I think you two make a nice couple.
[rolls eyes]
Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 02:43 PMTrippi presenting Edwards with an orange suicide vest to carry his attack talking points in did raise some eyebrows.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 7, 2007 02:53 PMI think Trippi is another 'consultant' whom has a toolbox of exactly one tool. And he now has Edwards using that one tool to his own campaign's detriment. If Edwards is in trouble, it's his overall media strategy and relations with the press. His coverage in Iowa has been steadily getting worse as more candidates have been competing for press favor. I think Trippi is simply unable to drive a media narrative that doesn't have himself, his candidate attacking, or the novelty of the Internet at it's heart.
That Trippi is actually there to sandbag Clinton for a 3rd campaign? Please. Snark has you pegged right.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 7, 2007 03:09 PMWell, Edwards & Team would have had to approve the (secret) Trippi "Destroy Edwards" strategy, wouldn't he?
It's more likely this "theory" is an attempt to sow disagreement and distrust within the Edwards campaign.
Posted by euzoius at November 7, 2007 03:12 PMJeff, I have to agree with the others. Conspiracy theories are fun, but rarely do they pan out. Grain o' salt never hurt anyone!
The Dem consultants are in it for their own edification (oh, and the moolah), and being as they've been losers for several election cycles, I have no idea why they keep getting hired.
Good to see you, idio, hanx for the Iowa input, as always!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 03:23 PMHuh. No buyers. Tough crowd, there's like 200 comments over at Kos. I'm confused, though, snark & idio, who am I coupled with, Alegre? :)
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 7, 2007 04:07 PMYeah, me and Alegre, I get it now.
Grain o' salt, Coyote? That's no fun!
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 7, 2007 04:26 PMlove the idea.
alas i suspect they hired trippi because they are way behind HRC in polling and message-delivery, and wanted to go on the offensive, but having said that, i love a good conspiracy theory on a wednesday evening.
Ya goof, Jeff! Not that I don't like some good gossip, but I'd rather it be about interesting people. Myself, I view political consultants as being even lower life forms than media pundits. Shrum explained to Jon Stewart that being a consultant nowadays isn't contingent on whether you're a true believer of the candidate, though, he said, sometimes it happened. These days it's about who pays your salary. And they get paid a lot of money to be wrong a lot of the time, too. Like the media pundits. Both of their jobs are all about stretching and shaping the truth into truthiness. It's like advertising to me. Just...ew.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 04:58 PMI think you give way too much significance to consultants--period. Trippi and Axelrod friends? Look at Carville and Matalin for Christ-sake! Is Carville sabotaging Hillary at Matalin's instruction?
I think Trippi got on board Edwards wagon when he decided to lean heavily in the internet and that is about it. I suspect most of his strategic advice comes from Bonior, but I don't know of course.
Posted by gtash at November 7, 2007 05:37 PMMan, I wish we were that sneaky.
Posted by Daniel Krause at November 7, 2007 06:04 PMJeff:
Close but you missed an important point. Trippi is doing it for Kos, Bowers, Stoller etc..and that gang, not just Obama. Kos predicted that Obama would win big if he entered the race but Obama has not been able to run past Mrs Clinton so enter Trippi. Don't forget Trippi and Dean gave huge sum of money to Kos, Bowers etc and they did the bidding for Dean quietly w/o telling their readers. There is nothing more important to those degusting bloggers than taking down a DLC candidate like Mrs Clinton. They thought they could sabatage John Kerry's campaign but they failed. So this is their second attempt to derail another DLC Democrat.
That's my 4 cents and I believe it.
Posted by john at November 7, 2007 06:55 PMI disagree. Edwards has been much more gentle than any republcian...and he cerainly hasn't made up the BIG LIES that they do...
like the "i invented the internet" claim about Gore or that
Kerry didn't deserve his Purple Heart.
Everything Edwards has said has been true.
Posted by LizDexic at November 7, 2007 06:59 PMI'm with ya, Coyote.
