Exactly.  Which helps him 1) raise his Q2 numbers (since people may be more willing to give for a specific anti-Iraq ad than just for the campaign) and 2) increase his donor list so he can tap into it at later dates.  I don't know if this will pay big dividends, but it's not going to hurt the campaign, that's for sure.

I do think (as an Obama support myself) many prominent members of the netroots are pro-Edwards and anti-Obama, but they are entitled to their opinions.  I even thought that Kos completely overreacted to this story.  But the idea that Edwards has bought MyDD or any other blog is absurd on its face.

I thought Russ Warner had some potential as a candidate, but that primary campaign was just embarrassing.  Losing to Cynthia Matthews like that when he had something like 20x the money is not exactly a sign of strength.

It is important to remember that we're still many months out from the real campaign season.  Doing constant townhalls and the like isn't going to matter 8 months from now.  Primary support is always very soft, so even if he convinces people now that he is the best candidate, they could easily change their minds before January.  The cash, however, will still be around.  Given that the Clintons are going to have $100 million plus, I think it's unrealistic to assume that Barack can get by with only $30 million.  Hell, even Edwards is going to bank at least $60 million.

I'm sure you will see Barack do more direct campaigning as we get closer.  Right now, though, the only game in town is the money game.  And that applies to each of the big three.

Those sound like the words of a paid Gravel operative, Chris.

Those NH numbers do seem like an outlier to me, too.

Here's what really caught my attention, though:

"85% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 71% of those voting for John Edwards, and 64% of those voting for Barak [sic] Obama say they do not believe the United States can win the war in Iraq."

It's just one question on one poll, but that's cause for concern (but maybe optimism as well) for both Edwards and Obama.  Clinton, the least anti-war candidate in the field, has the strongest anti-war support?  I think this may be proof that her campaign is effectively masking her positions while Edwards and Obama have not really broken through on this issue.  But does this also mean that she could be headed to a bigger fall if the positions of the major candidates start to become apparent to the primary electorate, rather than just the activist class?  

I think it's pretty funny how so many people act like $39k/$50k is not a big deal expense for a campaign.  It may not be a big % of the war chest, but it's big outlay, particularly for something that is of questionable value.

One needs a lot of money to win and there is no way that he is just running to be VP.  On what evidence are you basing this claim?

I really hope this doesn't turn into a repeat of the 2004 primary where we have too many Dems falling all over themselves trying to show how "tough" they are.

Fundamentally, I think this is a miscalculation on the part of the Clintons.  Terrorism is not as salient an issue as it was in 2004.  Furthermore, a lot of Democratic activists will notice that this line of reasoning is very similar to what Republicans have been doing to Democrats for years.  I think any self-respecting Democrat will reject these sorts of ridiculous tactics if they recognize what is going on.  

I'm a big Obama supporter and I disagree with Stoller and most of the front pagers on a wide variety of issues (particular when it comes to my candidate of choice).  There are good points here, but they are definitely lost in the incendiary nature of the diary.  I'm not offended by much, but I would say that, at a minimum, the poll is in bad taste.

Since when is that a theme?  Senator Obama did a lot to help Democrats in 2006.  He raised a lot of money with his PAC, Hopefund, and disbursed it to candidates in addition to working rallies and events for highly contested seats like Virginia.

I don't necessarily think that they do want Gore to get in, but the Bill Clinton and James Carville comments struck me as being odd.  There seems to be an effort on the part of the Clinton camp to keep the idea of a Gore candidacy very much alive.  Reminding anti-Hillary activists that President Gore might be on the horizon could keep dollars and volunteers away from Edwards and Obama.  I don't think it's a terribly effective tactic, but it's also not as though they are investing a lot of effort in this, if it is even a tactic.  It could just be that people are assigning too much credit to the Clintons.  Either way, when Bill Clinton says that Al Gore will probably run, that is going to help fuel the rumors and keep the story alive.

It sounds like you have a more insider perspective than I did, but I would content that the main reason Hart lost was an inability to define himself.  He was too unknown heading out of New Hampshire which allowed him to be defined by Mondale.  He just exploited the hell out of the "who is Gary Hart?" line of attack.  The name change, the signature change, the questions about his birthdate... these were all minor issues that, for most candidates, would have not have been stories.  For Gary Hart, as someone who basically went from nobody to front runner over night, these sorts of nonsense biographical stories became bigger issues.  I don't think anyone would vote for Walter Mondale because Gary Hart used to be Gary Hartpence, but those stories contributed to the overall Mondale-fueled narrative that Hart was too unknown and too unsteady for the White House.

I should note, also, that I don't think it was just bad luck that hurt Hart.  I think the campaign and the candidate could have done a better job deflating those stories and demonstrating that he was just as steady as Fritz Mondale.  Attacking Mondale for running ads he wasn't running, pulling the (effective) attack ads in Illinois, etc were all instances of campaign that was giving off the impression of severe disorganization.  Still, he came damn close.

I'm pretty sure that the "where's the beef" attack was directly questioning Hart on his issues:

Mondale: "You know, when I hear your ideas, I'm reminded of that ad, 'Where's the beef?' "

What was amazing about that attack was how patently false it was.  Of all the candidates, Hart probably had the most specific and dynamic policy proposals.  Indeed, he responded--after the debate--by holding up his book inside a bun for a photo op to demonstrate his "beefiness."  It would be akin to Barack Obama asking John Edwards to get more specific about health care.

It was a masterful piece of media manipulation on the part of Mondale and Bob Beckel.  Hart was a relative unknown at this point in time and lacked the resume experience of Mondale.  Declaring, in a convenient and humorous soundbite, that Hart was a lightweight would go a long way towards defining the senator from Colorado.

I would agree wholeheartedly with your points if--and only if--we had better public financing.  The front loaded primary does benefit candidates with more money and I don't think that the ability to raise funds should be a criteria the electoral system favors.  I've worked in the finance offices for a number of political campaigns and I just don't think you can draw a one to one connection between money raised and actual support.  If certain wealthy interests/people think you are going to win, they will contribute money to your campaign.  For a lot of those $2300 check writers, it is a judgment not on your merits as a potential office-holder, but as a race horse.