News-Record.com

If you're like most American voters, you're done eyeing the presidential campaigns like the cute girl on the other side of the Junior High School gymnasium and maybe ask her to cut a rug. Maybe you've been lurching around in a scrum with folks in your particular click - Republican, Democrat or Ron Paul..

Now of course, there's always those more advanced kids, who are way beyond hopping awkwardly around the linoleum tile and slow dancing to every song - even Sympathy for the Devil -- which would make a great campaign theme.

Those kids are Iowa and New Hampshire. Hey - let's see 12'' of space between you two!

Actually, to be fair, there are a hand full of primaries (or caucuses, in the case of Iowa). But with all the jockeying for position that's gone on among the state parties this year, who can tell who's voting when?

Well, the good folks at Project Vote Smart have the most reliable list I've seen.

A quick check will show that it's not just the Iowa Caucuses on Jan. 3 and New Hampshire Primary on Jan. 8. Also in January:

• * Wyoming's Republicans on Jan. 5.
• * Michigan on Jan. 15.
• * Nevada on Jan. 19.
• * South Carolina on Jan. 19 for Republicans and Jan. 26 for Democrats.
• * Florida on Jan. 29.

Now, Wyoming, Michigan and Florida are the rebels in this group. The local pols there crashed the dance are defying the wishes of the chaperones, er - state parties. And they're getting hit with sanctions like losing delegates to the state convention. (In Michigan, some candidates like former N.C. Sen. John Edwards won't even be on ballot.

By the end January, it should be pretty clear which candidates have a shot and which ones are about to be cosigned to the political dust-bin. But in case there's any doubt, Feb. 5 should shake things out. More than 20 states will have Republicans and/or Democrats make their choices that day.

A lot of political pundits will be surprised if there is really a race left after Feb. 5. And the conventional thinking goes that it really will be all over but the crying by late March.

Of course, North Carolina doesn't get around to holding our primary until May 6. That's the equivalent of finally tapping the little red-headed girl on the shoulder right about the time DJ plays Stairway to Heave...(Er- Time of Your Life for you youngsters.)

Unless some very strange stuff happens, Tar Heels will have little direct say in who the major party candidates are. (I wrote about this back in August for our Discover the Triad publication.

From the Associated Press:

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) _ U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx is endorsing former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in his bid for the White House.

Foxx said Friday that she is supporting the Republican for his "leadership, experience, vision and values." The two-term representative from North Carolina's 5th District cited Romney's work to enforce immigration laws, reform health care and protect values.

All the state's Democrats have endorsed former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, who represented North Carolina for one six-year term in the Senate.

From the Boston Globe, among others:

Tom Tancredo pulled out of the presidential race yesterday and endorsed Mitt Romney, saying his erstwhile rival is the Republican with the best chance to win the White House and continue the fight to end illegal immigration, an issue the Coloradan helped push to the forefront of the campaign.

Does this mean that immigration isn't an important issue in the presidential campaign?

Heck no. Especially on the Republican side, immigration is going to be a huge issue this cycle. Voters are frustrated by Washington's inaction on the topic and in the absence of policy, they seem to be looking for the "get-tough" candidate, at least on the GOP side.

But what it does mean is immigration isn't the only issue.

Go ahead, think of another policy stand you've heard Tancredo take. I'll give you a minute.

. . . .

Can't do it, can you?

Whether through his own doing or some slight of media coverage, Tancredo became known as the "immigration guy" and only the "immigration guy." Even Ron Paul is known more than just being the Republican who wants to get the military out of Iraq.

Although Tancredo is bowing out, I would say he's got to get some measure of credit for forcing Mike Huckabee to harden his tone as he charges up the polls against Mitt Romney.

Click here for a related story from our (recent) archives.

I've always thought polls were a bit like Santa Clause. Just because you saw results, there still have to be some things taken on faith in order to believe. (And it's probably only a matter of time until Santa does some polling and decides to switch from reindeer to over-grown bunnies for sled propulsion.)

At any rate, the latest Zogby Poll on the presidential campaign popped into my e-mail this morning. From the summary:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas' Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York's Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.

Details after the jump.

