Edwards Adviser Says Obama’s Iowa Program in 'Deep Shit' [Update

Joe Trippi, a senior strategist for John Edwards, blasted Barack Obama's field program in Iowa on New Year's Eve, bluntly rebutting the Obama Campaign's attempt to promote its large crowds as a sign of momentum in the homestretch. "If the crowd numbers are that huge, and ours are this small, and they're going to kick our ass then there's no reason to explain it. Just show up and kick our ass. It's better if you don't say anything about it," said Trippi, who has overseen caucus campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale. "Anytime anybody starts throwing those kinds of things around, it's because they're in deep shit," he told The Nation.

The Obama Campaign has been circulating impressive estimates from events in towns where his crowds reportedly double those of Edwards and Clinton. Yet with only three days before the pivotal caucuses, this is an unusual time for any campaign to raise their own turnout expectations. Operatives in several Democratic campaigns say that Obama's support continues to fluctuate widely, while Edwards is clearly rising, so Obama's aides may be simply aiming to buck up their soft supporters.

Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric in his final speeches to voters. He continues to attack Edwards and Clinton because their campaigns benefited from backing by powerful unions, and he has begun to question Edwards' consistency and integrity as a populist reformer. Today he appeared to widen his critique to include the Democratic Party's last two presidential nominees, while making a pitch for his own electability. "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," he said, according to Newsday. ("Obama: Gore, Kerry Alienated ‘Half the Country.'") Democrats across the country were disappointed with the last two presidential campaigns, but Iowans helped anoint both of those candidates, so Obama's complaint may not play well here. Disparaging Gore's appeal is especially odd; he drew more votes than Bush in 2000 and remains immensely popular with the Democratic base, which sees him as one of the only party leaders who combines the experience and authority of the Clinton Administration with the progressivism and innovation of new school Democrats like Chairman Howard Dean and, well, Barack Obama.

Update: Kos responds to Trippi's comments to The Nation.

Comments (35)

1. "Trippi, who has overseen caucus campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale."

   Uh.....who did he oversee campaigns for?!?!?

   LOL!

   Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 7:55pm

2. "said Trippi, who has overseen caucus campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale."

   Uh oh!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 12/31/2007 @ 7:55pm

3. Beat me to the punch Mask! He just left that one dangling, sick and wounded!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 12/31/2007 @ 7:56pm

4. Posted by MATTMAN 12/31/2007 @ 7:56pm

   That's a "Bob Shrum" resume'....heheh

   BTW, what's the bet for METTEYYA showing up and re-posting (for the 30th time) that speech by Obama from BEFORE he started campaigning?

   Over-under is 2 hours.

   Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 8:02pm

5. I was certain METTEYYA would have the #1 post on this thread! After all, the word OBAMA was in the title of the article!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 12/31/2007 @ 8:07pm

6. Who Joe Trippi represented in the past is a non-issue with me. It seems to me that the Howard Dean campaign did pretty well until he was hung out to dry by the mainstream media for the so-called scream that no one present at the rally could even hear.

   The important thing at the moment is to hopefully nominate the most progressive candidate with a realistic chance to win the presidency.

   That dude is John Edwards, period.

   After 7 odd years of emasculated donkey's, the chance to elect a leader with some balls of fire would be a hugely welcome change in a really shitty screenplay thus far.

   Happy New Year again, to all :-)

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/31/2007 @ 8:11pm

7. I don't think Obama was disparaging Gore or Kerry, but pointing out the fact that in 2000 -- thanks to the CLINTON fatigue many Dems were suffering, and residual anger with the Republicans over the impeachment of Bill Clinton, not to mention the Rovian tactic of divide, divide some more then conquer, it was essentially a 50-50 election.

   In 2004, with the residual anger of Dems over 2000's Supreme Court appointment of GW Bush, anger over the war -- and the country was split, and the Rovian tactics of divide, keep dividing, now divide some more -- it was another non-victory for Dems.