And John, WOW, is THAT a depressing thought. I'd never heard that before. Is that true? Bloggers for sale?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 7, 2007 07:08 PMI don't think conventional wisdom about Iowa and negative campaigning applies to this race...
I think Edward's tactics of going after Hillary is just. Mr. Edwards is running the campaign people SHOULD respond to given current events and our recent political history. He is putting it all out on the line, and I respect the shit out of him.
And, yes, Edwards is going after Hillary, but in a classy, issue-based and factual manner.
Edwards = sure candidate to win vs. GOP.
Hillary = sure candidate to crash and burn
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 7, 2007 07:09 PMbut, yeah, if obama and edwards were smart, they'd meet together and work out a gentalmen's agreement that one is going to bail out, donate their resources to the other and give their endorsement in exchange for ensuring a slot on the ticket.
i would much, much, much rather an obama / edwards or an edwards / obama ticket over any ticket with hillary anywhere on it.
she is the worst pandering political out there. the united states and the democratic party deserves better.
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 7, 2007 07:13 PMhttp://www.slate.com/id/2112314
""On Dean's campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients,"
Kos and his gang never did reveal it til the election was over.
Posted by john at November 7, 2007 07:18 PMEdwards = sure candidate to win vs. GOP.
Truer words have never been spoken!
The GOP are scared to death of Edwards getting the nomination. A southern, white, christian, male.
Edwards/Obama would be a dynamic ticket. 2 (relatively) newbies running things. And yes, America is ready for a minority to be V/P, just not President.
I remember the exact moment when Hillary lost my vote forever:
2 days before last years general election she ran an TV ad around the issue of video game violence and sex...
What a fucking joke....
Are you kidding me? This is what you do with your AIPAC money??? Run this garbage?
Videogame violence ads = pandering to twit soccer moms and a disgrace to our democracy.
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 7, 2007 07:43 PMJeff, john's pulling your leg. Markos always disclosed his affiliations. It's an old smear and easy to look up.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 07:47 PMiamcoyote:
Kos took money from Dean and Trippi ? Check
Kos predicted Obama would win big ? Check
Do I need to go on?
Posted by john at November 7, 2007 07:50 PMThis is the first time I'm seeing someone who decided Hillary never deserved a vote ever again because of her support for Bills that would make it more difficult to peddle violent video games to children. Quite fascinating. When the house is burning to the ground, we are complaining that the fireman has a poorly shaped hose.
Anyway, Jeff, Edwards is too smart for this and I definitely am uncomfortable with suicide bomber analogies here.
Posted by eriposte at November 7, 2007 07:56 PMIts a little early to be fixing blame for why the Dems lost the White House, no?
Seems those drug tainted toys have had an effect around here tonight.
Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 07:57 PMI don't understand why anyone would support Hillary and actually think she has a chance of beating ANY republican in a general election.
In case you didn't pay attention, Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a progressive trailblazer. He was a "moderate," which is an interchangeable term from pandering politician who lets opinion polls dictate his policy proposals and positions.
And, in case you haven't noticed, about, hummm, a solid 47% of the country despises Hillary Clinton and would rather stab their first born in the chest than vote for her to be president.
So the question is why and how do so many people insist on supporting a candidate that represents the status quo to the fullest AND has no chance to win a general election.
It is very, very perplexing.
The Democratic Party is going to nominate the worst possiable candidate two presidential cycles in a row.
Why?
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 7, 2007 08:08 PMYou motherfuckers are on crack. Edwards has a killer instinct, moreso than the others in this race.
He could give a shit about what happens to other campaigns.
Posted by RAM at November 7, 2007 08:11 PMAnd just so you all know, I will take zero satisfaction in saying, "I told you so" the day after next year's election when Hillary concedes to president-elect Giuliani.
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 7, 2007 08:14 PMOne last thing before I burst a blood vessel...
Say what you want about Bush, but at least he ran on his own terms and managed to win two elections by the skin of his teeth on a radical right-wing platform.
At least he didn't cower and say nothing about anything.
