Edwards Speech

It's a good speech. What's more, Joe Trippi's desperate spin is actually sort of convincing:

"It's really a repudiation...of the Clinton campaign," Trippi just said on MSNBC, interpreting tonight's results.

"Clinton doesn't have a lot to talk about," Trippi continued, adding that the vote tonight showed that voters "don't want the status quo that the Clinton campaign represents."

Playing it straight, second place is second place and John Edwards is now the populist alternative to front-runner Barack Obama.

Comments

Clinton's speech should be interesting.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 3, 2008 10:26 PM

I said this downblog, but: Dude, don't swallow the bullshit position story. As far as delegates go this is a three-way tie. As far as percentages go it's a tie for second. Your commitment to honesty in reporting should make you reject a second/third place split based on whose corner of the room was better heated.

Posted by william | January 3, 2008 10:31 PM

"Playing it straight, second place is second place and John Edwards is now the populist alternative to front-runner Barack Obama."

Obama's gonna take NH.

Edwards has to beat Clinton in NH to really be the progressive alternative to Obama going forward.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 10:31 PM

John Edwards is the anti-Obama!

Posted by Mike | January 3, 2008 10:31 PM

I said this downblog, but: Dude, don't swallow the bullshit position story. As far as delegates go this is a three-way tie. As far as percentages go it's a tie for second. Your commitment to honesty in reporting should make you reject a second/third place split based on whose corner of the room was better heated.

Posted by william | January 3, 2008 10:32 PM

second place is second place and John Edwards is now the populist alternative to front-runner Barack Obama

37-29-29 looks like a 2-way tie for 2nd to me (but definitely a blowout for Obama). Arguing over less than half a percentage point is ridiculous.

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 10:33 PM

Sorry for the double-post. To clarify: if that .5% swapped from Edwards to Clinton, nothing about the delegate arithmetic -- nothing substantial -- should change. All that would change would be the media narrative, which is a construct and one that you've done valuable service being skeptical of in the past. You should steer clear of that kind of framing.

Andrew Sullivan, who isn't normally as good as you with quantitative stories, actually reported it exactly right: Obama is beating her by - at this point - around 8 percent. That's a much bigger win than most expected.

Posted by william | January 3, 2008 10:35 PM

"What's more, Joe Trippi's desperate spin is actually sort of convincing"

Fired up and ready to go.

I think Trippi has long understood that beating Clinton early was the core goal. Now he has to do it again next week.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 10:36 PM

I mean when in our nation's history did 1/2 of 1% of votes ever mean anything?

Posted by Rob | January 3, 2008 10:37 PM

It was a good speech, but no customary concession/congratulations to the winner. Bad sport.

Posted by mad6798j | January 3, 2008 10:38 PM

Did anyone else notice how Edwards refused to congratulate Barack Obama. Edwards is entitled to fight on with his campaign, but would it be too much to ask that he acknowledge the victory of his fellow Democrat.

Yes, Barack Obama was able to raise more money than Edwards. Does that make Obama a vessel of corporate greed? Of course not. After all, Obama has spent his life working on behalf of the disadvantaged when he could have easily cashed in as a corporate lawyer. No, Obama's ability to raise money shows that he has broad support across the country and would be able to win big in November.

Posted by Joe | January 3, 2008 10:41 PM

Absolutely. THAT is what sticked in my mind and I suspect that is what is going to strike a lot of people. Very ungraceful of his not to congratulate Obama. He doesn't even have to mean it !

Posted by Benjamin | January 3, 2008 10:42 PM

I really like David Axelrod. I liked him in 04 when he worked for Edwards and I like him this year working for Obama. Trippi I like, as I did Dean, but to a lesser extent, it's more of a respect for their skill.

Third place is still second loser. It's a big deal that Hillary didn't even finish second.