Every year, the capital press corps in Raleigh puts on a follies night, with mainly the state legislature, lobbyists and other hangers on as our audience.

And every year, someone will ask, "So, you have enough material?"

The typical reply is something like, "Sure. We have 170 of the best writers taxpayers can send to Raleigh.

Well, if an Associated Press story moving for the weekend is any indication, presidential candidates may be filling in as ad hoc writers for late night programs, who are scheduled to struggle back to life without their writers next month. From the story:

NEW YORK (AP) _ Attention, presidential candidates: Not to disrupt your holiday plans, but if you have any cringe-inducing mistakes, insensitive jokes or outright hypocrisy yet to engage in, there's no time like the present.

That is, no time like until early January, when late-night comics return to the air again.

For seven weeks, Hollywood writers have been on strike, which means that for seven weeks, candidates have been free of the often scorching satire heaped on them by the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien and Jimmy Kimmel.

Yeah, but they've still had to put up with us scruffy newspaper types, who all think we could do stand-up if called upon.

More of the story after the jump.

From other scruffy media types writing about presidential candidate and former N.C. Sen. John Edwards:

• * Just back from the frozen Midwest, Winston-Salem reporter James Romoser writes that Edwards is putting all his chips on Iowa.

  More so than his rivals, he is trying to convince Iowans that he will fight for them because he understands them - because he is like them.

  It's a risky strategy for a Southerner who speaks with a drawl and oozes charisma. He sure doesn't look or sound like Iowa.

• *The N+O's Rob Christensen says Edwards is trying to once again play the closer in Iowa.

• * But Charlotte's Mark Johnson reports from New Hampshire that playing the closer and toughening his tone isn't pulling Edwards up in the polls there.

• * Meanwhile, fellow candidate Sen. Barack Obama says Edwards is pulling the same type of political junk he complains about.

Presidential Candidate (and former N.C. Senator) has a couple of new ads out, one in South Carolina on in New Hampshire. They're kind of two sides of the same coin but you probably won't see either on the tube in North Carolina unless your down in the Charlotte media market or the rabbit ears on your television are tuned just so. (North Carolina is a late primary state, so we're unlikely to see televsion money spent on us.)

But you can view the YouTube version of the New Hampshire "Born For" here:

The Associated Press offers the following analysis:

TITLE: "Born For."

LENGTH: 30 seconds.

AIRING: New Hampshire.

SCRIPT: John Edwards: "I'm John Edwards and I approve this message. For 25 years, corporate greed has gotten its way in Washington, destroying American jobs and the middle class while the establishment did nothing. Insurance lobbyists killed health care. Energy giants make billions from insane gas prices. And more jobs were lost. As much as we like to think so, good intentions won't change a thing. Corporate greed won't be stopped without a president who fights for you. Saving the middle class will be an epic battle, and that's a fight I was born for."

KEY IMAGES: Other than a brief opening photo of Edwards, the only image is of the Democratic presidential candidate speaking directly to the camera. Edwards is wearing a plain black sports jacket, white shirt, blue tie and lapel pin. He's seated in front of windows with sheer, white curtains. The stark background draws viewer attention to the candidate's face.

ANALYSIS: The ad is consistent with the former North Carolina senator and trail lawyer's populist campaign theme: that he will oppose rich, powerful corporations to improve the lot of ordinary Americans.

The South Carolina ad tweaks that theme and inserts a reminder that Edwards was born down there:

From the Associated Press:

AMES, Iowa (AP) - Democrat John Edwards embarked on a 36-hour campaign marathon, focusing on pocketbook issues while launching a new wave of advertising on the airwaves and in print. He dismissed a spate of polls showing that he had sunk to third place in the race.

"I don't need a poll to tell me that we're moving and moving in the right direction every single day," said Edwards.

He campaigned with his family and Mari Culver, wife of Iowa Gov. Chet Culver.

"I am rolling up my sleeves, traveling with the campaign," said Mrs. Culver, who - like Edwards - is a former trial lawyer and has long known the candidate.

