Why is it...?

That candidates such as Guiliani and McCain can do very poorly in Iowa but still have a chance for the Republican nomination and may even win New Hampshire? But candidates such as John Edwards, if we are to believe the media, must win Iowa or it is all over?? Somehow, I think Edwards may do better in New Hampshire than in Iowa. So where does this double standard originate? No need to respond to that question.

Iowa was critical to his chances, and by putting the lion's share of his resources into Iowa. Neither McCain nor Guiliani did that. Romney is more analogous to Edwards here. This is actually more logical than you seem to think.

states bumped it up... That's only a month away.

states bumped it up... That's only a month away.

I believe he will have to see a much better hand than he has seen thus far, before he folds his cards...

Theory of Inevitability was a MSM production. I have not seen any tv except what is written here but I did notice that Fred Thompson was in third place in Iowa. I did see Mary Matlin earlier today say that Fred would surprise a lot of people in Iowa and would finish third.(Did Fred finish third?) So Rudy who is the leader among republicans nationwide by-passed iowa altogether and he gets a free ride. HRC finishes behind Obama and to keep their Theory of Inevitability alive they have to speak in low tones when describing the clinton loss and have one believe it is all over. See the double standard at work.....

I do congratulate Obama on his win, and that is a good thing. Now we get to see what he has for the other 49 states and if he can muster support across the country. I will support HRC till the last dog dies and I still say that by February 19th or by March 4th HRC will have a majority of delegates to become the nominee....

Ben David

Some of the Iowa Repukes must have picked him because he was the "tallest". Just like they did with Reagan

Not by a long shot.