Edwards won Iowa according to the Washington Post.

[Mass]

I was under the impression that this was a Kerry's victory. I am sure that people in SC where he actually won will be happy to learn that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401435.html

DES MOINES, June 14 -- John Edwards may formally deny he is a candidate for president, but it's awfully hard to tell. Last year's Democratic vice presidential nominee pulled into Iowa -- whose caucuses gave Edwards his biggest victory -- Tuesday to talk about poverty and moral values. He began at a housing conference, met with Maytag workers and wrapped up the day at a Democratic fundraiser.

[JI7]

1. maybe because SC was expected to be his anyways

so Iowa is seen as more of a victory . i'm not sure. it is odd they would do that. he won North Carolina also and he did pretty well in Oklahoma.

[Island Blue]

5. Edwards did win in NC

but it was a pretty meaningless victory because Kerry had already wrapped up the nomination (our primary was really late.) I think he was expected to win here anyway just because it was his home state and at the time, he was one of our Senators.

[kerrygoddess]

2. Didn't he take 2nd place in Iowa

Maybe that's what they mean.

[BlueIris]

11. Yeah, I read "his biggest victory" as Edwards' individual biggest.

Not 'Edwards was the biggest victor,' because--duh. But that sure is some sneaky spin the Post did there.

[JohnKleeb]

3. They mean symbolic victory

Though I think its fair to say that Iowa was a big symbolic and moral victory for both Kerry and Edwards, it marked the end literally for Gephardt who withdrew the next day and sent Dean on a negative momentum spin that he never recovered from.

[BlueIris]

8. I like to think Dean would have been toast anyway.

With or without the blow to his confidence that was the Iowa loss. But that's me. I'm feeling pretty vindictive today.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Well on paper he should have won

but when all made sense, Kerry and Edwards won.

[TayTay]

12. He blew through all that money, $50 million bucks

I have never figured out why some of Gov Dean's followers never held him accountable for the loss of all that money in a third place finish. That campaign pissed money away on dopey items like laminated tip sheets and palm cards. They brought empty buses to Iowa just for show, an effort that fooled no one and caused the media to begin to seriously question what Dean's support in Iowa was really like. And his campaign couldn't coordinate their Perfect Storm in Iowa.

The volunteers in Iowa were obviously well-meaning and passionate. But they were also raw amateurs. They expected 'Howard' to spend time with them. They were narcassistic and never really got the proper instruction as to what primary volunteers should be doing. (Rule #1; who cares what you think; it's about the voters in the state you are in. It's never about you, it's about them. This is also pretty much rules 2-10 as well.) The Dean campaign never expanded their appeal beyond the Iraq War, which was a big mistake as all issues have bend and flow to them and you have to have something else in your arsenal in order to ride out the low times. They never manged to articulate a broad platform to the Iowa voters. When Dean fell, there was nothing to catch him.

Some of his followers cannot accept his defeat. (It had to be treachery.) I understand this, I have been a 'True Believer' many times and losing sucks. But you have to eventually accept the loss and move on or else you will become bitter and pretty much immobile. All candidates have flaws tht contribute to their losses. (They are human, after all.) The best candidates learn from their mistakes, and get better.

[JohnKleeb]

13. They instead choose to use blame conspriacies

I agree with what you say about the Dean campaign and the Iraq War, so he opposed it but then what was probably the question in a lot of pepole's minds.

[karynnj]

4. He did much better than expected and the writer likes him,

so the "caucuses gave Edwards his biggest victory" - pay no attention to that guy who who got more people to caucus for him. Didn't he have some strange agreement with Kuchinich which made the Kuchinich voters who couldn't get to the threshold (for getting a delegate)switching to Edwards?

[Mass]

6. I am always amazed by the spin that reporters give to their article

I wished they could write pieces like that on Kerry, rather than the type of snarky remarks they publish.

[TayTay]

7. Bide your time.

What goes around, comes around. Sen. Kerry is taking his press (and blog) lumps now. Now is a good time to take them. Remember how fickle the press is and how deeply uncommitted they actually are to anyone. Let them do the snarky on people in 2005, when it doesn't really matter. By 2007 they will be ready to entertain thoughts of 'comeback' and 'rehabbed image' and 're-invigorated.' It's what they do.

The press is fickle. The people who are on top today will not be on top later on. That's just the way it is. (If everything stayed the same, the press would be unable to sell newspapers.) Keep spreading the truth, that's all you can do.

[BlueIris]

10. That's what I say.

Often actually. Especially considering the contrast between what the press is reporting and what Kerry's actually doing. Right is on our side, so to speak. What goes around, comes around, indeed.