Posted by Just Karl | January 3, 2008 10:43 PM

wow we already have an infestation of concern trolls

Posted by Rob | January 3, 2008 10:44 PM

That was the tackiest speech I've ever seen. Not only did he not congratulate Obama, he sunk as low as to exploit his wife's cancer. When Hillary outclasses you, you got some real problems Edwards. Enjoy finishing third in your birth state, jackass.

If Dean's speech did him in because his voice cracked, Edwards deserves it in spades. You Edwards trolls should be thankful the press ignores him, when you see what kind of a man he is.

Posted by David B. | January 3, 2008 10:52 PM

Edwards has to beat Clinton in NH to really be the progressive alternative to Obama going forward.

The real problem with Edwards becoming that is that Edwards isn't actually more "progressive" than Obama.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 3, 2008 10:52 PM

Seriously Matt...I know you'd love to see Edwards win, but get a grip...great speech?

Edwards sounded angry and acted ungraciously. What he doesn't seem to get is that there are a whole lot of us out here that love his words in print, but are sick to death of all the brow beating partisanship.

I can't vote to continue the *fight*, the we -v- they mentality. We have very serious problems facing us and we need to start being Americans again while working together to get out of this mess.

I'm sick of all the anger. We need solutions not shouting.

And shame on JE for not congratulating the winner. He'd and his fans would be all over it if the tables were turned.

As much as I despise HRC, she completely outclassed JE tonight and still got her message across.

Posted by G Davis | January 3, 2008 11:02 PM

"I can't vote to continue the *fight*, the we -v- they mentality."

See, this is why the anti-Obama slot has some value. There's a majority among the Democratic electorate who do want to fight.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 11:13 PM

Actually, I think this shows Democrats want a leader, not a fighter.

Look, Edwards is toast. He's way in 3rd in NH and SC. The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler.

Face it, Petey, Iowa Democrats had four straight years to get to know Edwards, and in the end, their verdict was: meh.

Posted by Philly | January 3, 2008 11:25 PM

"Look, Edwards is toast. He's way in 3rd in NH and SC. The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler."

If he finishes way 3rd in NH, he will be toast.

But if he beats Clinton in NH, he's going to have an opportunity to create an alternative to Obama.

You don't win nominations by getting 38% in a multi-candidate field. You win nominations by getting 50%. And traditionally, wine-track / youth Dems have trouble getting there.

Nevada is going to be the first test where only Dems vote. And that'll be the place where Obama gets tested.

Obama's certainly in the catbird seat right now, but Edwards' window is still open a crack.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 11:35 PM

"I can't vote to continue the *fight*, the we -v- they mentality."

See, this is why the anti-Obama slot has some value. There's a majority among the Democratic electorate who do want to fight.

No fucking kidding. I am a huge fan of Obama's, but the idea that being angry is an inappropriate reaction to the last seven years is incomprehensible to me. And I really hope this isn't people's rationale for supporting him; he's got a lot more to offer than that anyway. I'd ride either of these horses a long, long way, but sooner or later, no matter who we nominate, we all need to face up to a fact: the Republicans will only stand around the campfire and sing with the Democrats for as long as it takes to get our guard down. Then they'll push us in the fire. Then they'll accuse us of crass negative politics when we suggest our injuries are the result of a concerted effort on their part.

Seriously, at which point in the last seven years did you see anything that made you believe we could have a warm, friendly political environment that would work out okay for liberals if only the Republicans liked our guy more? What have I been missing?

If you don't like partisan fighting, then you don't like politics. We can discuss how that fighting should sound and on what grounds the fight should be fought, but the fight itself is good and it is important and it won't matter who our nominee is: we'll need to fight! If Obama secures the nomination, you think the National Review is going to take it easy on him? Fox News? Or perhaps you think Obama's just so awesome that it won't matter what slanders they throw his way, he'll transcend them? No, sorry, doesn't work that way. If he beats back their mudslinging, it will be because he is strong enough to fight back. One way or another, I assure you, there will be a fight. I eagerly await it.

Posted by jhupp | January 3, 2008 11:42 PM

Not his finest moment. No congratulations for Obama. He sounded like he won... He did not, and he won't.

