Does the bickering between Obama and Clinton, help or hurt Edwards?

[itsrobert]

Does all the bickering lately between Obama and Clinton hurt John Edwards. I think it marginalizes him a little as the media is making it between Obama and Clinton. Or does it help Edwards that he is above the fray? Will Iowans be turned off by the bickering? Will Clinton supporters call me sexist for using the word "bickering"? Or should it be called "sparring"? Do men "spar" and women "bicker"? Maybe I should of said "sparring"? Thoughts?

Also, why doesn't DU fix their spell check to include the word "Obama"?

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "between"? Obama's been having fits. She's laughing it off.

But yes, Obama's behavior certainly helps Edwards and the GOP.

[Donnachaidh]

4. that abc poll this morning says the voters AREN'T laughing

And why is it that all the Hillbots are dropping the GOP stinkbomb in every post? Getting instructions from Carville now? :sarcasm:

[Donnachaidh]

2. not at all - it helps him

it's been said in the past. The two of them will cancel each other out, and Edwards will come out on top.

[KittyWampus]

9. actually, I think edwards constant attacks on Hillary is helping Obama! Or rather,

the constant sniping between the top three candidates is helping Biden.

[sam sarrha]

3. edwards has a clear message for the common people .. it makes the other 2 look like what they are..

[MethuenProgressive]

5. ...it is a "lie" that any Democrat will be a better leader than any Republican - yup, that's clear.

From Newsweek:

His voice rising, he said it is a "lie" that any Democrat will be a better leader than any Republican.

That's very clear.

[karynnj]

6. This is clearly just a case of misspeaking

where he obviously said the opposite of what he intended. Isolated it looks awful, but every candidate will - speaking as often as they do - at some point have a lapse and say something that is not what their brain intended.

I find the messages Edwards has chosen and intended to be more objectionable. (Like his often repeated comment that HRC is corrupt. When he was asked he said she wasn't but was part of a corrupt system. Now, if he is going to repeatedly make such a damning statement - he should support it and mean it. The response to the reporter says to me - yes, I have no proof of that and won't stand behind it if questioned, but didn't it sound good?

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. No. I believe you are mistaken

He was differentiating himself with the others and said some of them are no better than republicans (he was attempting to mudsling Clinton). He clearly meant that voting for Clinton is voting for a republican.

[karynnj]

12. If that is what he meant, he has absolutely crossed a line

that he can not cross back from. I had heard the comment and thought it was more likely misspeaking. (Turned the opposite way, it is very close to what has been a near stock answer of Kerry's - that (as leaders, on issues) all the Democrats, though they differ, are closer to each other than to the nearest Republican and the difference between Republicans and Democrats is night and day. (Now, I realize if Kerry were running he would not emphasize the first part as much, but I feel confident he would still say the latter part. As is, it is a way he has used to avoid attacking anyone and to strongly defend every Democrat.)

[sam sarrha]

7. Fienstine proves that

[sandnsea]

8. Edwards above the fray?

He's already been hurt by his attacks on Clinton that have appeared over the top to the average uninformed voter. I'd say his attacks on Clinton helped Obama, they make people think twice about Hillary and then they go for the more reasoned alternative, Obama.

[papau]

11. With Obama the Clinton folks 2nd choice, it hurts Edwards. He either aims at Obama or gives up n/t