Edwards was met by about 500 people jammed into a ballroom at the student union at Iowa State University as he began the overnight campaign push, aimed at energizing backers and delivering them to the precinct caucuses Thursday. He planned a rally in Atlantic at midnight and had a stop at 2:15 a.m. in Creston and an early breakfast in Centerville at 5:15 a.m.

Meanwhile new television and newspaper ads focused on Edwards' populist message. A TV spot features a worker - who lost his job when the Maytag factory in Newton closed - suggesting Edwards is the most likely candidate to fight to get his job back.

From a story today about who local politicians are backing in the presidential race:

Local Democratic politicians seem to have taken a rooting interest in "favorite son" John Edwards' run for the presidency.

By contrast, many local Republican office-holders range from unimpressed to unswayed by the crop of candidates currently running for the GOP nomination.

The Iowa caucuses will start the presidential selection process on Thursday, with primaries following this January in New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida.

North Carolina is not due for its primaries until May, most likely too late in the process to influence the outcome.

Still, local politicians can influence the flow of money and volunteer support for campaigns, and if nothing else, provide a proxy for the campaign that might have been.

Other than the candidates themselves, who sways your vote? Does Oprah's endorsement of Barack Obama bring you into his camp. Or do have fewer degrees of separation from John Edwards since Kevin Bacon stumped for the former N.C. Senator? Do endorsements from the likes of the NRA or ACLU bring you into a candidates camp?

Not sure what exactly is going to go down in Iowa tomorrow? Here's a video from the John Edwards campaign that explains it well, if in a highly partisan way:

So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A former governor from Arkansas who grew up in a little town named "Hope" runs for president. He goes on a popular chat show and plays an instrument when he's not engaging in charming banter with the host.

No, not Clinton ... that's soooo 1990s. This guy:

Republican Mike Huckabee was on the Tonight Show Wednesday evening, and yes, he was playing the base. In this clip from the interview he talks about his weight loss, talks about his back and forth with Mitt Romney and offers an explanation about the whole I have an attack ad but I don't want to use it thing.

During other parts of the interview he talked about his plan to move the nation from an income tax to a national sales tax. And interestingly, Leno gave him a couple openings to talk about faith, religion, etc... (Huckabee is a Baptist minister and has sounded quite a few religious notes in Iowa during recent weeks) and he really didn't go down that road.

Update: More from the unofficial Huckabee campaign.

I've been flipping news channels and surfing websites for a good three hours this evening and I've come to this conclusion: We scruffy media types need a hobby or something. The breathless projections about what a win or a loss in Iowa does or doesn't mean are just a bit much.

That said, I think there are a few take-aways from tonight:

• *Republicans: you have yourselves a presidential campaign. If Mitt Romney's fundraising and spending advantage can't get him better than a second-place showing over a guy with no money who was an also-ran three weeks ago, this thing really is up in the air.
• *New Hampshire just got a whole lot more meaningful for the GOP. Remember, Giuliani didn't really contest the state - but he better do a darned site better in NH and SC people are going to begin to smell road kill. (No, I don't buy the whole "I'm biding my time for Flordia" thing.)

• *Democrats: It's official, this is a three-way race. The conversation is Obama, Clinton and Edwards, probably in that order.

• *Edwards could be in trouble because he doesn't have as much money as Clinton and Obama, but it looks like he can hang in at least until that first February uber-primary day.

• *It seems to me that Clinton was hurt more by not winning Iowa. The whole premise of her campaign has been, "Of course it's Hillary, who the heck else are we going to vote for?" - that whole inevitability thing. That's kind of out the window for the moment.

Listening to Edwards on the TV right now, he sounds pretty upbeat. Here's what he told the Associated Press earlier:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Democrat John Edwards told The Associated Press that the Iowa caucus showed that voters are choosing change over the status quo, and he vowed a vigorous campaign into New Hampshire.

Edwards, who lost a close race to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, said he would continue running as the candidate for middle-class Americans.

"I mean, we were grotesquely outspent in Iowa five-to-one and the fact that I'm as strong as I am now under these circumstances indicates that this message of change and standing up for corporate greed and fighting for the middle class and jobs really matters," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview with The Associated Press

He said he would distinguish himself from Obama in New Hampshire by arguing that he is the candidate who can deliver the change that voters have shown they want.