A bit classless, in full trial lawyer mode, no sense of recognition of the real circumstances of the vote, too cocky, preening and strutting.

Posted by larry | January 3, 2008 11:46 PM

I mean when in our nation's history did 1/2 of 1% of votes ever mean anything?

It was a tie for second place. No argument there. In context, however, it was a bad blow to Hillary. She might as well have come in third.

It's certainly not a win for Edwards, but "tied for second" is a lot better story for him than for Hillary.

Hillary's been running on electability, strength, experience -- a proven track record of winning the big time, with a proven team and resources behind her. Losing to Obama is tolerable and recoverable. Losing -- and "failing to beat" is losing in her position -- to Edwards isn't.

In short, Edwards has a place to go. Tying for second sure isn't coming in first, and Obama is very MUCH in the best place to be right now -- but Edwards doesn't even have to change his message. (In fact, he and his staff are probably hoping they can parlay this into far more media coverage OF his campaign, since previously the media was focused on a Clinton/Obama race and Edwards was often the oddly absent contender).

Clinton, though -- she has to retool her message a lot more. Her biggest strength evaporated when she failed to even beat Edwards.

I'd still put more money on her chances than Edwards, because she DOES have a good and experienced team. But tonight hurt her a lot more than it did Edwards.

Posted by Morat20 | January 3, 2008 11:50 PM

"She might as well have come in third."

She did come in third.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 11:56 PM

You don't win nominations by getting 38% in a multi-candidate field. You win nominations by getting 50%. And traditionally, wine-track / youth Dems have trouble getting there.

One step at a time. Obama will be getting 50+% soon enough.

Winning by 8 points is very substantial for what everyone was calling a photo finish. Remember the poll everyone was so derisive of? In the words of the Clinton and Edwards people, this is a result "at odds with history," "an unprecedented departure." I think it might be time to put away the idea that this will be a traditional election.

Posted by southpaw | January 3, 2008 11:59 PM

Apparently we're still waiting on 1 precinct.

Senator Barack Obama : 37.57%
Senator John Edwards : 29.76%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.46%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1780 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 11:59 PM

"You don't win nominations by getting 38% in a multi-candidate field. You win nominations by getting 50%. And traditionally, wine-track / youth Dems have trouble getting there."

Well, Petey, so do candidates who lose. And when has Edwards won? Not in this century, old boy.

Posted by Kyle | January 4, 2008 12:01 AM

"Apparently we're still waiting on 1 precinct."

Done. We're officially number two.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 12:10 AM

All done!

Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/

Woot! John Edwards ahead by 499 Delegate Equivalents???? This is a count?

Posted by El Cid | January 4, 2008 12:12 AM

"Winning by 8 points is very substantial"

No doubt. This is a very good night for Obama, and it puts him in the catbird seat. He's highly likely to win NH as well.

But it doesn't seal the nomination.

-----

"Remember the poll everyone was so derisive of?"

Yup. Selzer hit the margin almost perfectly.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 12:13 AM

Nevada is going to be the first test where only Dems vote. And that'll be the place where Obama gets tested.

Jesus Petey, didn't you just finish telling us how great the Iowa caucuses were because they gave your guy a huge advantage.

Posted by Jinchi | January 4, 2008 12:44 AM

"Jesus Petey, didn't you just finish telling us how great the Iowa caucuses were because they gave your guy a huge advantage."

No. I was telling you that the Iowa caucuses were great because they're good for the Party.

And I believe that today just as much as they did yesterday.

The caucuses forced the "inevitable" Senator Clinton into a third place finish. Sounds like they worked just fine to me.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 1:01 AM

Missed the beginning of his speech, but in the portion I watched (tuned in as he was giving some examples of victims of our 'sickest lose all' system of treating ill health in this country), Edwards came across as a man on a serious mission, with no time to lose.

