The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Edwards supports working Americans and bolstering the middle class -- even ignorant turds who make inane comments.

This is the worst thing that the fascist running corporate American could have happen. Edward will work toward taking care of working Americans instead of handing out corporate welfare.

Calling him "more of a woman than Hillary," is a way of showing your 72 IQ. On the other hand, when/if he's elected, he will support the mentally disabled as well. Oh, but that's right... I forgot the Neocons only support their team. Try Googling BushZombie or UsefulIdiots.com.

Lets go back to the beginning with this one. Michael Shear (WaPo reporter) wrote
""Rove is attacking Hillary Clinton because he doesn't want John Edwards to win the Democratic nomination," Trippi writes in the publicly released memo to interested parties. "Rove and the Republicans want our opponents to win --because they know John will be the strongest candidate in the general election.""

Edwards supporters seem to buy into this line of thinking, that Rove attacking Clinton means Rove wants Clinton to win. Lest assume that's accurate.

Why does that mean he's afraid of Edwards?

How do you know he's not afraid of Obama? Or Richardson? Or Kucinich? Or Biden?

How can you logically single out Edwards as the candidate who is most feared by the GOP? It makes no rational sense.

Your better strategy is to promote your preferred candidate on his (or her) merits, not try to boost them based on such a leap of (il)logic.

The Edwards' campaign sounds desperate if they're trying to engage Karl Rove.

Why pay the guy any attention at all?

Edwards, like HC, is the past. America doesn't need or want a replay of 2000 or 2004.

The Dems effed-up and Trippi was one of the players.

Sorry, Joe. You've got about as much credibility as Cheney/Bush on this one.

a dem and his boogeyman(rove) are never parted or so it seems.

I'm a Democrat and I want to raise the following question. If John Edwards in 2004 could not win his own state of North Carolina for John Kerry, how can he win not only the Democratic nomination but the presidency in 2008?

I agree that the rovian neo-cons are afraid of John Edwards. They are ALL ABOUT managing the media. It's also likely that the reason republican or fake independents nay say all this as some of the first posters is because they are trying to manage the net dialog too.

aray79777, tell it to Karl Rove.

Apparently, you don't understand how the Republicans think, or realize that the Republicans are a much more well-tooled operation than the Democrats are.

Now, I don't have any details, but it's safe to assume that the Republican strategists have done extensive research on how appealing the Democratic candidates, and which ones would be the easiest to defeat.

Just look at the corporate-owned media, where you have the head of Viacom (CBS) who is a Democrat saying that he hopes the Republicans win in 2008 because it would be better for "VIACOM." Just based on that alone coming from a self-proclaimed Democrat, it's safe to assume that the media ownership is on the Republicans side.

This is why the media always does one of two things with the polls.

They always either talk about the Democratic Preference Polls, where they show how many DEMOCRATS support Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Or they talk about how Clinton and Obama match-up against Republicans.

They NEEEVVVVERRRRR show John Edwards matched up against the Republicans, unless it's one of those "FEW" polls where it shows Obama or Clinton "APPEARING" to do better, even though if you take the average of each candidate matched up against the GOP, John Edwards still "out-electables" them against the GOP field.

In summary, they stress the Clinton, Obama, Edwards preference positions, but they never play up the "John Edwards has been out-polling Clinton and Obama against Republicans all year" angle.

You must be kidding yourself if you think they are even remotely worried about Hillary "Aphrodisiac-for-Disgruntled-Republican-Voters" Clinton or Barack "Voters-will-vote-against-him-and-use-experience-as-an-excuse" Obama.

I respect Joe Trippi as a very capable political advisor and also as a fellow Tabbot Countian, but his contention that Karl Rove fears John Edwards is about as far out on a credibility branch that one could imagine. Joe is just trying to pump some life into an obviously dead candidate, but I have to give him an A+ for trying.

So, is Michael D. Shear one of those Clinton stooges in the "meme-stream media" that act as surrogates for the Clintons, so that they don't have to appear to be getting their hands dirty?

I had a typo earlier.

I meant to say, "They more than welcome running against Hillary Clinton, in a year that Republican voters would rather stay home or cross the aisle and try out the Democratic nominee, because they know that Clinton is the only thing that will make many of them turn out to vote against the DEMOCRATS."

It's hard to think straight at times when you are looking over your shoulder at work while trying to type as much as I just did.

