Edwards says (Iowa) caucus is key to nomination

[JohnLocke]

Edwards says caucus is key to nomination
Associated Press
Saturday, June 16, 2007
----
JOHNSTON — John Edwards said Friday he’s essentially banking his presidential hopes on a strong showing in Iowa’s leadoff precinct caucuses.
Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, said it will be difficult for any Democratic candidate to win the party’s nomination without faring well in Iowa.
"I think that anybody who wants this nomination — not just me, but it would apply to me — if you don’t do well in Iowa it is very hard to win this nomination," said Edwards. "I think John Kerry effectively won the nomination in 2004 when he won the Iowa caucuses."
(...)
"I know what it takes to campaign in Iowa,’’ said Edwards. ‘‘You can’t just go to events where there are 2,000, 3,000 people. You’ve got to get into people’s homes, you’ve got to get into smaller town and communities and you’ve got to do the work, you’ve got to do the organizing."
Edwards was beginning a three-day trip to Iowa, where he planned to promote a health care plan he unveiled earlier in the week. The plan would force health insurance companies to spend 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care.
At an event later Friday in Tama, Edwards gave his health care pitch to more than 100 people jammed into an elementary school. He called it a moral imperative to broaden health coverage.
Edwards was peppered with questions on topics ranging from women’s rights to food safety to the war in Iraq.
"If you listen instead of talk, you realize that people care about more than the war and health care,’" Edwards said.
Pressed on his views about congressional action to continue funding the war, Edwards accused Congress of knuckling under to President Bush.
"They should have never have capitulated to this president," Edwards said of congressional Democrats.
Edwards labeled Bush’s war on terror an abject failure.
"It's not complicated," he said. "We have fewer allies and more terrorists. We are not safer."
----
Read the rest here.

[BeyondGeography]

1. "It's not complicated," he said. "We have fewer allies and more terrorists. We are not safer."

Take that, HRC.

[BootinUp]

3. This is a silly argument, why?

because the two sides are not even contradicting each other. Think about it.

[BeyondGeography]

4. It's more political than anything else

Democrats should never be quoted as saying we are safer; the only issue the Republicans have a perceived edge over us is on security. It's fine to acknowledge, as Obama and Kerry and others have in their statements, that we have improved security in certain respects. But to simply say we are safer is a blunder, and the proof is you won't hear HRC put it that way again on the campaign trail.

I like the truth and simplicity of what Edwards says here; the party should embrace this line.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. I don't know if Iowa will be the key the same as it was last time.

Don't get me wrong, this was probably the best way for Edwards to play it, but still...it'd be awfully convenient and predictable if Iowa decided the Democratic nomination again under greatly changed circumstances. I'd like for that to be true, being in Iowa, and an Edwards supporter, but it seems iffy.

[jcrew2001]

6. Edwards is expected to win Iowa

so that limits his bounce. It would be worse if he loses Iowa (like Gephardt), but Obama will come on strong in Iowa and that is the real story. If Obama beats Hillary in NH - then Obama will get more media buzz than Edwards winning Iowa.

Hillary NEEDS to win NH, otherwise it will be Edwards and Obama fighting it out for the nomination.

If she loses NH, she might make up ground in Florida and California - but the tide would have Really turned against her and that would be a miracle to win.

[Mojambo]

5. If he's to win, it better be.

I hope it is.

He's the best of the current lot, IMO.