Primary Update: Iowa keeps the Edwards campaign in the top-tier

Time Magazine just released a poll this morning - and it shows John Edwards with a comfortable lead. Edwards is ahead with 29%, followed by Clinton at 24%, Obama at 22%. Richardson confirms his good form with 11%. Biden tops the rest of the field with 5%. Time also asked voters to choose between the top 4 candidates, and Edwards actually increases his lead then: He rises to 32% with Clinton and Obama still at 24% and 22%, and Richardson at a healthy 13%. These numbers are actually more valuable than the first set in Iowa. The complex voting method only people caucus for their candidate only if that candidate reaches a threshold of support at that caucus center - making it likely that supporters of "minor" candidates will have to transfer their vote to a top contender.

The poll confirms that Edwards is not at all out of the nomination fight. In a way, he is even better positioned than Obama since there is early voting state in which Edwards is emerging as the favorite. Edwards's challenge (well, besides actually winning Iowa) is to make sure Iowa matters! That is, make sure that any momentum he gets there would translate itself in later contests. For that to happen, he needs to make sure Clinton and Obama aren't too far behind in Iowa - for if they are the media might portray an Edwards victory as little else than meeting expectations. And he needs to make sure the primary calendar doesn't get so out of hand that Iowa is entirely marginalized. The current likely calendar (IA and NH within 2 days, Michigan a week later) would ensure that Edwards would at least get a fighting chance as the sudden additional media coverage would come at the perfect time for Michigan (a labor state, thus one in which Edwards could be strong).

Time magazine printed the poll along an extensive and very positive feature piece on the Edwards campaign in Iowa. They detail his campaign style and its populist tones - and relay the Edwards message that his Southern background and his charisma make him the Democrat most likely to reconquer the Middle Class, and thus the most electable candidate (Edwards is actually quoted as saying that he is from NC and Clinton is from NY, so voters will perceive him as more centrist even though he is more progressive... This might be stretching it, and it is hardly convincing that Edwards's home state is enough to make him more electable. Look at McGovern in 1972).

Elizabeth Edwards, who is emerging as the campaign's chief attack dog, is the voice stating this argument most explicitly: "I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t begin to understand. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t energize them, but Hillary as the nominee will." We know that electability is Edwards' main argument, and they're going as far as they can with it. If anyone has any doubt, they should just check this Edwards campaign memo. The memo explains that Edwards would not only be more competitive in swing states, but that "unlike other Democrats who must “run the table” in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play." (It is worth pointing out that Edwards selection as VP had no impact whatsoever in Southern states like NC or VA - nor anywhere else for that matter.)

Also, Carter was flirting with an Edwards endorsement during a joint appearance yesterday at Georgia Southwestern State University. While Carter didn't formally endorsed Edwards, he got pretty close:

"I can say without equivocation that no one who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate a prediction of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality, in the field of health care for those who are not presently insured, for those who struggle with poverty."