Hillary won't shed a tear if Edwards wins Iowa

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register writes that the Hillary-Obama squabble over foreign policy is most likely to help John Edwards. Well, Hillary won't shed a tear if Edwards wins Iowa. In fact, it's almost as good as winning Iowa herself. Yepsen's logic is that the spat will drive up both of their negatives, helping Edwards. Well, Hillary is pretty much maxed out on "negatives." It's like a woman with facial scars and missing teeth worrying about a knife fight with a fashion model. High negatives aren't new to Hillary.

As for Hillary worrying about helping Edwards too much, the new primary calendar changes things, and I'm not sure if Iowa-based media have taken that into account yet. The Fat Tuesday superprimary gives the national frontrunners a cushion against losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why? Because the media's Chase for the Presidency narrative has three categories: the Frontrunner, the Challenger, and Hopeless Campaigns That Haven't Folded Yet. Winning in early states used to help a lot in winning later states, because it meant weeks or months of free media. The prizes in Iowa and New Hampshire were not a few dozen delegates but Frontrunner and Challenger status, cemented by weeks of national publicity. In 2008, there are only 15 days between the Iowa caucuses and the Florida primary. The Florida primary, not New Hampshire and not Iowa, is the first must-win contest for the Frontrunner.

Hillary is the Frontrunner, and will be as long as she leads in the national polls. That means Obama and Edwards are competing for the Challenger spot. Or more exactly, right now Edwards isn't even competitive for the Challenger spot. Winning Iowa would change that, creating an Obama-Edwards dogfight for the Challenger role. As long as there is not even a clear Challenger, the Frontrunner's path to the nomination is clear.

Presidential Prognosticating

There are only two men who can stop Rudy Giuliani from being the Republican nominee: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Giuliani is leading in almost every national poll while being often dismissed as someone who can't possibly win the nomination.

Romney, Thompson and McCain are all campaigning to be the "real conservative" alternative to Rudy after the early primaries. They're hoping that Rudy has hit his ceiling of 25-35% of the Republican vote, and that as other candidates drop out they can pick up the other conservative voters who will never vote for a pro-choicer. Once there is only one survivor out of the "conventional conservative candidates", that one will have 40%, which beats 30%, which makes him the frontrunner at a point when the race is almost over.

Nonsense. Rudy has a 75% positive rating among Republicans. Sure, pro-choice is a negative, pro-gay is a negative. But those are the only reasons GOP voters would have to choose Thompson or Romney over Rudy. All Rudy has to do is wait for the race to come down to two candidates, neutralize his lone opponent's only advantage, and he wins in a knockout. "Strong on Terror, Wrong on Abortion" beats "Weak on Abortion, Unknown on Terror."

Here's how he ends Fred Thompson's campaign, in the first debate after New Hampshire:

"Senator Thompson has made his career in Hollywood playing no-nonsense, take charge prosecutors and leaders. So, he's made a career out of playing Rudy Giuliani."

Followed up later with:

"Senator Thompson has said that show business and the Senate have a lot in common. Okay, I accept that. Let's talk about real life, I was a prosecutor and a mayor, I think we're all familiar with that. In real life, Senator Thompson was an abortion lobbyist. Not everyone knows that, but it's true. He lobbied the first Bush Administration for I believe the National Family Planning Association. Now, there's nothing wrong with that group, or that position. What's wrong is in turning around and pretending that you're a strong, consistent pro-lifer when you're not."

For Rudy to end Romney's political career in 100 words or less:

"In the early 1990s, Governor Romney and I were both pro-choice Northeastern Republicans. Well, I still am. I'm a man of my beliefs and I stand by them. Governor Romney can't say that. In every campaign he ran up in Massachusetts, he was pro-choice down the line, 100%. Now he's running for President in (name of red state) he's 100% pro-life. What does that say about his convictions? What happens when he's President and he has to do something that's right but it's going to be unpopular?"