At least after he won, he remembered the radical nut-jobs who elected him and did not run back to the center like a little pandering ass puppet like some other former presidents with the initials BC.
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 7, 2007 08:17 PMRAM, you're right about Edwards' having the killer instinct. I never gave it much thought until I read your comment. Thinking back on his career I'd say... yes, absolutely. And it's just what we need.
Posted by gabi at November 7, 2007 10:23 PMMy fear is that there are people who hate Bill and Hillary as much as some of us hate Bush. To them, Hillary being President and Bill being First Man is intolerable. If Hillary is the nomination for the Democrats, you will see the biggest voter turnout by the GOP to ensure she isn't elected. To them, it isn't Hillary returning to the WH, it is Bill Clinton.
Posted by Judith at November 8, 2007 12:42 AMOops, off topic.
Posted by Judith at November 8, 2007 05:04 AMI'm wondering the same thing Robert Giuffre is wondering.
Anywya, John is slightly misrepresenting exactly what Kos has disclosed or not disclosed. He did disclose that he was a Democratic candidates' "consultant" and was taking cash for it. He did not always reveal who those clients were until after the fact. However, I always thought it smelled funny, too. It's one thing to run what is basically a Web site specializing in advocacy journalism. It's quite another when you don't disclose who exactly you're taking cash from and when exactly you took it as you continue to advocate. I don't think it's out-of-bounds to question how ethical such a situation is. Kos is free to do what he wants and I appreciate his site, but people should keep their blinders off about it. John's also somewhat right about this:
"There is nothing more important to those (sic) degusting bloggers than taking down a DLC candidate like Mrs Clinton."
I agree, although I don't think they're disgusting, and I agree with the Kossacks that the DLC sucks.
The rest, it's paranoia to think Edwards is allowing himself to be used by Obama.
Posted by Brian Bell at November 8, 2007 07:12 AMWhoops. At the start of the 2nd paragraph, that should be, "Anyway," NOT "Anywya."
Posted by Brian Bell at November 8, 2007 07:13 AMI'm a little uncomfortable with Robert's "stabbing your first born in the chest" analogy.
You call THIS a conspiracy theory? This is like "I think my neighbor stole my remote to fuck with me" level.
I'll give you a theory. Edwards? Obama? They actually think they have a chance of winning. In reality, the guy behind the guy has had Hillary pegged as the 2008 President for at least 20 years. We're facing a 30+ year dynasty consisting solely of two crime families with interconnecting bloodlines.
The rest of this is a puppet show put on for your distraction while the inevitable slowly becomes reality. 47% of the country could actually show up and vote against Hillary -- hell, 87% could. She'd still win.
You guys don't really think our votes are counted, do you?
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, with the same Bilderberg cabal behind the scenes moving the global agenda forward.
THERE'S a conspiracy theory.
This stuff? Man, you all up in the Kool-Aid but you do not know the flava.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 8, 2007 07:58 AMYou white folks and media are not only American bigots but are absolutely sick. Anything to discredit Obama and/or not give credit where credit is due. Check it out: Edwards has been screaming angrily ever since his sequel to the white house, dragging along his wife to do part of it for him, remember? He has also been capitalizing on her illness from the beginning. Obama has been the one with raising the most money, having the most donors, has been steady with his message, having the largest crowds anywhere, and still has the most following, yet, all YOUS want to say is that there is this sick 'theory'. There's a theory all right, the theory is that you refuse to accept Obama, the person, the candidate, his attraction. He never should've been lumped with Edwards in the first place, and it is only done to try to diminish Obama. Wake up America, Media, get off your bigoted train because if you stay on it, it's bound to run you right over as Obama goes full speed right on to the white house!
Posted by RuthieM at November 8, 2007 08:26 AMYou white folks
Ahem, Ruthie? Your attempt to start up some kinda racist shit's rather cartoonish, don't you think? And maybe you missed it, but nobody's buying this silly conspiracy theory anyhow. Not that some people aren't susceptible to CTs per se (see MV).
