With Tuesday's New Hampshire primary fast approaching, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state, a CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.
Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday -- a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.
Support for former Sen. John Edwards, who edged out Clinton for second place in Iowa, dropped from 20 percent in Saturday's poll to 16 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/ ... index.html
Damn, I didn't think his momentum was this strong. Considering his relatively poor performance WRT Clinton on Saturday's debate it looks like he may take New Hampshire. It looks like Clinton's latest strategy of attacking Obama's record and his sincerity is not working. She's been pretty aggressive, which she had no choice of being considering a loss in New Hampshire may be the crushing blow for her campaign.
Surprisingly, Edwards's support has dropped, mostly because of Obama's surge. He claims that he's in it until the Democratic convention in late August
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... onvention/
But I don't see how he will survive if he keeps losing these contests in a campaign as cash-strapped as his. I think if he loses the next 2 contests and fails to come second in either contest, he should accept defeat and throw his support to Obama.
In the last debate, it was obvious Edwards and Obama have a silent truce and have decided that Hillary is the prime threat to both of their campaigns.
Edwards's calculation is more strategic as opposed to anything else. If he attacks Obama's lack of experience relative to Clinton's, he indirectly will draw attention to his own inexperience as well. His whole plea for support rests on his claim to be the best agent for change, which is Obama's message as well,...which is why he is forced to not confront Obama as long as Hillary is in the race.
By attacking Hillary as well, Edwards knows he can provoke angry reactions by Hillary that only enforce the negative perceptions about her being overly aggressive and unlikeable. He is hedging his bets that both Obama and himself can wear Clinton down and that he can eke out a second place victory in New Hampshire...thus crippling Hillary's campaign. If he can force Hillary out of the race then in the context of a two-man race, he will then aggressively go after Obama. His plan was to make it a two man race and that voters will ultimately find him a better agent of change than Obama as well as more electable.
Obama has not gone after Edwards because simply Edwards is a tool that can attack Hillary for him without getting his own hands dirty. If Hillary should be forced out of the race, Obama's reluctance to attack Hillary will be a factor in the frantic yard sale that will result in the scrambling for Hillary's supporters.
Hillary's in serious trouble. She is no longer the front runner so she HAS to attack Obama in order to weaken him enough to gain ground. In the process of doing what she must, she only plays to negative perceptions about her personality. If she were to stay nice, Obama would simply cruise to victory and ride his massive momentum. It's seems to me to be a no-win situation for her.
With that said, I reiterate a Obama / Edwards dogfight will be more interesting to see as opposed to a Obama / Hillary showdown. Hillary is going to keep spouting her record in an attempt to convince people that her record is significant enough to deserve the nomination. She has to live and die by that record as a means to secure wins because while she's very intellectual, she doesn't have the oratory skills of an Obama or even an Edwards.
An Obama / Edwards showdown would be more about the future as opposed to the past. Since they both have bet the farm as presenting themselves as agents of change, the focus of the election would primarily shift to specifics about future policy.