is good policy?
You seem to think 'good' policy means 'cheap' policy. I think 'good' policy means doing the right thing.

This is why I don't trust good government wonks. They treat people like people are part of a system. They do not treat people like they are human beings.

Ezra,
I think Soullite just made my point for me. When Oregon tried to impliment universal health care a kid got a fatal illness that cost half a million to extend his life for a year at most and the plan wouldn't cover it because it didn't have the money. So the parents went to the media and Kitzhaber basiclly had to go around telling every member of the legislature that saving that kids' life would cost five other peoples lives.

Soullite whether or not you like it this will happen in any health care system. It happens in the US, Canada and in Western Europe.

"The contrast with Obama couldn't be starker. Obama's intelligence is cool and detached; his wit winning and ironic. For a time, the mammoth crowds that greeted him, and the explicitly historic nature of his campaign were eliciting comparisons to Robert F. Kennedy. Increasingly, though, it's the wry, reserved, JFK whose name is being invoked by admiring reporters."

Yup.

We are actually re-running the 1968 campaign:

Gene McCarthy = Obama
Bobby Kenney = Edwards
Hubert Humphrey = Clinton

McCarthy:

- Youth vote
- First to be anti-war
- Cool, reserved, academic
- Upscale support
- Won the early primaries

RFK

- Focus on poverty
- White-hot passionate populism
- Dismissed at first by white-collar liberals
- Took a while during the campaign to start connecting

Humphrey

- Candidate of status quo competing against two change candidates
- Reliance of party machinery
- Out of step with the base on the war

Petey:
Do you work for the Edwards campaign at all(even volunteer canvasing or phone banking)?

I don't watch (or care to) Oprah, so the analogy doesn't work for me (and I doubt it does for the country), but there surely is a major style difference between the barely restained anger of Edwards and the somewhat cerebrial Obama.

Petey seems to be mighty close to a set of comparisons that make sense - but we didn't get a crack at seeing the outcome of the McCarthy/Obama v. RFK/Edwards approaches in 1968, so the value of that race to now is limited by vastly different circumstances overall.

For my part, the Dems need both anger at what has been done accompanying determination to get us back on track, but also some emotional hope that the mighty forces for stacis can be overcome by a committed candidate/President backed by a full-throated electorate for change. I guess I'm saying we need both approaches.

The Humphrey/Clinton approach is not what the party needs, nor the country, since BIG changes are required - and that takes more than workmanlike executive leadership, it takes a an aroused and supportive majority of the people ready for a fight.

"Do you work for the Edwards campaign at all"

I'm completely unaffiliated with the Edwards campaign.

I do support him for President though, because I support a stronger Democratic Party.

Petey's analogy is interesting, but I think there's a crucial difference. Obama has coopted a not-insignificant chunk of the Democratic establishment. His fundraising alone shows that. If the status quo candidate (Clinton) stumbles, the machine will be willing to shift to Obama. John Edwards though - forget it. He lacks RFK's establishment credentials, and he's gone too far off the free-marketeer reservation to be acceptable.

Realistically, what chance Edwards has depends upon Clinton and Obama beating each other up. Paradoxically, a slightly stronger Clinton would help here - force Obama to enter the fray - and demonstrate that he's as much of a politician as the rest of them.

Petey - when will Edwards' campaign start connecting like RFKs? South Carolina? Because it doesn't appear like its making much of a mark in New Hampshire.

Charlie, and you make My point for me. you're a soulless bastard who thinks counting pennies is more important than counting the days of a childs life.

Cahrlie, you don't get to make those decisions. It's stuck up elitists like you that have ruined this country, so shut the fuck up when it comes to telling me what is and is not possible. Stop looking for excuses for your own scumbaggery. You think sick kids shouldn'tget every possibility they can have. There is no defense for that.

That is, in essence, the belief system at the heart of every good government wonk. Systems matter more than people. Money matters more than people.

And guess who gets to make the decisions? Why, people like Charlie there. Does anyone really want someone like him deciding if their children get to live or die?

Thats why we need some kind of change in this country. REAL change, so that people like Charlie aren't the ones who get to sign your child's death certificate.

"Petey's analogy is interesting, but I think there's a crucial difference. Obama has coopted a not-insignificant chunk of the Democratic establishment. His fundraising alone shows that."

