NY Times says Hillary may throw her supporters to Edwards to prevent Obama from winning

[Herman Munster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/politics/21web-healy.html?8dpc

And, perhaps most difficult of all, does she decide to take third place in the Iowa caucuses in order to help John Edwards win (and thereby deny Mr. Obama a potentially king-making victory in the first-in-the-nation vote here on January 3)?

This last question, according to several Democratic strategists not affiliated with the Clinton campaign, is one that the Clinton campaign is likely to ask itself and answer sometime in the next two weeks. As much as Mrs. Clinton’s top priority is winning Iowa, her goal of preventing an Obama victory here is almost equally important. The last thing she wants is to move on to New Hampshire and its January 8 primary with Mr. Obama riding a headwind of political momentum.

Taking third place to help Mr. Edwards would be difficult to “operationalize,” in the words of one Clinton adviser. It would have to involve steering Clinton voters into Mr. Edwards’ camp. Because so many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters in Iowa are first-time caucus-goers, the basic mechanics of caucus night are confusing enough; instructing these Iowans on gaming the system help Mr. Edwards would be downright perplexing.

And contrary to Clintonian impulses. Mrs. Clinton and her husband are born competitors; throwing elections is not in their D.N.A. When Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy last January, she said she was “in it to win it.” There is no reason to think that she and her team have changed their minds, and indeed, Clinton advisers say they haven’t given any real thought to helping Mr. Edwards beat Mr. Obama (not to mention Mrs. Clinton) in the caucuses.

At the same time, some Clinton advisers say that their internal tracking polls show that Mr. Edwards is best positioned to win the January 3 caucuses. Other advisers are confident that Mrs. Clinton’s base – female voters – is the most passionate and loyal of the three leading candidates. And yet the Obama camp argues daily that it has the most momentum in Iowa right now.

All of this adds up a confusing political picture as the big Iowa vote approaches. But Clinton advisers say they feel good about some hard, clear numbers: Her 165 campaign events and retail stops over the last five days drew 8,811 people as she and her surrogates fanned out across all 99 of Iowa’s counties. And, anecdotally, there were certainly voters who said they were leaning toward Messrs. Obama and Edwards but felt persuaded by Mrs. Clinton’s presentation to jump into her camp, or at least give it serious thought.

[Fried Bread]

1. This is what I'm afraid of.

An Edwards victory in Iowa helps Hillary!

[surfermaw]

44. That is the funniest thing I have ever heard of

Are the Hillary people getting so desperate and afraid of egg on their faces that now they are stooping to telling lies, or are the Oabama desperate enough to tell lies? Which is it. Edwards has been in the lead in Iowa since day one.

[surfermaw]

45. Forgot this part

I think this may be noise made by people other than the candidates that would like to get to Edwards, or Hillary and yes get to Obama. We should just be amused and move on to win in 2008

[yourout]

2. I'm not buying it.

If Clinton finishes third it's because she deserved to finish third not because she wants Edwards to win.

[AtomicKitten]

3. It's a preemptive excuse for her impending loss.

[K Gardner]

4. "Clinton's internal polls show Edwards best positioned to win Iowa"

That's certainly telling. Edwards does not need HRCs "support" to win. And if she thinks it will help her in NH, some recent polls show she is only tied with Obama there. All the jiggling in the world may not pull her out of this quagmire that was totally self-induced.

[Andy823]

5. Now that's funny!

:rofl: To think that Hillary would "let" Edwards win is crazy. If this is their plan, and I doubt it very much, it would be because they "know" Edwards is going to win, and they are trying to play it down by saying they "gave" it to him to prevent Obama from winning! It could also be a tactic by the Obama camp to say that Hillary put her support behind Edwards to prevent "him" from winning. This would make it look like he would have won if Hillary had not thrown her support to Edwards.

When Edwards wins it will be because the "people" of Iowa know that he is the person we need to get the change we so desperately need in D.C., not because "Hillary" helped him! I think comments like this only help Edwards, and makes the other camps look bad when they have to come up with crap like this to downplay a loss by them to Edwards!

[ellacott]

11. I think this helps Edwards camp also

If the people are told to switch their votes at the caucus that could be perceived as being manipulative. I'm not sure that's a trait that Hillary wants to be indentified with. If it is from Obama's camp it would seem like they are making excuses.

