Then everyone will be predicting that you'll come in fourth here.

If she does pull back from campaigning in Iowa, the opening for Richardson widens, and probably for Biden and/or Dodd too. There is room for four candidates in the top tier in Iowa.

If she did skip Iowa I think Obama will overtake Edwards and win Iowa.

This is "expectations lowering" talk...pure and simple.  Get the "Hillary isn't going to do well in Iowa" story out before the press notices...it'll take the edge off the drop in the Iowa polling and the (not unlikely) possibility that she won't actually win Iowa.  Third place is much less of a big deal if you're predicted to finish 3rd.

courtesy of Ben Smith at Politico...

A Clinton advisor, speaking on the condition of anonymity, shared a little more about the discussions last week about skipping Iowa.
"The decision was to use Vilsack and fight in Iowa, but be prepared to win elsewhere, since we are behind the groundwork curve in Iowa," the advisor said.

It doesn't seem too accidental a leak to me.  And what to make of the "groundwork" comment?

It's surprising Edwards isn't father out in front considering the amount of time and effort he has put in there.  With Clinton apparently having trouble, this seems like good news for Obama who is still relatively unknown compared to the other two.

she should have skipped bith states to begi with when she announced, compalining they weren't diverse enough and it wasn't fair to biiger states that they had all this power. She skips it now it looks like it's because she realizes she can't win the state, which would beg the question why counldn't the "national frontrunner" compete in a general election swing state. Even establishment supporters form non-N eastern states would deset her because the agrguement that she's unelectable in the general would dominate the political world.

I'm really getting sick of this excuse.  It's not that Edwards himself has been in Iowa every damn day.  It's that he never dismantled the campaign organization that he had in 2004.  The advantage he's had is that he hasn't had to setup new campaign staff and offices throughout Iowa like the other candidates have.

That's the "groundwork" that the Clinton advisor was talking about, not that Edwards is spending massive amounts of time there.

I think this is interesting... After more comments arose there are definitely a lot of things to consider.  

1.  This obviously wasn't an accidental leak.  So the only reason I'm seeing they'd leak it is to low-ball expectations early.  

2.  The buyoff on the Vilsack endorsement obviously didn't pay off.  

3.  It is suprising some people mentioned Clinton has a lack of groundwork in Iowa even though she has been there a number of times and if she can't get groundwork in over a year's time for the primary, how could she if she wins the nomination and goes into the GE with less than a year?

she can beat the "vast right wing conspiricy" it's probably not a good thing to be sending out signals that she can't compete in a democratic caucus in a major battleground state.

One interesting thing in the memo is the part about hundreds of thousands (if not in the low millions) of voters who will have already voted before Iowa actually votes. The early voters in 15 states will far exceed the number of people in the Iowa caucus.

The same considerations the Clinton campaign is having on this will also apply to every other candidate as well. Think about a scenario where early voters follow the current polls in those 15 states and vote Clinton, Obama, Edwards but the momentum shifts in IA because Edwards or Obama wins. We could have a situation where the actual votes in the larger states could still end up as Clinton, Obama, Edwards.

Over 15 states have no excuse early vote or vote by mail programs that allow voters to cast their ballots well before caucus day in Iowa. These states are: Florida, Arkansas, Arizona, California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.