"I''m going to fight for that change," he said via telephone from his hotel room in Iowa. "I've fought for it my entire life. I have a long history of fighting powerful interests and winning."

"What's clear from the Iowa caucus results is that change won and the status quo lost," Edwards said. "And the fight is now to see if we are going to get the change we need to save the middle class in this country."

Okay, now it's your turn. What's on your mind after Iowa. To get you started, here's what editorial writer Doug Clark had to say:

I'm not impressed by Mike Huckabee's so-called big win in the Iowa caucuses tonight.

Nor by the whole Iowa experience.

I think Iowa will be forgotten in, oh, about a week.

The real story among Republicans may be Mitt Romney's poor showing after spending so much money. He should have joined Rudy Giuliani in ignoring this insignificant state, concentrating instead on primaries in more representative places. But he has time to recover and blow off this minor setback.

The Democrats, meanwhile, seem to be heading for a three-way tie, more or less, among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Meaning, none of them wins or loses. So, on to the next stop, and the next and the next.

Iowa attracts way too much attention and signifies very little.

More from: Wx Post, Dome, IH Tavern, Trail Mix

From editorial page editor Allen Johnson:

As sour a pill as it may have been for Hillary Clinton to swallow, Barack Obama's stunning victory in the Iowa Caucuses says a lot of good things about Obama and about America.

Obama won in a state that is 90-plus percent white. That means he effectively tailored a campaign message that transcends race -- that he spoke to concerns that cut across racial lines. He is clearly a different breed of candidate from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; for Obama race was an issue, but not THE issue.

He also beat Clinton among female voters.

His victory also means that many Iowans looked past race in their choice of a candidate.

From editorial writer Doug Clark:

What's the difference between Edwards and Obama in 2008? Both are youthful, charismatic men with comparable political experience. But Obama suddenly has surged out front in the Democratic race while Edwards looks to be in serious trouble.

Could it be that, this time, Edwards' rhetoric seems to emphasize fear over hope, division over unity? That Edwards is appealing to anger and envy, trying to build resentment against "those people" in Washington or wherever who supposedly are holding ordinary Americans down?

New polling from Zogby out today confirms a lot of the polling others had going into this week. From a release this afternoon:

Among likely-voting Democrats, Clinton also enjoys strength with 36% support, compared to 24% for Obama and 20% for Edwards. Among independents who said they were likely to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama enjoys 34% backing, compared to 26% support for Clinton and 21% for Edwards. Independent voters are important in New Hampshire because they can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary.

Basically, NY Sen. Hillary Clinton is holding steady while Ill. Sen. Barack Obama appears to have picked up a couple points over the past two weeks, maybe due to his win in Iowa. Edwards has held at 20 percent for a while, no matter what group of Dems are polled.

On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain has picked up ground in tracking polls. Huckabee seems to be edging up in New Hampshire while Romney is holding steady but in second place. From the release:

McCain's lead continues to be based on the strength of support among independents, where he holds a 42% to 29% over Romney, with no other Republican winning more than 10% support among this group. Among moderates, McCain's edge dropped from 53% support to 48% support after yesterday's polling was added to the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby three-day rolling average, while while Romney also lost some ground, dropping from 24% to 22%. Meanwhile, Romney's edge over McCain among mainline conservatives - the largest voting bloc in the GOP - increased from one to five points.

Huckabee's bounce from the Iowa victory comes among those who consider themselves "very conservative," where he jumped from 21% to 28% when just yesterday's post-Iowa caucus polling is folded into the mix. However, Romney still leads in the category with 33% support. McCain wins 20% among the very conservative.

How is this playing out on the ground? From an Associated Press story detailing the day on teh stump:

Edwards, who narrowly edged Clinton for second place in Iowa, tried to turn the New Hampshire contest into a two-man race.

"There will be two change agents" on the ballot Tuesday and at Saturday's televised debate, said Edwards, dismissing Clinton as a member of the status quo.

Edwards told reporters he is more able than Obama to achieve change because of his years battling corporations as a personal injury lawyer. He said when dealing with oil, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, "I don't think you can nice them to death."