I know politics is rough but you aren't supposed open your playbook like this.

[bunnies]

6. She could 'Decide' to take third place?

Thats funny. I could have sworn it was up to the voters.

[Herman Munster]

9. a caucus is not a democratic process

it can be rigged in any number of ways by candidates.

[bunnies]

14. Really?!

I guess Im way low on my caucus knowledge. Are you saying she could send her caucus-ers over to somebody else?

[Capn Sunshine]

34. It all depends, but short answer ---yes

progressives witnessed this when DK sent his voters not to Howard Dean as expected, but to John Edwards in the'04 caucuses.

Hillary could do the same thing as strategically Edwards winning IA is easier to overcome- he doesn't have a lot of depth money wise.

If Obama wins Iowa, Hillary faces another possible loss in New Hamphire, and South Carolina, and the dominoes start to fall.

So yeah, if you're into strategerie, and it looks like you're mired in second, an Edwards win makes sense.

[bunnies]

41. Incredible.

So she'd have to take the chance that she wouldnt come in 3rd or worse in Iowa... because then she really gambles NH as well. Reminds me of a twisted game of political chess and that angers me the more I think about it. How exactly does a caucus fit the definition of democracy? Shouldnt the selection of potential presidents be something that cant be manipulated? Certainly at least, a caucus shouldnt be first in the selection process.

[BeyondGeography]

35. Would that make her the decider?

:scared:

[bunnies]

43. You know.... I think it would.

On many levels. Me too. :scared:

[SaveElmer]

7. SOunds like a reporter with too much space to fill...

And not enough actual news to fill it with...

[jenmito]

8. How sad that she's not confident enough to just play fair.

I hope she DOES try to tell her supporters to go to Edwards and out of spite they go to Obama.

[Snotcicles]

10. Wow, Edwards is doing better then I thought, If they are trying to tarnish his victory

this early, his numbers must be HUGE.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hedgehog]

16. Wow I just can't answer that argument! I'm changing my vote right now!

[jenmito]

18. What a beautiful sentiment to go along with your christmas wreath

avatar.

[K Gardner]

27. Merry Christmas to you, too !

[K Gardner]

47. ....

:kick:

[theoldman]

13. A candidate does not throw their support to another candidate

until they are sure that they do not have a chance of winning the primary election. This new article is just a bunch of crap. It does not even fall into the category of speculation.

[ShaneGR]

15. Lol, this is such pro-Obama garbage.....

Do us a favor Obama people, keep the Edwards people out of your stupid fights with Clinton. K, thanks.

[jenmito]

21. The OP is an Obama supporter???

I don't think so! Try a Hillary supporter trying to lower expectations.

[Renew Deal]

22. The person posting this is a Hillary lover.

:shrug:

Besides, how is this pro-Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

23. The OP is a Clinton supporter.

[nealmhughes]

17. Operationalize is now on my list of banned words. Does that mean impliment?

You now join "myriad" alongside "anxiety" and "optionalize".

Who knows what goes on in the upper reaches of campaigns, I would suspect it would be lot like Bismark on lawmaking and sausages.

[Renew Deal]

26. Hillary is employing strategery!

:evilgrin:

[acmavm]

19. Pffft! This is the NYT. The filthy rag that his all that shit about bush** in

2004 so that it wouldn't 'influence' the election.

There's as much journalistic integrity at the NYT as there is chastity in a Winnemucca whorehouse.

[goodhue]

20. lol

way to spin expectations

[A-Schwarzenegger]

24. Pass the bong.

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

25. 3rd Place is a death sentence for Hillary's campaign.

People would abandon ship in NH, and the losses would pile on. This is a bad idea.

[CyberPieHole]

39. 3rd place would be the death knell for Obama and Edwards as well...

...it's a toss up...may the best woman win.

[Cha]

48. There's only

one woman running and she's not the best.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Does Hillary have a personal fallback position if she doesn't win the nomination?

Or does her head just explode?

[K Gardner]

29. LOL... I needed a good laugh today, thanks :-)

[suston96]

30. Wondering if the caucus precincts will be electronically (cell phones) communicating...?

...and if the deals we are suspecting can actually happen?

Any links to past histories?

[madrchsod]

31. now that is funny on so many levels

why is the times letting the interns write today?
everyone is gone today?