Obama's speech was non-stop platitudes, delivered sideways to the camera as he read his teleprompter script and paused repeatedly for effect (I didn't hear him compliment his competitors or mention them in any way, so he apparently didn't play the gracious winner any more than Edwards the gracious loser).

Clinton came across as blase and casual, apparently in an effort to sound unwounded and 'above it all' by third place. She swiped a 'vital middle class' soundbite from Edwards for this speech, as I remember others underhandedly swiping Dean's successful messages in 2004.

What's beyond me is the lack of reference to our Constitution from these candidates (with three lawyers in the race, and given Obama's supposed credentials in that department). Especially now, heading in to "live free or die" New Hampshire with independents and disaffected voters very much to be mined in that primary. Our country didn't and doesn't derive any unique "greatness" from a few good runs of material wealth that put a chicken in every pot. Getting back to a more balanced distribution of income and a more humane policy of taxation and regulation, without a working Constitution, will mark us as a mollycoddled, selfish police state, not as an example to the world.

In fact, I doubt sincerely that, considering our trashed financial condition and warped federal priorities, at this point any such genuine, long-term equalization of income or opportunity will be possible without a return to the precepts of our Constitution - which place the will of the common people first. But such a return is unlikely to happen without the remedy John Edwards is offering, though I haven't heard him make that vital connection with the true uniqueness of our founding, liberty-protective, people-trusting national governing system - because a return to our Constitution and democratic Republic would require the removal of the grip that the corporate world has on our Congress, presidency, and "free press." Happy talk won't make it happen, or bring an unmentioned and ignored Constitution back.

To that extent, Edwards's focus and fervor tonight - conveyed in tone and pace more than in words - said "I mean business" in a way that the flowery, conventional political promises of Obama and Clinton did not. But Edwards needs to do some teaching about how self-government works, and how vital it is that we not pretend that we can depend on any one man to "save" us from what only we, working with our Congressional representatives and a good-faith president, can truly change and better, provided only that corporate cash ceases to be the controlling trump card of influence over the two "political" branches of our government and over the national media outlets that now take great pains to keep our sprawling populace uninformed about Washington.

"Corporate greed" isn't "working," indeed.

Posted by pow wow | January 4, 2008 1:22 AM

Petey:

"She might as well have come in third."

She did come in third

She might as well have come in a distant third or a solid third, given the context of Hillary's pitch and the media spin of a Clinton/Obama matchup.

I honestly wonder how the talking heads are going to work Edwards back into the equation? Probably dismiss it as a fluke and go back to pontificating about the Obama/Clinton match.

Posted by Morat20 | January 4, 2008 1:28 AM

"I honestly wonder how the talking heads are going to work Edwards back into the equation?"

He needs to beat Clinton again in NH.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 1:32 AM

I mean when in our nation's history did 1/2 of 1% of votes ever mean anything?

I assume you're being ironic, right Rob? I know kids are really getting into this Internet thing, but you surely can't be so young that you weren't around for the 2000 election ;)

Posted by Noah B | January 4, 2008 1:37 AM

I went into the day with Edwards as my second choice...but Edwards' speech was just horrific. A train wreck of negativity, pessimism, lecturing, hectoring, preening, just an awful mess.

Clinton seems to have realized something tonight: Democrats (and dem-leading indies) want hope. While her speech was bland and boring, at least it was positive.

Edwards should be lauded for pushing the candidates to the left, but his boorish negative speech seems to miss the point of populism. As is usual, he talked down to working class folks and told them they were too weak to change their own lives, and that he was the man who would fight for them. I don't know about you - but that message makes me want to jump out of a building. It's depressing. And frankly, America isn't really THAT freaking bad (economically). We have some problems...but my god, it's not like we're facing a depression here...

Posted by Paul | January 4, 2008 1:45 AM

The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler.

Nope. If Hillary finishes 3rd again, it's going to be hard to recover. Also, Obama probably wants Edwards to eat up some of the white vote in SC.

I have to believe that Obama's people were cheering for Edwards at the end of the night. Pushing Clinton down to 3rd -- even below the expectations her campaign was trying to set -- is a big deal.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 1:57 AM

The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler.