Asked if Obama, a former constitutional law professor, is too nice, Edwards replied: "I'm suggesting we have a battle and a fight on our hands" to improve life for working class families.

Obama responded to critics by arguing that people also said Abraham Lincoln wasn't ready to lead the country and that he understands hope alone isn't a prescription for change.

"I love the word, but lately some folk say, 'Ahh, he's always talking about hope. He's so idealistic. He's a hope-monger,'" he said.

"Hope is not blind optimism. Hope is not ignorance of the roadblocks and hurdles that stand between you and your goals," he continued. "It was hope that allowed slaves and abolitionists to resist that evil system and would allow a new president, who many said wasn't ready to chart out a new course, that would ensure that this nation would not remain half slave and half free."

I did not hear Barack Obama's victory speech on the night of the Iowa caucus. But every time I've read about it over the past couple days, his delivery and content has been praised in farily glowing terms. So I decided to listen for myself. Take a listen and tell me what you think.

For good measure, here's Huckabee's victory speech, which was pretty good itself. (It's got to be easier to write and deliver happy news to your supporters.)

A quick trip around the local blogiverse yields the following take on the latest fun in the presidential campaign:

• * Apriori Concepts: "As with Obama, I believe firmly that most Americans would do well to explore the candidates directly as opposed to taking the noise machine's word for it.Huckabee appears to have an impressive record of public service."
• * And so I go on Huckabee and Obama: "For either one of these men to be elected to the presidency would be a disaster of major proportions in a time when the world has never been smaller, and needed the most firm leadership from the only country able to give it."
• * Guarino: "Edwards' speech reminded me of "The Music Man", a film that elsewhere has been called the Great American Musical. Those who have seen the movie will recall Professor Harold Hill, the con artist who attempts to sell band instruments to the parents of an entire town. As I watched John Edwards last night, I felt as if I might have been witnessing the reincarnation of Professor Harold Hill."
• * Noteworthy: Since St. Barak has re-emerged as the Dems'/Lefties'/"Progressives'" and the media's darling yet again because of his Iowa victory, it's appropriate to see what he's said about certain issues in the past.

Update: Becuase we can't have Spag going around feeling unloved (see the comments):
Spag: "So tonights real winners are John McCain who is going to come on strong and will likely get large cash infusions in the next few weeks, and Rudy Giuliani who remains untarnished by the Iowa vote, will make a respectable showing in New Hampshire and probably run the table on Super Tuesday in a close fight with McCain."

Update: Click here for Sunday's story on Edwards and the other primaries this month.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I have a story coming for Sunday's paper on John Edwards' chances for the presidential campaign going forward. From his campaign's perspective, it's not terribly upbeat, talk of Seabiscuit or not.

For that story, I talked to folks not only in New Hampshire (where there is a primary Tuesday) but also in Nevada and South Carolina.

Nevada will have a caucus much like Iowa's later this month. It's the first time Nevada has played this meaningful a part in the presidential election, so folks are kind of unsure whether the polling out there is telling them anything meaningful. For caucuses, you not only have to be able to figure out the prevailing opinion but whose likely to show up. The second part of that is what's in doubt.

In Nevada, I talked to Jon Ralston, a long-time journalists turned political analyst. Edwards, he said, ran well early there but fell behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when the former North Carolina senator redistributed resources to Iowa in an attempt to win there. (No, that didn't work out so much.)

Among the reasons Edwards was expected to do well, Ralston said, was strong support for and from labor unions. But one of the most important unions Las Vegas, the Culinary Workers, have delayed issuing an endorsement that Edwards had lobbied for. That local, the 226, is cool on Edwards despite having pressure from their national organization. Or, more correctly, they seem to want to back a winner and Edwards doesn't seem to be it.

The Associated Press wrote about this at the end of December.

There was some expectation that they may have issued an endorsement this week, following Iowa. The union, however, has delayed again.

Ralston wrote the following in an e-mail sent Saturday:

The question of whether 226 might split off from the international if the parent still inists on going Edwards is interesting. I simply don't see 226 going with Edwards at this point, but the split would be a painful, last resort move. The locals do not want to have to diverge from the parent's endorsement.

