Could Hillary's Attacks on Obama Help Edwards?

In what is seriously a 3-way dead heat in Iowa, Edwards may be the beneficiary of the animosity between the two presumed front-runner camps.

Thanks to Vince Marchand of Sacramento (I say that like I have readers all over the country and as if Vince isn't one of my best friends) for sending me this Dave Corn column on Hillary's attack on Obama dubbed "Kindergate." Apparently Hillary's camp viscerally hates Obama and has released devastating evidence that proves conclusively that Obama has been planning to be President since he was in Kindergarten--gasp!

The most damning thing the Clinton camp has to say about Obama according to Corn? "It's his presumptuousness," according to one Clinton operative Corn talked to. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?"

I doubt whether Kindergate will hurt Obama, but repeated negative attacks might eat into his support. The attacks may also backfire on Clinton. Who stands to gain? John Edwards, that's who.

I Guess I Can't Count Hillary Out

I think I need to come clean on something. I have rested my case against supporting Hillary in the primary on the idea that she can't win in the general election. I realize now that I may be wrong.

Here's why: Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to be the nominee. He wasn't supposed to win the general election. He wasn't supposed to be re-elected after he was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary wasn't supposed to waltz into the State of New York and become a U.S. Senator. She also wasn't supposed to be easily the front-runner in the Democratic field. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary weren't supposed to have been rendered potentially meaningless.

So what I'm saying here, if it isn't obvious. Is that with the Clintons, you can never say never.