Edwards aggressive strategy may be risky in Iowa

Edwards Steps Up Attack on Clinton in Iowa Over Iran, Lobbyists

By Nicholas Johnston

<snip>

Taking a more aggressive stance against Clinton may carry risks. Most voters interviewed during a day of Edwards events in Iowa said they don't approve of one candidate criticizing another.

``I think this state has seen enough attacks and they don't like them,'' David Park, a 64-year-old Edwards-supporter said after the rally in Ottumwa. Margaret Ademiet, 66, an Edwards- supporter in Oskaloosa, said candidate attacks ``turn me off more than anything.''

Going Negative

University of Iowa political scientist David Redlawsk said candidates have to tread a fine line when ratcheting up criticism of their opponents, as they try to balance appearing negative with publicizing positions taken by their opponents which might be unpopular with voters.

``We know people say they don't like it, but we also know people are wired to pay attention to negativity,'' he said. ``The real question is which thing has the bigger impact: oh I don't like she did that, or I don't like that he said it.''

Joan Thompson, a 73-year-old retiree who is still deciding between Edwards and Clinton, illustrates the dilemma. After the Ottumwa rally she said she was disappointed in the digs at Clinton. She also admitted she got something out of them.

``He doesn't have to do that, I don't like it,'' she said ``But, well, it informed me.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a10xzczzBCLo&refer=home

The subject line does not match the article's title as I wanted to focus on the 2nd hald of the artilce which discusses the impact of going negative vs. the attacks themselves.

It's not like he's in the running or anything so it isn't much of a gamble on his part.

throw as much mud at Hillary and see what sticks.

Has Edwards put his own personal ambition above the good of the Democratic party? It appears so!

So far what they have done is show where they are different than the other candidates. Mudslinging is when you attack a person on a personal level.......does Swift boating ring a bell? So far this has been a very civil campaign, and that may be the reason we have a little article like this to stir things up.

Mud slinging example: expensive haircuts, 10,000 sq foot house, person's faith, person's husband or wife. So far, all the mud slinging has been by the media or over zealous supporters.

zalinda

He was in the lead what once? Twice?

He was in 3rd place in polling, pinning his hopes on an Iowa win and decided to go negative on the frontrunner.

Kind of like another candidate.

might ultimately beef up support for Obama also:

snip: "But in the process of taking down Dean, Gephardt shattered what was most attractive about his own candidacy - that sense of maturity and measured judgment - and plunged to the bottom of the pack. Instead, Dean's legions of supporters moved to Kerry and Edwards, both of whom soared in the polls in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses and finished a strong one-two.

snip: Edwards might be making some headway if this were a two-person race, Edwards against Clinton. But it's not, and Obama, who has maintained a Kerry-like posture, is ready to reap any of the votes that Edwards succeeds in peeling away from Clinton.

There are many reasons to believe that Clinton won't collapse like Dean. She's a far more disciplined candidate. And unlike Dean, who was a new face to most voters, Clinton is the best-known person in the Democratic field. Her supporters seem to know what they're getting.

But if she falters, Obama - not Edwards - is the most likely to benefit."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/06/edwardss_strategy_could_benefit_obama/

a huge win for a more progressive candidate over a DLC lap dog.

:evilgrin:

O8)