Finally, what if Clinton were to win New Hampshire and decisively? That seems unlikely, but what then? Couldn't her team credibly argue that 226 could be the force that changes the course of the presidential race by breaking the tie? The difficulty there is that while she has a formidable organization in Nevada, Obama's is a carbon copy of the one that organized so ferociously in Iowa.

Ralston said he expects the local culinary workers to endorse Obama, especially if he comes out of New Hampshire with the same kind of strength he showed in Iowa. In an interview Friday, he said losing the endorsement would be "crushing" for Edwards in Nevada.

More coming in Sunday's paper.

Impressions of the Republicans debating in New Hampshire Saturday night from around the blogsphere:

• *The Fix: "The second half of the 90-minute debate was dominated by a heated discussion between Romney and McCain over illegal immigration -- the touchstone issue for conservatives not only in New Hampshire but nationwide. McCain defended his support for a comprehensive immigration plan, insisting that he did not provide amnesty to those who are here illegally because they would have to abide by a number of strictures including learning English and paying fines.Not surprisingly, that did not satisfy Romney, who argued that McCain backed amnesty. "I disagree fundamentally with the idea that the 12 million people who came here illegally should be allowed to remain in United States," said Romney."

  *Isaac Hunter's Tavern: "McCain: Solid. Smart, confident, funny, and still statesmanlike. Whatever you think of him, it’s true that when he talks, everyone else shuts up and listens. Which is kind of what you want in a president. Did nothing tonight to hurt his lead, and probably helped it."

  *Guarino: "On the Republican side, Giuliani and Thompson did reasonably well. Huckabee seemed to be less in command than during previous debates. There were repeated verbal barbs given and received by Huckabee, McCain and Romney. Romney appeared strong during certain parts of the debate, and weak during other segments. It is unclear to me whether the negative approach taken by McCain will hurt or help him."

  *New York Times: Transcript of the debate.

Impressions of the Republicans debating in New Hampshire Saturday night from around the blogsphere:

• * The Tavern: "Edwards: Winner, hands down. He was the most passionate, the most articulate, hit the right notes – and he seemed to mean what he said more than anyone else on stage. Obama was cautious, Clinton was testy, Richardson felt like a throwback, but Edwards was, in ESPN-speak, en fuego."

• *The Fix: "The problem for Clinton is that Edwards has decided that his best chance to be one of the last two candidates standing is to knock her out in New Hampshire. Edwards' campaign believes that if he can do that -- perhaps with a close third place finish -- Clinton will be a non-factor and allow him to debate Obama over which man is the true change agent. Edwards repeatedly cited his agreement with Obama and savaged Clinton as a defender of the status quo, making it very difficult -- as we noted earlier -- for Clinton to score a direct hit on Obama. Edwards' argument throughout the debate was that while he and Obama differ over the proper method to bring about change, he and Obama are far more capable to bring about that change than Clinton."

• *Dome: About three dozen supporters from the Hillary Clinton camp face off with the same numbers from the Barack Obama side, alternating chants and hoisting signs like fans at a football game. "Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!" one side chants as TV cameras move in close."O-baaaam-a!" the other side hollers. "O-baaaam-a!"
  John Edwards supporters were nowhere to be seen.

• *New York Times: Transcript of the debate.

From a story in Sunday's paper:

The former North Carolina senator took second place in the Iowa caucuses, edging out the better-funded Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has been able to raise millions of dollars and far outpolls the likes of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson with a populist message that appeals to the party faithful, especially those hurt by a sagging economy.

Yet in New Hampshire and in other early primary states, supporters acknowledge he's having a hard time being heard above the fray. Pundits don't expect him to last until Feb. 5, when 22 states will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses.

Earlier: Edwards in Nevada.

Bubba comments on that earlier post: "Edwards is damaged goods. He offers nothing that Obama and Hillary can't match, and indeed, exceed. His optimism after the Iowa results had little bearing in reality."

From our friends at the Associated Press:

In Bedford, N.H., Edwards refused to entertain reporters' questions about what he would do if he wins no primaries.

"I reject the premise of that question completely," he said, vowing to carry his campaign to the Democratic National Convention and then win White House.