McCarthy was a huge fundraiser in '68 because of the support of upscale liberals.

Obama's coalition of upscale liberals and kids is almost identical to McCarthy's.

"Petey - when will Edwards' campaign start connecting like RFKs?"

Like RFK, I think it's going to take a while.

Unlike the CW, I don't think we're in a short nomination race. I think the odds are that this thing will last into March.

Clinton isn't going anywhere. Obama is almost definitely not going to roll up majorities on 2/5 (as opposed to pluralities). Everyone will have enough money to keep gassing up the planes, and so we're going to keep on going on.

January belongs to Obama, but I think February and March are up for grabs.

"It's the difference between those who watch The Daily Show and those who watch Dr. Phil. Edwards' campaign is increasingly aimed at the latter"

Interesting. Dr. Phil makes me snicker. So does Edwards.

Ah, the refrain of the Edwards supporter: "No, seriously, THIS time we'll see all that political talent actually start to resonate with people. It may not be during an actual election, but just you wait..."

Soullite,
For someone who is so impassioned one would think you'd care more about people's lives. By ignoring that health care insitutions have finite resources you advocate for the death of other more numerous people. That is cool though, maybe if we skimp enough on preventitive care and give enough liver transplants we can kill even more people.

As a 21 year old college student I am flattered to be considered part of the elite though. First time it has happened to me.

How did McCarthy do with blacks, Petey?

One of the interesting dynamics of this race is that it's an African-American wine track candidate. That's something we haven't seen before, and it can help Obama keep going in states with more black people.

And Yossarian, if you want an actual general election, try NC in 1998. Neither Obama nor Clinton has ever done anything close to beating a GOP incumbent Senator in a red state.

Another parallel is that the McCarthy supporters simply hated RFK.

"One of the interesting dynamics of this race is that it's an African-American wine track candidate."

No doubt. That's been the strategy at their very core all along.

Neil: And Yossarian, if you want an actual general election, try NC in 1998.

What kind of campaign did Edwards run in 1998?

He was essentially a Lieberman Democrat, no?

No, hlah.

Maybe I'm just one of those stuck-up anti-emotional snobs, but Edwards' ads are starting to remind me way too much of crap like this.

Neil, I shouldn't have said Lieberman Democract.

But he was essentially a DLC Democrat, no?

"Unlike the CW, I don't think we're in a short nomination race. I think the odds are that this thing will last into March."

It's odd. After 2000 and 2004, everyone seems to think that nomination races are three week affairs.

But both of those races had special circumstances that made them short:

2000: The frontrunner won IA and NH.
2004: The frontrunner utterly imploded after IA and NH.

Start familiarizing yourself with the number "2025". (Anyone already know what it means?)

hlah,

Does it ever occur to you that Edwards is Obama's best friend in this nomination race, and that if Edwards dropped dead tomorrow, Obama's chances of getting the nomination would drop sharply?

With al due respect, I found this piece a bit condescending and elitist. When was the last time you watched Dr. Phil or Oprah? Many lower and middle income women watch those shows. Despite a lot of handwaving on blogs to the contrary, that's one of Edwards' weakest group. If anything, he's getting the Daily Show voters. Look at his support in Iowa by income! Its almost perfectly positively correlated with income! Why will no one acknowledge this?

Part of this article that discusses Edwards' 1998 campaign.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

"What kind of campaign did Edwards run in 1998? He was essentially a Lieberman Democrat, no?"

Edwards beat Faircloth in '98 by campaigning against the moneyed interests which were standing in the way of progressive change, which is pretty much how he's running right now.

And, of course, it's worth noting that the McCarthy folks in '68 hated RFK precisely because they thought he was a recent convert to the cause, while Clean for Gene had been with them longer.

Petey, I find your breakdown interesting. I've said similar things (in a comment here, a comment there), but I have Obama actually in the RFK spot.

Think of it this way: which candidate could one see travelling in an open car being mobbed by people pulling at his arms? I think Obama evokes a similar thing in people--that if we just vote for him, we can return to the glory days and all will be fine--a triumph of narrative, of emotion, over the more solid stuff of policy and such.

"What kind of campaign did Edwards run in 1998? He was essentially a Lieberman Democrat, no?"