I get sick of mistakes like that, when there is no EDITING function.

I for one think that Trippi is right on the money. Rove and the Democrats want HRC to win. They know that they can beat her - Rove even said it himself. HRC cannot win. She will lose to the G-man. She will lose to the Mormon. She will lose to an undisclosed repusblican. Rove knew he would get a lot of press by saying that for 2 reasons. 1. It will give HRC more publicity altough it is hard to imagine a caidate getting more air time than her. #2 and more importanly - Rove was relishing his role as the boogeyman or white whale. If he mentions her, all the deomcrats will automatically vote for because 1. they will want to prove him wrong 2. they will do the opposite of what Rove says...

Edwards is by far the superior canidate. He focuses on domestic issues. He was first to unveil his Universal Healthcare. HE talks about jobs and unions for middle America. The problem is that, as his wife has said, he can't get any air time b/c he is white male. The press is so enamored at the idea of having a black or woman as president they foucs on those canidates almost exclusively. Rove doesn't want to give Edards any play on the media. If he said something about Edwards it would have given Edwards so much exposure. Edwards beats every republican candidate in a general election. So Rove doens't want to give Edwards any exposure - instead he focus on Hilliary because he can beat her.

bsimon,
Unfortunately the average American voter can be very ill informed around the dance of politics, they rely on what the media tells them,and somehow believe is is Gospel, couple that with a biased media intentionally steering the focus to serve it's own agenda and hence the public's focus, well ya got a problem! By the way paranoid delusion is a problem if the issue is delusional. However in this case, any paranoia evidenced around Roves political machinations are based on past observable actions, hence not delusional. A 'reaction formation' so to speak.

By the way, I think you confuse 'desperate' with 'frustrated'.

Wow, if these comments here are representative of most Americans, then our country must have an IQ of around 65.

First of all, of course the Republicans fear John Edwards, just like they did in 2004, as I was saying back in 2004, and being banned from site after site, for saying exactly the same things about John Kerry and Howard Dean that I'm now saying about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I was right then, and I'm right now.

I said last time they were not worried about running against Kerry, and they thought Dean was easier to beat than Kerry. Well, they've since said both.

This time, I'm saying the same thing. They more than welcome running against Hillary Clinton, in a year that Republican voters would rather stay home or cross the aisle and try out the Democratic nominee, because they know that Clinton is the only thing that will make many of them turn out to vote against the Republicans. With Clinton being so polarizing, even if she did squeak into the White House, she'd lose the Senate and the House to the Republicans in the process, just like the Republicans took over Congress during the Clinton years in the 1990s. She claims that she knows how to "beat the Republicans," but I guess she doesn't factor in Congressional races.

As for Obama, since only TWO STATES have ever elected black candidates to the Senate, meaning a "federal statewide office," and the Presidential candidates would have to win "states" just like a Senatorial candidate does, the GOP know for a fact that this country isn't going to elect Obama President in 2008. Heck, even the establishment Democrats, like Dodd, Biden, and Clinton are using the forth-coming GOP talking point of "not enough experience" against Obama. The truth is, still in this country, a black person has to work twice as hard to prove himself, and those are standards Barack Obama would never be able to meet to the electorate in 2008. They will use "inexperience" as the excuse to vote against him, which is why those Democrats are using it against him now.

As for Bill Richardson. He has less of a chance of winning a General Election than Mike Gravel does. Richardson is hipanic, you know? I'm tired of hearing Democrats calling in to C-Span saying the Democratic Party is weak on illegal immigration, and they may vote Republican because of it. If you want the Democrats to lose everything in 2008, nominate Bill Richardson and listen to him for 8 months defending himself against Republican lies that he has "secret deals with the Mexican government" to make it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the border.

Now, on to John Edwards. The Republicans fear John Edwards because they fear the message and his profession. His positions are mainstream, as polls have shown, e.g., with most Americans say they wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for universal health care. Also, there is nothing that corporate lobbyists -- like those who wrote the drug bill and energy policy that resulted in higher medical costs and gas prices -- hate more than a "trial lawyer." The trial lawyer to the corporate crony is like the mongoose to the cobra. Joe Republican in the heartland may hate Hillary Clinton, but the Republican elites that control his party from the top down, despise John Edwards more than the thought of dying.