Meanwhile, over at our Debatables blog, the exchange has been what I've come to expect any time you bring the guy up. A good number of people think he ought to be President, and a like number can't stand the guy. Very few folks who follow politics around here seem to be middle-of-the-roaders when it comes to Edwards.

This slice of the ongoing exchange is typical:

tony sacco said:

John & Dog, sorry you both feel that way about Edwards, I find him a person of passion to help the group of people I saw suffer in the depression, like myself, an orphan at 5 eating out of garbage cans, seperated from my sister in the adaption process and never to see or find again. Edwards mentions the 200,000 Veterens that have to sleep under bridges every night, he cares, that's passion from the gut.

Both of you must be rich, just think about the 35 million people that go hungrey every day, sure, there is Welfare, but they don't want that they want like yourselves to be a protuctive member of society, and Edwards will stand for them, for you and the country.

jaycee said:

The only problem with your logic, Tony, is that Edwards has done NOTHING to solve the problems you mention. All he's done is TALK to self-promote the egotistical little world in which he lives. Heck, I can talk about problems, too...would you elect me?

Edwards's buddy Erskine Bowles set him up with a title-only job at UNC working against "poverty" and then we found out that Edwards stole our tax money from that program to pay for his campaign travels. You talk about greed?? Edwards stole your money to advance his ego-driven boondoggle of a sham campaign while harming the very people he tells you he wants to help. Greed?? Edwards is all about greed. His, not yours.

It's 12:47 a.m. EST. In High School, I'd be putting the final touches on math homework at this hour. In college, this was prime term-paper writing time. And in my cub reporter days, this would be about time to finish off the last frosty beverage of the evening.

In other parts of the world, it's time for Democracy in action. From our friends at the Associated Press:

DIXVILLE NOTCH, N.H. (AP) _ Residents of two tiny towns stayed up late to give Barack Obama and John McCain early victories in the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Voters in two small New Hampshire villages, Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, cast the initial ballots just after midnight Tuesday.

In Hart's Location, Democrat Obama received nine votes, Hillary Rodham Clinton received three and John Edwards received one. On the Republican side, McCain received six, Mike Huckabee received five, Ron Paul received four and Mitt Romney one.

In Dixville Notch, on the Republican side, McCain received four votes, Mitt Romney two and Rudy Giuliani one. On the Democratic side, Obama received seven votes, John Edwards two votes and Bill Richardson one vote.

For those of you keeping score at home, Obama leads the Democratic field with 16. Edwards and Clinton are tied at three a piece.

Man, these people take voting seriously. The only things I seem to do after midnight anymore include waking up to the sound of of late night shows' theme music, rolling off the couch, checking my e-mail and going to sleep.

See you back here later today.

Former N.C. Sen. John Edwards certainly isn't acting like an expected third-place showing in New Hampshire will knock him out of the race. This came from his campaign today under the subject heading "A Special Appeal to North Carolina" and putatively bylined by David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager:

Dear Friend,

Earlier this morning, I took a call from our team in South Carolina. More than 50 people have just arrived at campaign headquarters in Columbia. They're ready to work for John Edwards from now until the South Carolina primary on January 26.

That's why I'm making a special appeal to friends like you in states near South Carolina. You can help today with a contribution that will allow us to immediately buy the supplies and resources we need in our Columbia headquarters and other field offices around the state.

[snip]

It's great news that we've added 50 new people to our South Carolina operation. It shows, yet again, that John has considerable momentum as he moves toward the next round of early contests.

It also means we need to work quickly to ensure our folks on the ground have all the resources they need so we can capture this momentum and stay on the road to winning the nomination!

Over at Talking About Politics, Gary Pearce says John Edwards should avoid panic and keep swimming:

An experienced ocean-swimmer knows what to do in a riptide. Don't panic, and don't fight it. Swim parallel to the shore until you're out of trouble. Then get back to dry land.

That's what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards should do now. They're caught in a Barack Obama tide. There's no fighting it. But there is a way to survive it.

Clinton is drowning because she's thrashing. Lashing out at Obama. Choking up.