From the Joshua Green piece linked above:

But Luntz had it backwards. Edwards hadn't cleaned out Mom and Pop. He'd targeted corporations like Sta-Rite and negligent hospitals that had injured small children, and he'd won the unanimous jury decisions state law requires. What's more, he responded to Faircloth's criticism by inviting the public to scrutinize his legal record. Faircloth's campaign strategists considered making a commercial featuring a doctor whom Edwards had put out of business, but thought better of it when they realized Edwards would retaliate by putting forward the little girl who'd suffered at the doctor's hands. As it was, Faircloth never delved into specifics about his opponent's record. Nor should he have, says former ATLA president Twiggs: "Johnny, in that situation, can put on the patient, can put on the jury foreman, and can absolutely destroy that tactic if it's used. It would be a unique opportunity to show who he represented and why, and to show why the jury found in his favor."

My bolding, to show how Edwards has always envisioned being the Oprah candidate. If you're willing to put those hurt by corporations and broken governmental systems up on stage, it gives you a way to personalize the need for change.

You better believe it about Obama wanting Edwards in the race, hlah. It's not only about them both attacking Clinton in debates. It's also about South Carolina, where having Edwards split the white vote with Hillary makes life a lot easier for Obama.

brklyngrl, the reason why you don't see so many lower- and middle-class women supporting Edwards is that the major media doesn't cover him as much. Alternative media like the blogs and the Daily Show do cover him, but that's about it. The major media sources that lower- and middle-class women read pitch it as a two-person race.

For example, 91% of the NYT headlines mentioning multiple Democratic candidates mentioned Obama. 93% mentioned Clinton. Edwards was in 8%.

"You better believe it about Obama wanting Edwards in the race, hlah. It's not only about them both attacking Clinton in debates. It's also about South Carolina, where having Edwards split the white vote with Hillary makes life a lot easier for Obama."

All true, but I think it does significantly deeper even than that.

Obama is having trouble with the non-youth vote. He finished third among the entire over-30 electorate in Iowa, for example. And similar trends are there in NH polling.

I think that Obama well still likely be having trouble with older voters on 2/5. The very personal attributes that make Obama so attractive to young voters make him a more difficult sell among older voters.

Edwards draws older voters away from Clinton who are currently unavailable to Obama. Assuming that I'm correct that Obama won't be able to pull majorities on 2/5, having a strong Edwards in the race makes it MUCH easier for him to pull pluralities and maintain his momentum.

And that doesn't even begin to address unions, who no one pays much attention to in the blogosphere, but who provide a huge amount of the shock troops in primary campaigning.

If it weren't for the FEC reporting that would make it public, I'd guess Obama would have sent a $2,300 check to the Edwards for President campaign the day after Iowa.

The problem is is that talk shows are no longer about guest but all about the talk show host and the famous people they can get to genuflect to her. Its Oprah getting Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks while no one else can.

Edwards is more like Good Morning America.

You better believe it about Obama wanting Edwards in the race,

And Edwards, I think, fully realizes this, and I think it means that Edwards will stay in the race longer than he otherwise would have. He's made it pretty clear that he prefers Obama to Hillary, to put it mildly, and I imagine that while he realizes he's probably not going to win, he regards blocking Hillary's path to the nomination as a damn good consolation prize. That, and the longer he stays in, the more his message gets out (and in more than a trivial, Kucinich-ish way).

You have to give it to Edwards. He's built a competitive campaign almost exclusively based on the substance of his message. He's running against twin juggernauts, and he's holding his own, even though it's looking like he'll come up short. By all rights, he ought to be in Richardson or Biden territory - the main reason he's not isn't his personality or his perceived electability, but rather the power of his message. That is a rare and good thing.

Actually Neil,

HuffPo, has been treating it as two person race too.

Hopefully they'll stop, but until they do, I won't read past their opening Poll line.

"(Edwards has) made it pretty clear that he prefers Obama to Hillary, to put it mildly, and I imagine that while he realizes he's probably not going to win"

I agree with you that Edwards prefers Obama to Clinton, but I don't think he realizes that he's not going to win because I assume him people are looking at the same numbers that I'm looking at.

You win the nomination by being a majority candidate, not a plurality candidate. And there are reasons to think Obama may have trouble in becoming a majority candidate.

