If Hillary wins Iowa, Obama isn't "done" in that he's going run out of money and have to drop out.

[Stop Cornyn]

He's just "done" in the sense that he's probably not going to win the nomination if Hillary wins Iowa.

Still, Obama doesn't have to win Iowa, he just has to make sure Hillary doesn't win Iowa.

Fortunately, Hillary is probably 70% likely NOT to win Iowa.

But IF Hillary DOES win Iowa, she will go into New Hampshire with strong momentum. She's already leading Obama by about 6% in New Hampshire so a win in Iowa would only likely expand that lead. So if Hillary wins Iowa, she'll likely win New Hampshire, too.

If Hillary wins Iowa and New Hampshire, does it look like Obama will catch Hillary in Nevada?



If Hillary wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, does it look like Obama will catch Hillary in South Carolina or Florida?



If Obama cannot catch her in these early states, it doesn't look any better in the rest of the nation where Hillary is about 17% ahead of Obama.

On the other hand, Obama really could beat her in Iowa:



Clearly, Iowa is Obama's best chance of killing Hillary's momentum.

If not there, where?

P.S. - This same general analysis also applies to Edwards.

[msongs]

1. hillary no. obama no. let's hope neither of them wins iowa's arm twisting fest nt

[Tellurian]

7. Except, there has been a reversal of momentum

Obama and Edwards gave it their best shot challenging the front runner. Neither one could sustain the challenge with additional energy spurring their campaigns forward. Hillary has bested them and will continue to sustain her new lead with fact filled information summarily discrediting her rivals with two salient facts. Obama's misstated inferior Health Care Plan and the Edwards self inflicted conundrum unequivocally stating his refusal of working with corporations for the betterment of the Public Good.

Edwards will continue to absorb his self-inflicted gun shot wound until he reaches for a blood transfusion admitting he is mistaken in thinking he can advance the public good by shutting out corporations from the conversation. By the time he admits his fatal error. It will be too late. It's too late now.

[loveangelc]

2. good analysis. I think its a pretty well-accepted analysis of the situation. n/t

[asdjrocky]

3. Very clever SC. n/t

[Tejanocrat]

4. If Hillary wins Iowa, it's all over but the shouting.

[Perky]

8. Not if it is very tight.

If she wins by more than 10% I agree but if it is close, I think the Anti-Hillary folks come out in droves in NH.

If Obama wins big and Hillary is second, He will have more momentum than Hillary would (by comparision) going into NH.

If Hillary or Obama wins small in Iowa and NH....SC is the last stop for everyone else

If Obama wins small, NH becomes pivotal for HIllary, Because if she does not break through it is doubtful she sould come back in SC

If Edwards finishes first or second. it is probably over for whoever finishes third. because they are really going to have to win NH

[Tejanocrat]

12. Sure. I agree if the 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd are so tight as to be a virtual tie all bets are off

[madrchsod]

5. i am all ready preparing myself

that nothing will fundamentally change in america. since dennis does`t have a chance in hell, it`s going to be the same old shit with just another name on the door.

hillary scares the shit out of me with this shit "national security is more important than human rights" this is the same thing the republican stooge sen. sessions said yesterday

[Stop Cornyn]

6. I share your misgivings about Hillary, but I hope an Obama or Edwards administration would offer

change (probably more an Edwards administration than an Obama administration, but both offer me some hope for change).

[OKNancy]

9. Your quoted passage

since it is in quotes does that mean she actually said that
"national security is more important than human rights"?

or is that an opinion. I've never heard her say any such thing or even intimate it.

[madrchsod]

10. this was discussed here after the debate

i cannot get the official debate link to work on firefox so i had to use these or the link to the discussion here


"Former Senator John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attempted to avoid Blitzer's question by focusing on the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but showed discomfort with America’s support for ineffective dictators. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) stated unequivocally that national security is not only more important than human rights on the international stage, but that it takes domestic supremacy as well."

“The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America,” Clinton said, forgetting that the president also swears to “uphold and defend” the Constitution.
http://ivorytowerz.blogspot.com/2007/11/wolf-blitzer-is-human-rights-more.html

iVoryTowerz: Wolf Blitzer: "Is Human Rights More Important than American National Security?"


http://www.observer.com/2007/false-choice-between-human-rights-and-security
A False Choice Between Human Rights and Security | The New York Observer

richardson was the only candidate to clearly state that human rights were more important than national security.

with bush`s clear violation of human rights in this country and aboard, candidates should have clearly define this question even if it might have been a false or misleading question. my error in my statement was excluding the other`s who gave answers that danced around said question. i believe that the constitution is the most important concept to protect because we have seen what happens when it is`t.

[Stop Cornyn]

11. That's my understanding, too.