Edwards seems to get it. Maybe because he has a vacation home on the coast. After thrashing himself for a couple of days, he attacked Clinton, not Obama - and got back to his message.

I'm all for having a campaign rather than a coronation, but Obama's poll numbers look strong in both Nevada and SC. One wonders where Edwards (or Clinton) could make a stand. It seems to me Super Tuesday is a tough place to hold back the tide.

Maybe the most pressing question tonight will be how well does Edwards have to do (a solid #2, a respectable #3) not to unhinge his campaign completely?

I just spoke with Joe Trippi, an advisor to the Edwards campaign. I asked him about the expected Barack Obama win tonight and what that might mean for John Edwards.

"Tonight is a referendum on Hillary Clinton," Trippi said. Media attention and voters seem to be focused on two story-lines, he said. The first is whether Obama will continue his successes and the second is whether Clinton can make a come back.

"We don't think she can," Trippi said. "The Clinton status quo is going to be rejected."

He said that Edwards campaign was "getting lost" in those two other discussions.

That will change when the campaigns roll into South Carolina and Nevada.

"We don't think Hillary Clinton can come back, so let's get onto the real discussion about change," Trippi said.

The objective for the Edwards campaign will be delineate the different approaches to achieving change in Washington.

In an earlier post and story, I explained that the culinary union in Nevada would be a key to the Caucus there later this month.

News has come that the union is poised to make its choice tomorrow and according to several sources (like those scamps at the NY Times) it will likely be Barack Obama.

I'm not plugged in there, but reading the available tea leaves it seems unlikely that Edwards will be the beneficiary. He's scheduled to be in South Carolina tomorrow, and I would think that he would pop over to Nevada to accept that kind of boost in person.

Early returns (less than 8 percent of the vote) show Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton locked in a tight race, with both getting around 37 percent of the votes counted.

Edwards looks like he'll take down a third place finish, behind the front runners but (say it with me) ahead of the rest of the field.

In other news, it's only 8:01 p.m. and he's only been on the air five minutes, but I'm already sick of listening to Wolf Blitzer.

Unlike on the Democratic side where the race is too close to call, CNN and other venues are now calling the Republican race for Arizon Sen. John McCain.

Update: The very conservative Associated Press now gives McCain the win.

Click here to listen to Arizon John McCain's victory speech following the New Hampshire primary.

From the last (I think) version of a story I'm writing for tomorrow:

Less than one percent of the United States has voted, John Edwards told supporters Tuesday night. So his third place finish in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire only meant that it was time to head to South Carolina and the rest of the states where voters had yet to weigh-in, he said.

"Those 99 percent deserve to have their voices heard," Edwards said, smiling at a crowd that cheered him on even as the as Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York edged out Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for first place. "We've had too many Americans whose voices have not been heard in this Democracy."

Edwards will head to South Carolina later this week, a state he won convincingly in 2004 by playing on his early upbringing in Seneca, SC. But this year he trails Clinton and Obama in most polls there.

Both political scientists and national political writers say Edwards will have a problem making inroads in future primaries because of a fundraising disadvantage and his early lack of success.

And New Hampshire's results complicate the story line that Edwards' campaign was constructing earlier in the day.

That complication, by the way, comes because Edwards had wanted to recast the race as a two-way affair with him and Obama. That doesn't seem to be the case tonight.

From the Associated Press:

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama each won nine delegates in New Hampshire's Democratic primary, followed by former Sen. John Edwards with 4 delegates, an AP analysis of primary results shows. All 22 of New Hampshire's delegates to the national convention this summer have been allocated.

[snip]

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 187 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. She is followed by Obama with 89 delegates and Edwards with 50.

A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

On the Republican side, the Associated Press reports:

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain won seven delegates, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won four delegates and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won one. All 12 of New Hampshire's delegates to the national convention this summer have been allocated.

New Hampshire originally had 24 Republican delegates, but the national party stripped half as punishment because the state broke party rules by scheduling its primary before Feb. 5.

In the overall race for the nomination, Huckabee leads with 31 delegates, followed by Romney with 19 delegates and McCain with seven.

A total of 1,191 delegates are needed to secure the Republican nomination.