He's definitely the underdog, but three-way races can be very interesting. Three is a magic number.

Also,

I think it is important to point out [as I did below] that Richardson is working as an Obama operative in order to garner an administration position, I've really come to detest is fat obsequious behind. From conversations, I'm sure others do...which is why I think Obama will use him, then lose him.

"Obama is having trouble with the non-youth vote. He finished third among the entire over-30 electorate in Iowa, for example. "

For some more data to make my point, here's the vote in Iowa among the entire 45 and over electorate:

37% Clinton
35% Edwards
26% Obama

He's definitely the underdog, but three-way races can be very interesting. Three is a magic number.

I certainly hope you're right.

One thing that I think can be said at this point: whoever wins this nomination will have pulled off a very impressive feat.

If the now front-running Obama holds on, he'll have overcome an enormous deficit against a seemingly invincible opponent, and not because of any gaffes or missteps on her part, but just because of his appeal to voters. They will have chosen him not because of a "he'll do" attitude (see, e.g., John Kerry), not because they didn't like the other candidates - just because they really liked him.

If Hillary ends up winning, it will be a testament to her ability to out-maneuver her opponents. If she can manage to win the nomination after losing Iowa and probably New Hampshire, even those like myself who find her ideological distasteful will have to acknowledge her ability to win elections.

And if it's Edwards, he'll have staged a remarkable comeback which will be all the more impressive since he'll have done it on the back of his message alone. He would go into the general election with incredible momentum, with his primary victory serving as a potent demonstration of the power of progressive ideas.

Meanwhile, the Republicans candidates seem like they're almost trying to lose to one another. The nomination will apparently go to the least pathetic among them. The competition is fierce.

2009 may well see a Republican in the White House; anyone who thinks this is a done deal is crazy. But right now, we seem poised to do well, which is really all you can ask.

"He's running against twin juggernauts, and he's holding his own, even though it's looking like he'll come up short."

Edwards today closed to within 2 points of Obama nationally in the Rasmussen tracking poll.

That's the closest he's come to Obama in the history of the Rasmussen poll.

America rising?

For your amusement...

A graph of the 2008 Presidential candidates net worth in which a picture of each candidate is sized relative to their wealth.

Don‘t miss the rant that follows the pics and links
http://thememlingindex.com/2008_presidential_candidates_net_worth_graph.html

Another parallel is that the McCarthy supporters simply hated RFK.

Posted by: Petey

Other than talking out your ass and/or misinterpreting antipathy aimed at you for antipathy aimed at St. Edwards, what makes you think this is a parallel to the current situation? Do you have any evidence or something? Intuitively, and anecdotally, it seems to me that Edwards is the second choice of most Obama supporters. I know I could support either of them.

"Intuitively, and anecdotally, it seems to me that Edwards is the second choice of most Obama supporters."

I think RFK would've been the second choice of most McCarthy supporters in '68 too.

Cyrus,

I am in total agreement with Petey recollection. Other than vitriol, do have anything to support your contention that he is wrong?

and Cyrus, I believe peaty said Clinton and Edwards are fighting for working class voters and Obama has the young and wine/cheese set to his own.

Petey feel free to correct me.

"I think RFK would've been the second choice of most McCarthy supporters in '68 too."

This is actually yet another parallel between the two years.

RFK would've been the second choice of both McCarthy and Humphrey supporters in the same way that Edwards is the second choice of most Obama and Clinton supporters...

Edwards today closed to within 2 points of Obama nationally in the Rasmussen tracking poll.

That's the closest he's come to Obama in the history of the Rasmussen poll.

Now 9 points back.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

For some more data to make my point, here's the vote in Iowa among the entire 45 and over electorate:

I'd love to see further crosstabs on this: Obama also did much better among unmarried caucusers than married ones, according to the Iowa entrance poll. I'd especially like to see if there's a negative correlation with 'partner-kids-mortgage', because I see the distinction here between an aspirational campaign aimed at those still in the process of making big decisions, and a concrete, individuated campaign aimed at those dealing with life in mid-stream.

You have to give it to Edwards. He's built a competitive campaign almost exclusively based on the substance of his message.

There's a sense in which Edwards' message is more important than the candidacy, and is sustainable beyond his candidacy.