In any case, this whole thread's highly amusing! The only thing missing is the kitchen sink at this point.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 8, 2007 09:12 AMThis is how I see it:
The democrats have a really good oppertunity to win the white house in 2008. They could run a really progressive candiate and WIN for the first time in like 40 years....
Hillary Clinton takes an unloseable election for the democrats and makes it very iffy. She just does. She is, argueably, the most hated woman in the entire country. Maybe the most hated person, behind president Bush. But Clinton is a lot more hated than Bush was 8 years ago. The republicans will have massive turnout if Hillary Clinton is running for president. MASSIVE.
I think ANY of the other candidates, besides maybe Obama, give the party a lot better chance of taking back the White House, but the difference between Obama and Clinton is that at least Obama would be worth it.
Why should the democrats take such a risk for Hillary Clinton? She was Bill Clinton's number one advisor, yes, but let's not forget that Clinton wasn't really that good of a president in terms of delivering on progressive ideals at all. So, if you think about it, Hillary Clinton is the best choice for the Republicans. First she is the most beatable. Second, even if she wins, she will be very moderate to the point of agreeing with Republicans more than the far-left on a lot of issues.
Bottomline:
The democrats could get someone a lot better and not take such a risk of losing the general election. Why should they take a risk on a cadidate that isn't going to deliver on most of the progressive agenda?
Posted by Robert Giuffre at November 8, 2007 10:12 AMRobert Giuffre: "Say what you want about Bush, but at least he ran on his own terms and managed to win two elections by the skin of his teeth on a radical right-wing platform."
well, there was that bit about "compassionate conservatism"
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 8, 2007 10:17 AMMaybe Trippi was a mole for Edwards back in '04, foiling Dean's run, and now is showing his true colors as part of Edwards campaign...
Posted by KD at November 8, 2007 11:04 AMI haven't heard Tom Delay's name associated with any of this.
That can only mean one thing.
Delay is masterminding the whole project!
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 11:07 AMAnd Ruthie, I have to agree w/ Coyote (as much as that chaps my ass!) When Obama loses the nomination, it won't be because he's black. It'll be because he's green. He's not ready.
Well, that plus the whole thing's rigged anyway. 8)
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 8, 2007 11:11 AMTo continue and slightly alter the theory:
As Edwards keeps dropping in the polls and realizes he doesn't stand much chance of winning in Iowa, maybe Edwards will convince his caucus-goers to go with Obama, and then endorse him to put him over the top in New Hampshire and the following states. It's a surefire way to beat Hillary.
If the theory is true, maybe Trippi will convince him to do so. I sure hope he does.
Coyote, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 8, 2007 11:25 AMI have to agree w/ Coyote (as much as that chaps my ass!)
You can't tell me you didn't enjoy it, honey!
*smirk*
Posted by iamcoyote at November 8, 2007 11:26 AMLMAO. Funny, funny, funny. Well stranger things have happened. If it is a sabotage kamikaze style campaign then Elizabeth Edwards is certainly one of the captains, leading a doomed charged directly into the cannons.
Look, this is Edwards last real chance to run for president for several years. I think that is why he's gotten fierce and feistier. He unwisely gave up his Senate seat to run on the VP ticket (if only Lieberman had done the same) and has no real base anywhere. They guy has been a roving presidential campaign since 2003. Have pity on the roving nomad. He is a glint of media light, a wisp of sandy blond shampoo, a smudge or halogen-lamp warmed brylcreme. A cutey pie.
I know he wants to be taken seriously and he probably thought he had an angle: being the only white male in the top tier. That's the main reason I think Joe Trippi went with the Barbazon boy. He didn't like Hillary and thought the overwhelmingly white early primary states would never consider a Black man or a woman seriously. He gambled and, so far, the gamble isn't paying off.
Posted by Aurin at November 8, 2007 11:27 AMUgh. I can't wait until Edwards drops out so I can stop hearing about how great he is. The only difference between Hillary and Edwards is one of them is presidential and the other is Edwards.
