Look, these endorsement are full of gobbly-gook.

You are so full of obnoxious spin that I get dizzy just reading you.

Both of these endorsements are pretty much meaningless, the whole "Edwards won because of the DMR" was an afterthought by the media to try to explain his win. But of the two, the Globe endorsement means next to nothing. All it's useful for is for those who are already committed to Obama to try and spin it as equal, who cares here, don't bother.

slightly more likely to win, BUT it makes it now impossable to spin a loss, no more miracle talk nonsense. In additionas I just wrote some Edwards supporters might being to break to Obama if they see the handwriting on the wall after he was abandoned by the DMR.

Thank you. You see, Jerome just "suspects" things--those of us that have lived in New England actually know.

Jerome was just itching to post a diary about how an DMR-Edwards endorsement had blunted Obama's momentum.

Hell, he probably already wrote it.

Oh well...too bad.

boston vs. desmoines ??? you pick.

with some it would. If i knew someone in Iowa undecided between the two I would make the case that not holding on to the DMR endorsement is a devastating blow. Obama's not happy Hillary got it but Edwards has to be crushed.

Dropping the lol-bomb without contesting his thought.  sounds petty to me.  

Jerome,

Given that you seem like a bright guy, your blindness on this issue seems highly surprising.

On Intrade, Edwards has been trading at between 4% and 4.5% to win the nomination.  This makes him a huge longshot.  Edwards chances of winning the nomination are less than the chance of hitting an inside straight draw in poker.  Would you go all-in on an inside straight bet?  Meanwhile, Obama is trading at about 32% and trending steadily upwards.  This means that the collective wisdom is that Obama is 7 or 8 times more likely to win the nomination.

The most likely beneficiary of an Edwards upset in Iowa would be HRC.  Edwards does not have the poll position, the money, or the organization to effectively take advantage of an upset in Iowa.  Most likely an Edwards victory in Iowa would stop Obama's momentum and make it easier for HRC to come back and sweep the Feb 5 states.

Furthermore, because Edwards was forced to accept matching funds, even if he can win the nomination, he would be a sitting duck for most of the spring and the summer.

Your appearant obstinance on this matter does not make this analysis any less real.  You and the other JE supporters need to stop bashing Obama and need to take a realistic look at your preferred candidate's chances of actually winning the nomination.

Self-defeatism isn't pretty.

This is true.  I mean, Edwards can easily spin the DMR non-endorsement in his favor.

Yours is the first insightful comment here or on the Kos thread with regard to Edwards and the content of the DMR editorial.

Hell, they come right out and affirm that Edwards is the one guy that will fight corporate power. Which is exactly his message.

Hard to see how it could be bad for someone running as an outsider.

That it is.

I would begin to downplay expectations a bit in Iowa and play them up in NH.

It's not amazing how little he knows, it is just amazing that knowing so little he wouldn't instead listen, instead of talking. To talk when you know little, when others look to you for what you know, gives free rein to people who know little to talk more and in doing so lessen the impact of those who know more and talk less.

and don't forget AFSCME, the Emily's List paratroopers (the source of the real recently announced increase in Iowa staff), a whole gaggle of national surrogates coming into Iowa,  the legendary Teresa Vilmain and of course, the Big Dog hisself.  Plus, the demographics of Iowa are terrible for Obama.  

Make no mistake, if they lose Iowa, it will be a giant loss and properly spun that way.  Our friends will make sure of that.  And Obama could still take New Hampshire, even with a narrow loss in Iowa (he has to come in second though).