Nope. If Hillary finishes 3rd again, it's going to be hard to recover. Also, Obama probably wants Edwards to eat up some of the white vote in SC.

I have to believe that Obama's people were cheering for Edwards at the end of the night. Pushing Clinton down to 3rd -- even below the expectations her campaign was trying to set -- is a big deal.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 1:58 AM

The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler.

Nope. If Hillary finishes 3rd again, it's going to be hard to recover. Also, Obama probably wants Edwards to eat up some of the white vote in SC.

I have to believe that Obama's people were cheering for Edwards at the end of the night. Pushing Clinton down to 3rd -- even below the expectations her campaign was trying to set -- is a big deal.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 2:00 AM

The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler.

Nope. If Hillary finishes 3rd again, it's going to be hard to recover. Also, Obama probably wants Edwards to eat up some of the white vote in SC.

I have to believe that Obama's people were cheering for Edwards at the end of the night. Pushing Clinton down to 3rd -- even below the expectations her campaign was trying to set -- is a big deal.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 2:02 AM

The only crucial role he can play from here is as an Obama spoiler.

Nope. If Hillary finishes 3rd again, it's going to be hard to recover. Also, Obama probably wants Edwards to eat up some of the white vote in SC.

I have to believe that Obama's people were cheering for Edwards at the end of the night. Pushing Clinton down to 3rd -- even below the expectations her campaign was trying to set -- is a big deal.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 2:03 AM

Terribly sorry about that, guys. My internet isn't working right and it makes me do strange things.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 2:04 AM

I'll repeat myself here, cuz I think this might be interesting to others.

Entrance poll notes:

- This was a generational win. Obama got 57% of the under 30 vote. That's an astonishing figure. To put it into perspective, it means Obama came in third among over the entire over 30 electorate and still won the caucuses comfortably.

- Clinton won the rural vote. There was a quote a few days ago from Edwards' rural coordinator, Mudcat Saunders, about how Team Clinton's organization was incredibly formidable in rural areas. I guess he wasn't lying. Edwards won the suburban vote. Obama won the urban vote by a big margin.

- Edwards won those who decided between 7 and 4 days ago, but tied Obama for those who decided in the final 3 days, which mirrors what I'd been figuring.

- Edwards won those who'd caucused before, but Obama obviously swamped him on new caucus-goers. Mirrors the CW.

- Obama came in third among married voters, but cleaned up among singles.

- Edwards won the second choice vote easily, despite the Richardson deal.

- Clinton beat Obama almost 3 to 1 among senior citizens, another example of just how much of a generational election this was.

- Edwards came in first among conservative Dems and third among very liberal Dems, which indicates how identity politics trumped ideology for this electorate.

- The union vote was narrowly bunched, with Edwards third, which is amazing.

- Edwards won those most concerned about electability, which at least shows that this electorate wasn't completely clueless.

- There was only one question referencing foreign policy, but it seemed to indicate that the less you cared about foreign policy, the more likely you were to vote for Edwards.

On to New Hampshire and Nevada.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 3:11 AM

"Edwards came in first among conservative Dems and third among very liberal Dems, which indicates how identity politics trumped ideology for this electorate."

Not necessarily. Not everyone takes it as a given that Edwards is the most liberal of the candidates just because that's how he talks now. His record is considerably more conservative than both Clinton and Obama's.

Posted by mad6798j | January 4, 2008 3:22 AM

"Not everyone takes it as a given that Edwards is the most liberal of the candidates"

Obviously. The good Democrats of Iowa didn't take it as a given.

But high-information Dems do take it as a given, which is why Edwards has won pretty much every straw poll of Dem activists over the past year. Dem activists care about ideology. It's why the large bulk of lefty bloggers have been so sympathetic to Edwards. It's why the Obama-ites hate Paul Krugman.

