Just sort of intuitively you would think that Edwards and Obama would be splitting the anti-establishment vote, at least at that point.  Equally intuitively you would expect Mark Penn to give lots of reasons why Hillary Clinton's loss was the result of quirky factors outside of his control so that people will hire him again.  He's not exactly a neutral party or a historian here.

Anyway, I put "other".  It took her until Ohio to think of giving people a reason to vote for her other than "I'm default".  I suppose that's another way of saying that she shouldn't have run on experience, but I hate that cliche of "running on experience in a change election."  I think the point is that running on experience presupposes that people already have another reason to vote for you.  Nobody gets elected on experience alone, ever.

Yeah, her vote for the war is one reason that would have kept me from Clinton.

I was an Edwards supporter mainly because his healthcare (and poverty) plans seemed the best.

But I also didn't think much of Hillary's healthcare formulation.

Although I'm that middle-aged woman who was supposed to be a Hillary Puma, I could see past her entitlement.

I reluctantly went Obama -- and he's still single-payer adverse -- but became a convert to the message of change and hope.

And he seemed less the corporatist than Hillary (I can only hope that's true.)

I don't think there is one single error.  I think it was a combination of things that sunk that campaign, from not skipping to Iowa to not being able to deal with other caucus states to not being able to handle a protracted campaign, etc.  It was a strategic failure of epic proportions.

I think even her war vote could have been dealt with had she run a completely different campaign.

There COULD have been a different outcome if Edwards HAD BEEN OUT OF THE RACE - that's what he said - that's a lot different than who is your second choice on caucus night.

About 1/3 of Iowa democrats would have been up for grabs - they could have gone to Hillary, they could have gone to Obama, or they could have migrated to another candidate, like Biden.  Without Edwards, these committed supporters would have courted for months by another candidate, and would have been up for grabs.  This diary doesn't even consider the dynamics of a caucus goers' second choice - trying to stop the alleged front-runner from winning so your candidate has a better chance, or in this case, giving Edwards a boost by pushing Hillary into third.  That dynamic would not exist if Edwards had not been in the race.

These primary battles months after the fact are getting old.  Fact is, Obama ran the best campaign we have seen in our lifetimes - almost perfect, and he's one of those once in a generation candidates.  He deserves more of the credit for how it all worked out than trying to blame Hillary or Penn, for that matter.

Clinton blew it by failing to build an organization in the caucus states. If she had won Iowa it would still have been a close race. Penn refuses to accept his central strategic error, which he repeated by doubling down on Super Tuesday.

If you believe Chris Hughes, Obama's organization in the caucus states was a lucky accident. One that the campaign was smart enough to take advantage of. People in the Clinton campaign pushed for dedicating ground resources to the caucus states, but ultimately Clinton chose Penn's direction.

I think Edwards DID affect the race and here is why.  He helped Obama in making many points against the establishment.   Obama couldn't have done it by himself since he was a newcomer to the stage.   When Edwards was echoing similiar sentiments, given Edwards prior VP run, it made Obama's statement ring louder.

I still don't think that is what caused Hillary's downfall.   It came down to caucus vs. primary.   Hillary didn't organize too well when it came to caucus's.   Also the whole Michigan/Florida situation was a Democratic mistake that in the future I am 100%positive punishing delegates and voters will never be an option regardless of whether a particular state violates calendar rules.

I am don't support a National Primary as that would favor the establishment in most cases.  I do support a regional primary that is divided into a March primary for one region and ends with the last region of July primary.

I support the elimination of the un-democratic caucus.   Those are often poorly participated in and allow them to represent an entire state is not as effective as voting in the booth.

As a form of compromise....I also feel removing the impact of superdelegates is the right thing to do.  

Obama was very lucky in many respects.

1) New kid on the block. Untainted by Washington.

2. Not there for the Iraq vote. Does anyone think that Obama, the career minded politician that he is, wouldn't have voted for the war?
   
3. Iraq was a mess in early on but the issue faded with time. Had Iraq not been an issue, I doubt that his support would have been so galvanizing.
   
4. Sold bi-partisanship when it still could be sold. Try and sell that now.
   
5. Michigan and Florida. Had states not created the calendar mess then that would have favored Clinton. She would have won those states and had the momentum to least blunt some of the caucus wins by Obama. Still Clinton was competitive until Indiana and North Carolina.
   
6. Clinton's early hubris worked to Obama's advantage. Only when Clinton had to fight for her political life did she start to shine.
   
7. He carried the AA vote 9 to 1. That's a built-in constituency that went a long way in the primaries. Clinton did counter with Hispanics winning them 3:2 but Hispanics are not as critical a voting bloc. I have to double check but the only three groups Obama won in the primaries consistently were AAs, under 30 and those who earn over $75K.

The above should not be taken to imply that Obama did not run a very well managed campaign. He did. He is also remarkable politician with good instincts. I mean at age 46 to decide that he can see a path to the White House having been in the Senate just two years is indeed remarkable. His talents speak for themselves.

As an Edwards guy, I can say honestly that if Edwards had not been in the race I would have supported Dennis Kucinich or Joe Biden albeit for very different reasons. I did not care for Clinton until after NH and I didn't like Obama until he told Joe the Plumber it was time to spread the wealth.

And to be candid, I think Obama has been a better President than he was a candidate. At least he's not out on the White House lawn with Donnie McClurkin.

In looking back on the sad tale that is John Edwards who in the end seems to be destined to end up as a minor footnote in American history, I'll say this, I am grateful to him because he pulled both Clinton and Obama to the left. That is the legacy of John Edwards.