My big fear is that should Obama get the nod, it will be the cue for the Villagers to say that it means, by definition, a repudiation of populism by the voters, and seek to paint Obama's 'new politics' into a corporatist corner. Having Edwards in the race for as long as possible, regardless of whether he gets the nom, will make Obama a better candidate.

Huh. Correct you are, Gabriel. Yesterday's Obama numbers didn't make any sense to me, so I'm fully prepared to believe today's numbers instead.

However, I will note that Edwards has been 20% or above nationally every day since Iowa, and had never hit a level that high in the history of the tracking poll.

While I prefer Edwards' impassioned style to Obama's cooler presentation, I'm afraid the liver transplant case was not the best case for Edwards to present.

As a lawyer, I doubt he would have taken it.

First, there was absolutely no talk of the girl living 1 year or 2 years.

A 65 percent chance of living six months is the best her doctor's gave her. She was very, very sick--in "a vegetative state" according to her mother. And she was not only suffering from leukemia, she was suffering from comlications following a bone marrow transplant that she had the day before Thanksgiving.

The transplant represented a last ditch effort to save her. When it went sour, the doctors wanted to try something else. Unforunately, UCLA hospital, (where she was being treated) is notorious for overtreatment. Medicare spends twice as much at UCLA as at the Mayo Clinic on very similar patients, and outcomes are better, patient satisfaction is higher and doctor satisfaiction is higher at Mayo. (And Mayo is not the only hospital compared to UCLA in the reserach. UC San Francisco is also much bettter at getting better outcomes without overtreating.)

AT UCLA treatment can be tortorous. Patients are much more likely to die in an ICU (the last place you want to die) much more likely to be seeing 10 or more specailists during their last weeks of life, undergo many more tests and procedures--and their outcomes are worse.

A transplant specialist at UC San Francisco has said publicly that they would not have tried to give her a transplant.

If she had the liver transplant, she then would have been struggling not to reject the second major transplant that she had received in five weeks, while also battling the leukemia.

This is why her doctors gave her only a 65% chance of six months.

And this is why, as I said on my blog, I would not put one of my children through that ordeal just so that I could have another six months with him or her. The literature about patient preferences and children tells of many chldren who suffer horriblly while trying to please their parents and doctors by hanging on just a little longer.

It's a terribly hard for a parent to let go, but these parents (and probably the doctors) needed counseling from a palliative care specialists who could help them sort through the risks, the benefits, and what she would suffer.

A final point: the insurer was not saving money by denying the transplant. The insurer represented the mother's employer, a large corporation that self-insures. Cigna only did the administrative work--it did not take the financial risk. It's job was only to tell the employer whether the procedure was covered under her insurance. It wasn't.

But the employer carried the financial risk. So her mother's employer could have come foward and said "we'll pay for it." They didn't.

When the insurer finally said it would cover the procedure-- even though it is unproven and was not covered by her insurance, the insurer said that it would eat the cost--even though it was the mother's employer's financial risk, not the insurers.
The hosptial and doctors could have said "we'll do it anyway-- and worry later about whether we are paid"-- they didn't.

A number of doctors have said, if her doctors thought it was such a great idea, why didn't they agree to do it pro bono?

Finally, the reason the transplant wasn't covered on her insurance is because a major organ transplant for a late-stage cancer patient is considered "experimental."

This was a very complicated story that was very badly covered by most of the media. I doubt Edwards himself had to time to look into it. Probably one of his aides was swept away by the headlines.

I'm trying to imagine how badly edwards would pummel Halperin in either rhetoric or a fistfight.

Clemson University defensive back and master rhetorician versus effete Ivy League political writer.

Oh man, the images that brings up...

"A number of doctors have said, if her doctors thought it was such a great idea, why didn't they agree to do it pro bono?"

Excellent point. After all, James Lowe managed to get his problem fixed pro bono. Sure he had to wait a few decades, but who's counting.

Um, Ezra, I realize you are too smart and sophisticated to do anything as banal as read celebrity gossip, but ... this might not be the week to compare candidates to Dr. Phil. Unless you really have it out for Edwards.

I am in total agreement with Petey recollection. Other than vitriol, do have anything to support your contention that he is wrong?