In fact, the whole beauty of the Edwards campaign is that low-information voters don't see him as liberal, which is why someone as left as Edwards could be doing the best of anyone in either party in general election polls.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 3:34 AM

By straw poll of Dem activists, you mean online activists. There's a decent case that can be made that they are not representative of dem activists, even high information dem activists, as a whole.

My point is, I don't think he's actually as liberal as his rhetoric would indicate.

Posted by mad6798j | January 4, 2008 4:09 AM

"By straw poll of Dem activists, you mean online activists."

No. I simply mean straw polls of Dem activists. That includes both offline and online straw polls.

There were a host of state party conventions and the such over the past year, and Edwards won the straw polls at pretty much all of them.

"My point is, I don't think he's actually as liberal as his rhetoric would indicate."

And my point is that high-information Dems tend not to agree with you.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 4:42 AM

"It's a good speech."

It was a good speech, the first 20 times he gave it. Maybe you never get tired of the hearing the same formulaic, platitude filled, rhetorical set piece again and again, but frankly, he just sounds like a broken record to me. It's like he's the warm-up act for a candidate who never arrives.

Posted by JM Hanes | January 4, 2008 5:39 AM

Petey you are being very sane and cool about this. I tip my ObamaO8 knit hat to you. I do.

Posted by Phoebe | January 4, 2008 5:52 AM

"Petey you are being very sane and cool about this. I tip my ObamaO8 knit hat to you. I do."

And congrats to Obama and his supporters. It was a very big win.

But I wouldn't count the forces of good, in the form of Johnny Sunshine, or the forces of evil, in the form of the Clinton Death Star, out quite yet.

Obama's taken a big step, but he's going to have to keep winning throughout January if he wants to actually take the nomination.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 6:09 AM

One difficulty for Edwards if it comes down to JE v. Obama is avoiding winning via the "white vote", which will be quite large, particularly among the elderly.

Posted by otto | January 4, 2008 6:45 AM

- Edwards came in first among conservative Dems and third among very liberal Dems, which indicates how identity politics trumped ideology for this electorate.

Not necessarily. There is Edwards's record, after all.

- The union vote was narrowly bunched, with Edwards third, which is amazing.

You would be surprised how much more popular the Wal-Mart bashing style of politics is among white collar workers than blue collar workers. If you work in a factory for Giant Steel Company of Evil, you might not like them, but the politician bashing Giant Steel Company of Evil worries you more because you fear that he threatens your job and there is also an identity defensiveness at play, like how the average Chinese citizen might not like the government, but once you start bashing the Communist Party, Mao, etc. you end up running into a wall of reactionary nationalism.

- Edwards won those most concerned about electability, which at least shows that this electorate wasn't completely clueless.

That's also why John Kerry won in Iowa in 2004. That didn't exactly help.

- There was only one question referencing foreign policy, but it seemed to indicate that the less you cared about foreign policy, the more likely you were to vote for Edwards.

Considering foreign non-trade-related policy is where Edwards has been saying the best things, this is sad and also undercuts the electability argument because Iraq is still voters' top concern.

Posted by Reality Man | January 4, 2008 7:55 AM

Are you having fun yet, Reality Man?

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 7:59 AM

But high-information Dems do take it as a given

I am a high information Democrat, and I don't take it as a given. Edwards is a White Southerner. The white Democrats from that part of the country are the most conservative in the party. He voted for the Iraq War. His voting record in the Senate did not score with the most liberal members of the Senate. He was not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer.

I don't think Edwards' campaign planks are that liberal either. The liberal position on health care is single payer. The conservative position, taken by Mitt Romney and Ah-nold, is an indivdual mandate. Edwards is with the conservatives.

The liberal position on Iraq is to get all our troops out. It is taken by Richardson and Kucinich. Edwards rejects that position.

What Edwards has done is try to sound liberal. But that doesn't make him close to as liberal as a black former community organizer from Illinois who opposed the Iraq War. (And I say this understanding that Obama isn't as liberal as he should be either.)

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 4, 2008 3:14 PM