Good post.

Also don't forget about the economy.

The primaries were all about Iraq and who voted for what.

Once the economy tanked in the Fall, no one really cared about Iraq anymore.

If the primary debate was focused on domestic issues and the economy.  I am sure Hillary would have milked her husband's success during the 90s.

...if Hillary scoops up Edwards team, replacing Penn, and thus running a far better campaign.

That would have made a big difference in this race.

was hiring and sticking with Penn in the first place.  She tied her campaign to a raving egomaniac who could not work well with others and whose arrogance was so enormous that he devised a "strategy," if you want to call it that, which did not attend to the basic rules.  The fact that his game plan was built around winner take all primaries, as opposed to proportional distribution of delegates, indicates nothing less than severe malpractice.

Penn made many mistakes.  HRC's biggest mistake lay in hiring and relying on Penn.  Campaigns are imperfect predictors for the administrations they foreshadow.  But they are often all we have to go on with non-incumbents.  What Penn's "strategies" and persona indicated about how an HRC administration would look scared me.  The contrast with Obama's campaign was extreme.  There were of course other positives that drew me into Obama's camp.  But HRC's campaign seemed tragically flawed.

And of course Obama was lucky on a range of accounts.  No one wins the presidency without a sequence of fortunate circumstances mixed with smart moves, just like winning the world series in baseball.  You can be good and you can be lucky.  Generally the winner is both.  Obama did a lot right and Clinton did much wrong.  Obama got lucky on several counts, and Clinton had some unfair things against her.  That's how history works.  

One of the most appealing things about Obama the candidate and Obama as President is the way his confidence and humility seem to convey a deep understanding of the fact that he cannot control everything but he's not afraid to try things and take responsibility when they don't pan out, and readjust.  He projects serenity and determination, a creativity that is not hampered by acceptance of fallibility.  That came across in his campaign.  Given the arrogance of the Cheney/Bush regime, that's exactly what people craved.  It's not what HRC's campaign offered the electorate at all.

I voted other for all of the above.

no caucus strategy, no plan after super tuesday (or $$), running general election strategy - it all added to the reason she lost the delegate race. If her campaign actually had a plan for all of this who knows what would have happened, who knows what would have happened had she had a strategy for FL/MI. If Edwards was out of the race, I don't think that would have helped her in Iowa, but did help her later on. When it was HRC vs BO from March onward - she was winning most of the states, so maybe had it always been HRC vs BO she might have done better - but not in Iowa (imo) - maybe she would have picked up more of Edwards supporters in SC (for example) or won by a bigger margin in NH or NV - but what difference does it really make?

The long and winding road to the end of the primary was riddled in missteps by Penn and others on her team. Had she actually had $$$$ in Feb and a plan for after Super Tues, then she could have (perhaps) slowed down Obama's 11 or 12 straight wins.

Lastly, the fact that the bigwigs in the DEM party (pelosi, brazile, dean) all supported obama and not her also hurt she. She may have had alot of local support (sestak, tubbs-jones, etc) but the media talked to the DEM leaders and the media was never on her side either. So that did not help her either.

I think, in the end, she is proud of the fact that she had the most votes and in the end, that is what is impressive in spite of everything. It is, why people like me hung in there until the BITTER end thinking - maybe - the delegate committee (whatever they were called) on FL/MI or something along the line would break in her favor or that the SD's would see this and stay in her camp. But they listen to the DEM leaders and it is what it is.

Edwards being in or out would not have changed the shitty way in which her campaign was run (thank you mark penn), so ultimately would not have changed the outcome.

in Iowa is that Clinton never got over 40.  The only way she could win is for the other candidates to split the vote.  

I don't think she could ignore Iowa (front runners don't get to skip primaries).  

I do think her message was the wrong one (she kept making the wrong experience argument).  Nonetheless, as long as Iraq was the dominant issue, her vote on the AUMF was an enourmous handicap.  

Based on my conversation with people in Iowa, if Edwards wasn't in the race, I think one of the other candidates might have emerged to join the top tier.  I am not sure who that would have been, but I came away from the caucus I worked thinking that it might have been Biden.  

...did Edwards voters see him as viable or was it more like a protest vote a "This is what the party should be worried about" type of thing?  

Did the VP debate give anybody pause about Edwards?

Honestly, he was closer to my views than either of the big 2 but I viewed him as non-viable.

while drking coffee out of my IAF sponsored Dodd Coffie Cup.  

Richardson cam close to breaking out in both NH and Iowa at one, but in some ways he was a mess.

Earlier personification of the Not-Hillary vote could have indeed changed the strategic equation. It would have allowed the race to develop into the Obama/Clinton race earlier. Once the Not-Hillary vote was converted into the Obama vote, she had a solid opponent to contrast. After that point almost everyone agrees her campaign was better.

Probably even more important the campaign Penn designed wouldn't have counted on Edwards.

But, John really did dig himself quite a deep hole:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2 009/04/03/edwards/index.html

Very lucky the Obama campaign stayed clear of John, he showed his judgement to be fatally flawed for a politician who lived through the Clinton era.

But, John really did dig himself quite a deep hole:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2 009/04/03/edwards/index.html

Very lucky the Obama campaign stayed clear of John, he showed his judgement to be fatally flawed for a politician who lived through the Clinton era.

Obama's strength was that he plain inspired people.  http://www.cddvdripper.com It allowed him to build an organization, and gave him an enourmous edge in money that would prove on Super Tuesday in the Caucus to arguably be decisive.