I'm asking for evidence. If I'm doing it in a particularly vitriolic way, well, so sue me. I like Edwards fine, if you're wondering, it's political pontificating like this in general that really bugs me. And, yes, I confess, Petey in particular, since he's by far the biggest example of it that I see regularly. He's predicted 10 of Edwards' last two surges in the polls. If people don't agree or don't understand where he's coming from, well, it must be because we're too young, or just "not too bright." And the arguments for Edwards often just don't amount to anything.

Petey's comment at 12:05, for example. I can't say that no similarities exist because I wasn't alive then, but that's a horrible list of parallels with 1968 to base any conclusions on. The list is inflated to the point of meaninglessness.

The McCarthy/Obama connection actually seems like the strongest of the three. As for the other two, the first three items in the list about RFK are redundant. Unless you can think of an example of a politician who focused on poverty but wasn't too much of a populist? Or a populist who got along great with the white-collar wing of his party? And the list for Humphrey is all redundant too. Of course the status quo candidate would rely on the party machinery, and they're relatively likely to be more supportive of the country's current foreign policy than the rest of their party is.

So if you actually think about it for a minute, this year is like 1968 in that we're in a primary with three serious candidates. Hillary Clinton is like Humphrey in that she's running as the insider candidate and Edwards is like RFK in that he's a populist. Wow, that sure seems meaningful. It tells us... what, exactly? What have we learned here?

In my experience, limited and anecdotal though it may be, Obama supporters don't hate Edwards. Is there any evidence of it? Polls, links, statements by influential individuals?

Obviously, nothing has changed to make me rethink my earlier predictions. The person who wins Iowa will win NH if they are even reasonably close there, and the person who wins both of them will win the nomination.

I never really thought it was just about rallying around the early winner in 2004. I really think thats how campaigns are going to be for the foreseeable future. I think it's a result of the 24 news cycle and modern communication technology. People who win early no longer need time to capitalize on that victory. They automatically capitalize on it as a result of the news cycle. I think these days, people need to time to stumble or they drive straight on through to the nomination.

"I never really thought it was just about rallying around the early winner in 2004. I really think thats how campaigns are going to be for the foreseeable future."

I'll cut 'n' paste what I wrote above:

After 2000 and 2004, everyone seems to think that nomination races are three week affairs.

But both of those races had special circumstances that made them short:

2000: The frontrunner won IA and NH.
2004: The frontrunner utterly imploded after IA and NH.

-----

"I think it's a result of the 24 news cycle and modern communication technology. People who win early no longer need time to capitalize on that victory. They automatically capitalize on it as a result of the news cycle."

It's always been like that.

Gary Hart was running at 3% in the national polls, won NH, and then won the next contest with 70% of the vote.

Momentum on steroids has always existed.

What remains constant since the post-1980 rules changes is that you need to get up to 50% support and stay there to win the nomination.

We'll see how high Obama can rise, and see if he can stay there.

The things to watch are to see if Clinton can keep fundraising, which I strongly assume can, and if she has the willingness to stay in the race through the humiliation of losing contest after contest, which I also assume she does.

If so, we're going to have a long and interesting three-way race.

IA/NH momentum lasts about 3 to 5 weeks, traditionally. If the Clinton people are willing to endure, we'll have a long race.

Petey,

Fla Dem over at Open Left is having a discussion here of which I would think your thoughts would add value.

Akaison

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3123

Petey,

Fla Dem over at Open Left is having a discussion here of which I would think your thoughts would add value.

Akaison

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3123

Thanks for the link, akaison. It's interesting stuff, and I've always thought fladem was a smart cookie.

I'm not going to comment there however. I've called Bowers an idiot too many times to think I'd be welcome at his pad.

(He really is an idiot. Good heart though.)

I know no one--especially establishment reporters--likes emotion in there politics. They prefer the game. But what Edwards is doing is relating politics to what it is really all about: peoples lives. Whether they eat, whether they go to college, what kind of life they lead. Realistically, we are talking about life and death issues--even if the media prefers a pugilistic, yet ironic pony show. So why the hell should we not speak in terms of dire consequence. They are.

The things to watch are to see if Clinton can keep fundraising, which I strongly assume can

Though there's the question of whether Clinton's fundraisers are more likely to be maxed out than Obama's, which raises the spectre -- discussed by Tom Edsell -- that her fundraising base will go to 527s. I really don't want to see that happen: it could get ugly fast.