With all of these Senate Republicans, like 20 or so, up for re-election in 2008, John Edwards, unlike Hillary Clinton, has the potential to help Democrats pick up enough seats in the Senate to have a filibuster proof Senate. At the top of the ticket, he can help Democrats throughout the country, win Senate seats in so-called Red States. With polarizing Hillary, they lose seats. Since he's strong enough to help them pick up seats in the Senate, it's a given that he would help them pick up even more seats in the House, but aside from winning the White House, a filibuster proof Senate is the main thing standing between the Democrats and undoing all of the damage that Bush has done.

With a filibuster proof Senate, the GOP wouldn't really be able to block anything the Democrats bring to the floor.

When matched up against Republicans, John Edwards tends to show greater "electability" than Clinton and Obama do, in most polls.

As for the fabricated fake scandals, like the expensive haircuts -- TYPICAL MEDIA PRODUCTION EXPENSES in this day and age, which is why the media have said nothing about Hillary Clinton's $6,000 hair and make up "session" or Mitt Romney's $300 make-up job; the big house -- GOLD-STAR RATED by the Department of Energy for energy efficiency; the personal fortune -- MOST Presidents in the history fo this country have been wealthier than the rest of us and lived in bigger houses than we do; $50,000 speech -- Bill Clinton and Giuliani were getting paid 10 times as much to give multiple speeches by colleges and private groups; time at Fortress Investments -- 1) FDR was a freaking banker before he became President and look at what he did for Americans during after the conservative Great Depression, 2) all Presidential candidates with investments tend to have some that end up looking suspect even if the candidate did not know everything that the firm was engaging in, and 3) which Democrats running have had more questionable business deals than the Clintons have had? Do any of you remember the 1990s?

With John Edwards, the candidate who scares the Republican "PARTY," Democrats would win big, with is what they need to avoid the shenanigans that surrounded the close elections of 2000 and 2004, and by winning big, they will pick up house seats and end up with a filibuster proof Senate, which is the single, greatest step to undoing the mess that Bush has made.

asher13 writes
"Understanding an enemy's underlying motives is instrumental in beating them.Study Rove's M.O. and it is clear what he is up to. Never for a moment think he is out of Washington. He is now focused entirely on the 08 campaign."

I don't dispute any of that. I am criticizing the acknowledgment of him. Certainly it is important to pay attention to what the opposition is doing; but publicizing the opposition & trying to drum up votes by claiming Rove fears your guy comes across as paranoid delusion. Perhaps Dem primary voters will buy this argument. I find it ludicrous; frankly it comes across as a bit desperate.

To reiterate the point: The Democratic party needs to define itself, its priorities & its agenda. Find a candidate that fits these criteria. Then run on principle. The 2000 and 2004 elections went the way they did precisely because the Democratic nominees didn't follow that kind of plan.

It is funny how the Democrats are so obsessed with Karl Rove as if he is the devil they need to fear or attack.

In defense of the author of this blog, he wrote:

"This is not as crazy as it might seem. As Trippi notes in his email to supporters, the Bush team all-but admitted doing just this four years ago. He quotes Matthew Dowd, Bush's political strategist, as saying: "Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds. So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards."

Did the Trippi who wrote above read that before slamming blogger Michael Shear? All that said, I think John Edwards has his heart and ideas in the right place and is one of the best candidates to come along in a long time. I really hope he can convince the rest of his party of that.

It is funny to read all these comments. People forget that Hillary won the New York Senate seat with all the Republicans saying the same things they say about her now. Her high negatives, her polarizing personality, etc. Not only did she win in NYC a Democratic stronghold she won in Republican upstate and won even bigger in her re-election across the state.

People forget she was ahead in the polls against Guiliani when he dropped out ostensibly becuase of prostate cancer surgery. Kerry had the same surgery and ran for President. Guiliani didn't find it a problem to represent every sleazy country that came to him and paid him after his surgery. He dropped out because Hillary was going to beat him and she would trounce him again in NY State.

Let's stop the nonsense and begin to realize that the Republicans do really fear Hillary as the candidate because she will beat them. Edwards couldn't even help to win his own state in 2004, so much for him, and as for Obama who now gives the 30% solution and claims he can bring out much higher voter numbers, well I don't think anyone saw any of that in his Illinois campaigns. It's a dream that won't happen.

Hillary will win with the women's vote and even Republican women. Just listen to the woman from the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention who says she is 80 and wants to see a woman President in her lifetime. And my friend's mother who has never voted for a Democrat in her life but will vote for Hillary for the same reason. Yes the Republicans fear her and they have good reason to do so.