[Bitwit1234]

32. Since she is going to win anyway why should she Obama is a lost cause.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Just like Edwards, Kooch, Geppy and Kerry in 2004.

Edwards <---> Kooch
Kerry <---> Geppy

"We can't let Dean win!"

I'm still pissed off!

[suston96]

36. Way back in 2004 in Iowa......

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE FORMER GOVERNOR; Critical of Caucuses, Dean Demands Changes in Iowa

By JODI WILGOREN
Published: January 25, 2004

Five days after his damaging third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, Howard Dean said Saturday that the state should regulate discussion inside caucus rooms or lose its premier status in the presidential nomination process.

''I like the Iowa caucuses a lot and I think they should be first, but they have to have a process that is good for democracy,'' Dr. Dean said on his campaign bus as he headed to Dover, N.H., to knock on the doors of undecided voters. ''The kind of stuff that's going on with the phone calls and all that under the table is not particularly good for democracy, and I didn't know it went on inside the caucuses. And if it does it should not be permitted.''

Later, speaking after a packed forum at a picturesque coastal hotel here, Dr. Dean said he would not participate again unless the rules were changed to prohibit negative campaigning during the caucuses.

His complaints concern the internal debate that unfolds in each precinct after the initial round of voting, when supporters of different candidates try to sway one another. Dr. Dean said he had been surprised to learn that aides to one of his rivals, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, circulated booklets to Iowa precinct captains with instructions to paint Dr. Dean as ''an elitist from Park Avenue'' and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts as ''part of the failed Washington politics.''

Senator Edwards, who condemned the booklet when it surfaced on Wednesday, said Saturday that Iowans ''don't need instructions from me'' on how to run the caucuses.

''They've been doing it for a long time, and the process seems to be working,'' he told reporters. ''I respect the people of Iowa much the way I respect the voters of New Hampshire.''

Dr. Dean said he did not ''mean to impugn the results'' of the caucuses, and repeated his congratulations to Senators Kerry and Edwards, who placed first and second, even as he criticized the Edwards camp and hinted that Kerry supporters might have engaged in similar behavior.

''If you have a caucus and you go in and sit down with your neighbors,'' he said, ''and they are being coached by opposing campaigns -- which I think The Associated Press reported was the case in John Edwards' case and maybe Senator Kerry's -- I don't know about that. That is not the kind of neighborly, friendly arrangement that one is led to believe goes on in the Iowa caucuses.''

Dr. Dean's criticism of the caucuses, which most politicians with national ambitions are careful never to fault, came just two weeks after the broadcast of a four-year old interview in which he derided Iowa's delegate-selection process as dominated by special interests. In a January 2000 television talk show, Dr. Dean, then governor of Vermont, said that ordinary people lacked the time to participate in the caucuses.

After NBC News broadcast excerpts from the show, Dr. Dean said that he had not known much about the process at the time, and, as he repeated Saturday, that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary were critical to candidates like him, who lack money or name recognition as the campaign opens.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E2DB1638F936A15752C0A9629C8B63

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Yep.

Thanks for that article. I hadn't seen it. But I lived it! x(

[Eurobabe]

37. So Biden can come in 3rd?

:rofl:

[Tashca]

38. My take

Just my take on this maneuver.
If Clinton supporters in a caucus room have excess voters, but not quite enough for a delegate. They can send the extras to someone else. If there is one undecided delegate left there will be much maneuvering to control these extras.
My guess is that rather then taking the chance of a few of the Clinton delegates pealing off and giving Obama the last delegate.....they will be directed to go to Edwards. All this certainly doesn't mean that Clinton plans on losing. Her campaign is trying to control the last delegate decided. This is a good maneuver.
Many of these caucus goers will be first timers and will be a little bit confused. I am planning on this strategy or something similar from all three camps. I will peel them off to the Biden camp....no one really wants to be told what to do...I'm counting on this move.

[Egnever]

40. And thats how it should be played

I am planing on the same thing myself. Its smart politics and hopefully all camps have similar strategies on this.

[Geek_Girl]

42. But wouldn't that confuse voters in Iowa and NH

If she's counting on people who are new voters and caucusers then I would think this will be a very risky move. For the first time I'm starting to think Hillary will loose the primary.

:party: YAY!!!

[Catherine Vincent]

46. That sounds like a bunch of tripe.

She's in it to win not win it for Edwards.