Oh, that will work

I admit, I know more about Iowa than New Hampshire, having grown up in the Midwest and lived in this state for *sigh* more than twenty years (over the length not the location).

However, what Marc Ambinder describes as Clinton's strategy in that state strikes me as a sure loser. Among the categories are...

3. Find some way to go negative against Obama. Some Clinton advisers and aides say that the campaign have a storehouse of opposition research -- old and new -- that they'll use against Obama. In Iowa, being directly associated with negative attacks is seen as uncouth and un-Midwestern; in New Hampshire, rude remarks as as welcome as questions and answers.

This rings as vastly overstated to me. I really can't believe that New Hampshirites are that much more accepting of going negative than Iowans. The "Union-Leader" is a Republican editorial page, not a Democratic one.

4. Claim that Clinton never had a shot in Iowa because of the state's historical bias against women (it's only one of two to never have elected a woman as governor or member of Congress); that Edwards had cornered the Democratic vote and that Obama ran against the Democratic party and cornered the Democratic leading independents; that for a New Yorker to receive 25 percent of the vote or her is impressive (although.. I distinctly remember an HRC mailing calling her a Midwesterner).

Oh, c'mon! How many African-Americans has Iowa voted for if you're going on that score? Though, neither party has successfully elected a female to one of those offices, it has a lot to do with the fact that it is hard for incumbents to lose here. The State Democratic Party has twice in recent years nominated women to run for Governor. They won the primary for those positions. This is a pathetic canard. And one that we'll remember here if she's the nominee, it is a gratuitous slam of the state.