I find this whole process painful. A year!! It's like watching American Idol and you know who's gonna be in the top three, but you gotta wait week after week while the losers are slowly eliminated. I saw an Edwards08 bumper sticker the other day and found myself shouting, "WHY???"
Speaking of painful...
You can't tell me you didn't enjoy it, honey!
Okay, I did. A little. I thought calling her "racist shit" "cartoonish" was pretty brilliant. Kudos. Reluctant kudos. 8)
The fact of the matter is that as long as Edwards and Obama are splitting the anti-Hillary vote, Hillary is cruising to the nomination. Her greatest danger is if one of them becomes the sole major alternative to her, because more Democrats oppose her than support her, especially in Iowa. Edwards really has no choice but to go tough, because the status quo wasn't working, and it's his only chance to shake up the field. More power to him. Regardless of whether he's doing it to help himself, or if he's intentionally falling on his sword to block Hillary, he's doing the right thing.
Posted by David at November 8, 2007 12:14 PM...John Edwards is attacking Hillary Clinton harder than any Republican would...
Starting with a false premise leads to a bad conspiracy theory. John Edwards is attacking Hillary Clinton harder than any Republican would?
Did he, or you, really say that? Edwards is "attacking"? More like mild criticism. Think back to the Swift Boat assault on John Kerry within hours of his nomination in 2004. That's how Republicans attack.
Posted by Pug at November 8, 2007 01:32 PMkudos
*preening*
Glad you liked it, sorry it was painful.
Her greatest danger is if one of them becomes the sole major alternative to her,
I've heard this discussed before, and you're right, David. But I don't think either men will give up the fight. I feel bad for Edwards; I like him. But the media's relegated him to the haircut gossip section, and the only way to get back on the map is to go into attack mode. It doesn't look good on him, really.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 8, 2007 01:33 PMNice going, Ruthie. "You white folks . . .?" That's nice.
It will really help your cause, too. Kind of like when Ross Perot spoke at the NCAA convention about "you people". It made him a smashing success with black voters. "You white folks" could do the same for Obama with white voters.
Posted by Pug at November 8, 2007 01:40 PM...and in the meanwhile you're thinking from the left side of your brain. LOL
Posted by ftroit at November 8, 2007 01:42 PM...NCAA convention...
NAACP maybe?
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 01:44 PMEdwards is a plaintiff's lawyer, and a very good one. That requires two skills: (1) he can read a jury, and (2) he can make a case that would make a jury want to award millions. So, Edwards must be astute at discerning the intent or motives of someone he hires, just as he is when he selects or rejects a potential member of the jury. And, Edwards must be perceptive to the ear of the voter, as he is when presenting his closing arguments to a jury. Finally, Edwards knows that he is not going to overtake Clinton and Obama in Iowa, New Hamshire or South Carolina using the restrained approach that has him polling in third and trending nowhere.
Hence, I don't think Trippi is pulling Edwards' strings and pushing him to be more aggressive. Edwards has adopted this strategy with a full apreciation of his situation, and is more likely angling to be Obama's running mate, or attorney general.
Posted by fcadmus at November 8, 2007 01:56 PMand in the meanwhile you're thinking from the left side of your brain. LOL
Can anyone tell me who this person is talking to and what this means? Is it secret code or something?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 8, 2007 02:16 PMThe most hated politician in the country?
We could have said the same of FDR at the time
or Eleanor or Lincoln in his time.
The most hated politician in the country?
We could have said the same of FDR at the time
or Eleanor or Lincoln in his time.
Aurin: "He [Edwards] is a glint of media light, a wisp of sandy blond shampoo, a smudge or halogen-lamp warmed brylcreme. A cutey pie."
wow, talk about using Republican talking points
"I saw an Edwards08 bumper sticker the other day and found myself shouting, "WHY???""
well MaskedVigilante, I think a lot of people feel the same way about Hillary and Obama
Posted by gay veteran at November 9, 2007 01:24 PM