But America will be the winner when Hillary wins. So Joe Trippi might as well get used to it and John Edwards who has to pull his campaign out of Nevada because he knows he is losing there and seeing his lead evaporate in Iowa as well, shouldn't let his consultants make up the kind of scenarios that Trippi is making up in his name. It just makes Edwards look desparate.

bsimon,
Understanding an enemy's underlying motives is instrumental in beating them.Study Rove's M.O. and it is clear what he is up to. Never for a moment think he is out of Washington. He is now focused entirely on the 08 campaign. He needs to insure his "one party" form of government is sustained. He is working his special brand of nasty, as we speak. Edwards is the GOP's worst fear, take it to the bank. Start doing some insider homework. Don't rely on the corporate owned MSM. Ask yourself Why would the media attack Edwards 24/7 if he is irrelevant? Yet Clinton is sung praises in the media " the inevitability mantle" flung across her.. Why? The Republicans can't wait to have her as their opposition in 08' then they will decimate her, her overall negatives are too high, just adding a little more doubt to fence voters will, sink her.
Edwards/Obama 08'

jtrippi writes
"Interesting that you left out from your "report" the fact that Matt Dowd is on the record saying this was exactly what Rove and the White House did in 2004. I know, I know. Its difficult to read an email all the way through, and so so easy to miss facts that might make sense."

If you are the real Joe Trippi, can you answer a simple question for me? Why on earth would you quote Karl Rove in promoting your candidate? The problem certainly isn't limited to the Edwards campaign, but if you want my opinion as an Independant voter, where you guys are failing miserably is in defining yourselves as an alternative to the wedge-issue politics practiced by the GOP for the last 15 years, give or take. When the Clinton and Edwards campaigns feel the need to respond to Rove attacks, they lower themselves into the gutter alongside him. Raise yourselves up, America deserves better.

Man this has got to hurt -- I never thought I would say this but the Washington Times got it right. Makes you wonder what Ben Bradlee would think.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2007/08/roves_worst_nightware_1.html

Sorry but no one fears a man that gets $400 haircuts. He's more of a woman than Hillary is. As far as Im concerned, Edwards had his chance last election and blew it and Hillary is benefiting from brand name recognition. There has been a Bush or Clinton in the White House for the past 20 years. . . . that should should be enough for her not to get the nomination. Last I checked the US didnt have a Royal Family or Families.

Interesting that you left out from your "report" the fact that Matt Dowd is on the record saying this was exactly what Rove and the White House did in 2004. I know, I know. Its difficult to read an email all the way through, and so so easy to miss facts that might make sense.

Joe Trippi

The Democrats are fools to give so much credence to what Rove has to say.

Mr. Trippi may be correct concerning Mr. Rove's target of Mrs. Clinton, but Rove's motivation may not be so slick and manipulative of Democrats--I'm not a Clinton supporter but,Every Republican fund raising appeal for the party, the Prez., congress, even the state house during the past 6 years has effectively used "FEAR of Hillary" or "Hillary's proposed Programs" to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from their base. A "send us your Money, or you'll be faced with your worst fear: Hillary!"

It may be a "Look over there, might be a terrorist!"; "9/11, 9/11!"; "Get 'em thare,
before we have to face 'em here!" sort of tactic, but it works with FOX minds.

On a simpler note, I don't understand why Mr. Trippi allows the Republican/pop media lawyer bashing term, "Trial Lawyer" to be continually applied to Mr. Edwards, when the simple, "Plaintiff''s Attorney" would be both more accurate and convey an image of a candidate who fights for the "Little Guy". --

It's hilarious watching the Dem's unending obsession with Rove. The guy coughs and they read 20 layers of meaning into it.

Clinton-Edwards '08

If there's anyone Rove should fear it's Bill Richardson. He'd mop the floor with any Republican nominee.

Edwards is about as relevant in this campaign as Pat Paulson was in the '68 and '72 editions...but Pat had better hair.

ridiculous.
While there may be some truth to Rove attacking Clinton to bolster her position in the primary... that campaign tactic is ubsurd. sorry edwards, just drop out already and endorse Obama.

ridiculous.
While there may be some truth to Rove attacking Clinton to bolster her position in the primary... that campaign tactic is ubsurd. sorry edwards, just drop out already and endorse Obama.