Okay, I'm reading The New York Times this morning, and there's a story about John Edwards carving out his place as the candidate of the left, because while campaigning in Iowa, a strongly liberal state, that's the winning strategy.
Edwards as a leftist? Only by comparison, as in "Albert Speer was the most sympathetic Nazi."
Iowa is liberal? Iowa City, certain parts of Des Moines, but, you know, we helped reelect Bush here. By the reckoning of Big Media, that officially made us a Red State.
The Times also has a story today detailing the collapse of John McCain's campaign. There are various factors--swallowing his rhetoric whole, The Times claims most of them are related to his "maverick" tendencies--but what this story doesn't mention is, he's running third in Iowa, behind Giuliani and the front-runner, Mitt Romney.
That's right, Mitt Romney.
So Iowa is a supposedly liberal state, but the slightly-more-moderate Republican candidates McCain and Giuliani are lagging behind Romney, whose social views are so far to the right they actually make Our Beloved President appear enlightened.
And as for Edwards, I have yet to hear him say or do anything marking him as anything other than a canny politician, an operator who will say exactly what he thinks the people listening want to hear.
But, hey, who am I to argue with The New York Times? They're never wrong.
