Edwards: It Feels Like First!

John Edwards is just pleased as punch to have come in second in Iowa. Second! Did you hear? And Clinton came in THIRD. A HUGE difference, right? Well, yes, if you listen to John Edwards, who is only too eager to distance himself from Clinton and align himself with Obama. Except, Obama beat him by 8 points, in a state he's been laying the groundwork in for literally years. And Clinton was just one point behind him, after all. But still, here is how Edwards spun it:

Senator Clinton in many ways is the status quo, and people are tired of the status quo...[having finished third with all her money and resources]...is is a powerful indication of a wave for change in this country...voters are going to have to decide who between myself and Senator Obama can best bring about the change.

Meanwhile, Edwards adviser Joe Trippi is spinning it as a "repudiation Of Clinton"...but, well, it's hard to say that with much credibility when the two of them basically tied. Not that this isn't the right way for Edwards to spin it — he needs to push himself forward into the scary waters of New Hampshire — but considering the facts, it is sort of brazen. Watch the clip yourself and decide — and be sure to note the pie chart accompanying. The slices for Clinton and Edwards look awfully similar. Let's see how that pie looks coming out of New Hampshire...

p.s. Yes, that is totally a Bring It On reference.

Comments

[angel66]

Wow, what insight Rachel.

[texanna]

Rachel, quite repeating the meme handed out by the corporatist media stooges. Someone actually counted up the days that each of the candidates were in Iowa and they were all pretty much the same. So, Edwards hasn't been there anymore or any longer than anyone else. The idea that Edwards has never stopped campaigning since he and Kerry went down to defeat in 2004 is just not true. First of all, there was the little matter of Elizabeth's cancer which they tended to immediately following the election. And, lastly, considering how much money and media attention Edwards gets in comparison to Hillary and Obama, it really is a win for him to come in second.

[realrick]

Edwards may have spent "years in Iowa", (btw, haven't the OTHER candidates been spending "years in Iowa" too?!) but nothing justifies the media blackout he's been getting.

The guy is getting outspent about 10 to one in some cases and he's still giving a damn good accounting of himself. You'd never know it tho, because the press is barely covering Edwards with their "All Barack/Hillary All The Time" coverage.

The fact that this is the only post or story I could find on this site about Edwards right now, on the weekend before NH, and it's hardly a flattering one at that, only serves to prove my point.

[Drewkowski]

Hillary was just as "ordained" a candidate as Huck is a minister. Trouble is, the Church of the DEC did not help her to win any graces. (Maybe she should try being a Baptist?)

Point is: When somebody of Hillary's stature and expectations has roughly 70% of primary voters snub her, you expect us to take your comments seriously? Perhaps Edwards overblew his second place finish, but enough cannot be said about how this hurts Clinton.

(Oh, even though I'm only commenting, in the interest of disclosure, I am the editor of a Democratic Party publication and a supporter of & donor to Edwards. So, how about some disclosure on your part Ms. Sklar? who are you shilling for?)

[Kane]

In the 68 seconds of this clip, Edwards said the word "change" six times.

In the 9 minute and 33 second announcement of his candidacy for president, Edwards said the word "change" twice.

Also in his announcement to run for president, Edwards failed to mention his current staples of "lobbyist", "corporate greed", and "special interests". However, for old times sake he did throw in a "two Americas".

It should be mandatory for every registered voter to listen to the rhetoric offered during the presidential announcements, then contrast and compare it to what is being said now. Some are consistent in their message while others...not so much.

[BillyCioffi]

Trippi is really jive when he points the finger at Clinton in order to take it away from himself. It was his gig to win it and he captained the loss. All the D's are respectable candidates its the spinners and handlers who are vile. Edwards practically lived in Iowa these last four years and he was overwhelmed by the grass roots. Now let's look at Trippi he handled Dean right? What happened to Dean in Iowa? Trippi may know the internet but apparently human contact is not his forte. Obama won but Trippi should take a little responsibility instead of bitching about Clinton who he's been feuding with for years.

[jeanruss]

I think the negative media about Edwards here on this blog is un-American-Edwards has received only 18% of the coverage compared to Clinton and Obama, and most of it is negative, yet he came in SECOND-I think that is stunning and remarkable-I still read Huffpo, but with a different eye now-I read it like I listen to corporate media-I go in knowing it's biased, which is sad, considering it was supposed to be so different from the msm-hypocrisy is blatant here.

[earlyearlyearly]

IT DOESN'T MATTER. IF HILLARY WAS SECOND AND TRIPPI SAID IT WAS CLOSE, YOU'D CALL THAT SPIN.
FACTS JUST DON'T MATTER TO YOU. GO TO HILLARY'S PAY WINDOW AND PICK UP YOUR CHECK. YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB.
EDWARDS IS THE LAST HOPE AGAINST CORPORATE FASCISM. THAT'S IT.

[godlessclif]

Stick a fork in Joe Trippi. He is done.

Trippi had two of the most charismatic candidates in history, Howard Dean 1n 2004 and John Edwards in 2008 and screwed up both campaigns in Iowa.

Thank god Trippi was not around to run JFK's campaign or we would have got Nixon eight years earlier.

[hog]

Hey, its a triumph for Hilary Edwards AND Obama.oh and Huckabee, though typing H*U*C*K*A*B*E*E*E
makes me feel like I am a cartoon or a commercial or a song or a honeybear ot a polyester blouse from the 70s

[ihavenobias]

Considering Hillary spent 9 million vs 3 or so for Edwards on Iowa, I think it IS fair to say it was a victory over Hillary despite how close it was.

And no, I don't buy the idea that it was only that close because Edwards has been in Iowa for such a long time and focused so much on Iowa, etc.

There's also the whole "Clinton Inevitability" thing he was fighting. And finally, I think it's obvious that if Obama wasn't in the race, Edwards would've clobbered Hillary. And of course, if Edwards was out, Obama would destroy Hillary (even more than he did last night).