Well Edwards by all accounts is either LEADING or TIED in Iowa with HRC, so they should be worried... if she is going to be taken down it will either be by Obama, Edwards or the two working together in a brokered convention... which will lead to more whining about how it isn't fair (boy that statement from Bill pissed me off royally).

I hope DesmoinesDem will wade in here on this and let us know if you are correct on the ramifications of a Vilsack endorsement (and I am betting you are) or if this is something to worry about.  

Vilsack's endorsement is a big deal.  Of course, paint everything that happens in a negative light as far as Clinton is concerned to make it all fit is the constant theme, so why would I expect objective reasoning?  If it were possible, the Vilsack endorsement would be sold here as a "bad" thing for Clinton, a net loss.

As for polls:  Clinton polled ahead, exactly tied and slightly behind Edwards in the last three Iowa polls.  

Another thing:  Are you guys saying that Edwards' wife's cancer is going to be a political lift for Edwards?  That makes sense exactly in what way?  Is that an issue to make political hay out of?  It is a personal issue, I feel bad for the family, but to claim that Edwards' polls will be improving (and that the issue will have a lasting poll effect) from the dismal status they have been overall (just a little into double-digits in almost all states) is to suggest that cancer has become a positive campaign issue.    

This doesn't jibe with Vilsack's rhetoric on the campaign trail. He called for Congress to cut off funding, then he goes and endorses arguably the candidate who is the least likely to do such a thing?

Hypocrite.

Vilsack and Gore and Clinton were friends at the DLC during Clinton's administration. Clinton and Gore visited IA frequently during their administration. Also, IA was the one of the few states that switch from dem when Gore ran to republican when Kerry won. I think it is highly hypocritical because in his dropping out speech, he said that he wants out of Iraq now, and Clinton isn't proposing that right now. She says a phased withdrawal.

With Vilsack in Iowa and Shaheen in New Hampshire Clinton now has some of the strongest support from Democratic activsts with a successful track record in both states. Vilsack gave Kerry a boost in 2004 which helped him win the primary and Shaheen ran Kerry's campaign in New Hampshire.

I am waiting to see who Chet Culver endorses, I hope  he doesn't follow in the footsteps of his predessor Vilsack, he might because they are again DLC buddies. I hope I am wrong. His endorsement matters the most, because he is the governor. Obama campaigned heavily for him when his polls were not where they were suppose to be.

I'm kind of disappointed by the endorsement, not at the timing since I'm sure its been planned for a while, but Vilsack seems to be going against a lot of what he has talked about. I don't think his endorsement will help Hillary that much, though you never know.

Interesting article here about dem staffing and organization in Iowa. Hillary seems to be behind in that area - a lot of ground to make up.

http://iowaprogress.com/2007/03/20/candi dates-take-varying-approaches-to-hiring- staff-in-iowa/

With the mega-states moving up thier primaries Iowa becomes more and more important.  This thing is going to begin on Jan. 29th and be locked by Feb. 6.

One week....

Also, I think that Vilsack wants to hault the momentum of the Obama campaign. That's why I think that he is doing this, this early. He knows that Obama is giving Hillary a run for her money so, he wants to stall his effort and momentum and Obama has momentum in IA and NH.

As for finishing third in Iowa, I am not so sure of what it would amount to next year.  Especially for a candidate with deep pockets.  With the big states moving up the rules may be changing.