We've spent months debating which of the candidates would make the best nominee and president. But no less important than what these candidates would do is what their victories would mean. There will be a story line coming out of the primary, and it will have a huge impact on the battle between the two wings of the Democratic Party, the PPs (progressive-populists) and the CCs (centrist-corporatists.)

Clinton Captures the Iowa Caucuses, Secures Frontrunner Status

By MIKE GLOVER, January 4

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) - Senator Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucuses here yesterday, securing her frontrunner status and positioning herself to sweep through the nominating contests. The victory was vindication for both the Clintons' vaunted political machine and the Democratic political establishment, which in large measure rallied behind the Senator.

"Voters made the safe choice, probably a wise choice," said David Gergen, former advisor to presidents both Democratic and Republican. "Voters opted for experience over change, toughness over vision, and, you could argue, competency over character."

She held off spirited challenges from two candidates--Barack Obama and John Edwards--who both cast themselves as outsiders confronting a system embodied, they asserted, by Senator Clinton. The loss was a blow particularly to Edwards, who unlike Obama, may not be competitive in New Hampshire and beyond.

Observers said the loss called into question Edwards's strategy of using a populist message to try to appeal to the party's activist base. "He made the same mistake that Howard Dean made in 2004," said Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. "You can make some noise running left but you can't win a primary. Will these candidates ever learn?"

An Obama victory would be more ambiguous. An Edwards victory would be a jolt to the central nervous system of the Democratic Establishment.

More than his rivals, Edwards has run as a progressive.  A movement progressive, if you will. What does that mean, to run as a progressive? It means that that you call yourself a progressive. Also that you reject Republican frames and build progressive ones. And lead on issues of importance to progressives. It also means that you stand with progressives. All those "special interest" groups that centrists blame for the failure of Dems? Edwards wants their support, aligns himself with them. Meanwhile he spurns the special interest group that's actually harmed the party: corporations.

Edwards is doing what no other presidential candidate is doing, has ever done: trying to create a labor-green-netroots coalition. He's focusing on economic justice, climate change, and issues that most animate the sphere, like foreign policy, media conglomeration, and internet freedom. His outreach to the netroots hasn't been flawless--he should've made civil liberties a priority and spoken out against the red baiting of Move On--but if the sphere has failed to coalesce behind him, the fault is not his.

He's had success wooing progressives--partial, yes, but partial it could only be given the celebrity and money of his rivals. Edwards has won important union endorsements, and he's likely to get the backing of UNITE-HERE, a particularly vibrant union, and its powerful Nevada affiliate, Culinary Workers Local 226. A Teamsters endorsement is also a possibility. He's also won raves from ACORN, a leading grassroots anti-poverty group, and the endorsement of Iowa for Sensible Priorities, which seeks to reduce the military budget. Issues related to economic justice are closest to JRE's heart (I'd argue that they should be closest to the heart of the movement), but he has also embraced rhetoric and positions that have won him the only major environmental endorsement so far and an intense following in the sphere. Although few elite bloggers have backed him with endorsements or fundraising appeals, Edwards has more support in the sphere that any other candidate.

An Edwards loss would be a loss for the progressive wing of the party. Never mind that the loyalties of progressives are divided, the MSM and the Democratic establishment would claim that the loss demonstrates the folly of trying to appeal to progressives. Of running left.

Yesterday at HuffPo Tom Edsall asked a group of (male) writers if the Edwards campaign provided a fair test of populism. Most gave the correct answer: No. As Chris Bowers said:

Media, money, identity, along with pre-established name recognition, favorability, and image all play roles. It isn't just about the candidate's message. To date, I think it could be argued that Edwards has actually done quite well, given comparatively low media coverage and money spent in Iowa. He has had little going for him in the state apart from message.

But the patent truth pointed out by Bowers won't matter. The Establishment marginalizes progressive voices, then blames progressivism for their marginalization.

I chose to support Edwards not because I believed he was ideal, but because I believed he was the candidate most likely to reinvigorate the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The campaign he's run has done nothing but strengthen my belief. It saddens me--frightens me--to think that if Edwards loses, it might be many years before a top-tier candidate runs a comparably progressive and populist campaign.

But there is an alternate scenario, one that we could help to make a reality.

Edwards Captures Iowa Caucuses, Creates Upheaval in the Race

By Mike Glover, January 4

Des Moines, Iowa (AP)  - Former Senator John Edwards won the Iowa caucuses here yesterday, throwing the Democratic nomination process into turmoil. With a reliance on retail politics and a populist message, Edwards defeated two rivals who outspent him more than ten to one. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will now try to slow his momentum in the nation first primary, to be held in just four days in New Hampshire.

Although Edwards had campaigned heavily in the state and pinned his hopes for capturing the nomination on a win here, it was still a striking upset, one that validated his emphasis on economic inequality. Crisscrossing the state he relentlessly sounded his populist themes, railing against corporate interests which, he said, had corrupted the political system and rigged it against middle and working class Americans.

"This is a real wake up call for the moderates in the party," said political analyst Stu Rothenberg. "This is not Bill Clinton's party anymore. Which means it might not be Hillary Clinton's, either."

An Edwards victory would be great for progressives; what more, really, do you need to know?