   Obviously we have to do something different. To keep doing the same thing -- nominating the same people, pounding away at the same angry message -- is the height of lunacy.

   And we have been disappointed and angry and divisive in our own way. We think we can run a national election by competing in only a handful of battleground states. It didn't work in 2000, or 2004.

   Obama is saying we must do things differently this time or expect the same results: loss and disappointment and anger.

   Posted by jade7243 at 12/31/2007 @ 8:38pm

8. The Dems have put together a good field of candidates for the party's nomination. Any would be preferrable to the most agreeable of the Repub candidates, Ron Paul, IMHO.

   I'd like to see my choice, Dennis Kucinich, grab the fourth spot in Iowa, given the recent polling data I've seen, to further influence/support Edwards or Obama or Clinton, in their anti-war active, and social justice aware campaigns.

   Posted by lewwelge at 12/31/2007 @ 8:55pm

9. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/31/2007 @ 8:11pm

   See, B_KOOL is the type that's really going to be hurt when/if Edwards gets the nomination and Presidency.

   He is NOT "Bobby Kennedy redux" or going to be the "Progressive President We've Been Waiting For Since McGovern"...

   he'll start cutting deals, compromising, taking not just half a loaf...but maybe a slice, and "delaying until after the 2012 and re-election" anything too radical.

   and guys like B_KOOL are going to be broken-hearted.

   Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 9:07pm

10. "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," he said

    Obama is right: electing another polarizing candidate only galvanizes the Republican base and assures another deeply divided contest, divided country, and dysfunctional and divisive environment in Washington!

    When will we learn?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/31/2007 @ 9:58pm

11. BTW, what's the bet for METTEYYA showing up and re-posting (for the 30th time) that speech by Obama from BEFORE he started campaigning?

    Over-under is 2 hours.

    Posted by MASK 12/31/2007 @ 8:02pm

    Posted by METTEYYA 12/31/2007 @ 9:58pm

    with four minutes to spare!....LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 10:12pm

12. Posted by MASK 12/31/2007 @ 10:12pm

    That speech concerning the wisdom of "adding to" our progressive base rather than subtracting or breaking even is an important speech that "all" progressive Democrats should read. It really captures the choice in a nutshell: vote for a new progressive era with Obama vs. more of the same filibusters and divisiveness that keeps the progressive agenda from moving forward with Edwards and Hillary.

    When will we learn?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/31/2007 @ 10:20pm

13. Why do only the front-runners encapsulate your idea of what's possible, Metteyya? Don't you see that this is a race for the Democratic Party nomination and, as such, is THE precise forum for expanding what is conventionally considered possible? I just heard Elizabeth Kucinich on a live feed from Manchestor, N.H., speak of opportunity for transformation, and it will only come when all parties at the table are given equal voice in the marketplace of ideas leading up to the convention itself.

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/31/2007 @ 10:31pm

14. Posted by LEWWELGE 12/31/2007 @ 10:31pm

    I actually like Dennis, and was a Kucinich supporter (and still am a fan!) before concluding that Obama was the only real progressive with a chance of winning.

    Unfortunately, in our media age, the progressive movement needs a charismatic leader and orator that is appealing to the broadest segment of the electorate as possible. It is this sort of leader that is capable of ushering in a new progressive era.

    I obviously am no fan of Ronald Reagan, but "the great communicator" label is something we need in the progressive movement, and Obama is the only candidate in the field with the political, communication, and charismatic skills to move the progressive agenda forward.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/31/2007 @ 11:21pm

15. Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/31/2007 @ 11:19pm

    I bet even RIO "likes" Obama even though RIO is an ultra-conservative evangelical and obviously disagrees with him on a number of issues.

    Fortunately, the RIO BRAVOs are a dying breed. America is tired of the cold-war mentality, the "us vs. them" dualism that keeps us polarized and separate from our neighbor.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/31/2007 @ 11:31pm

16. Are there pink clouds in that ideal world of yours? I bet there are just grey uniforms and long lines of hungry, sick, and dying faces longing to be in your ruling class!

    No clouds, Rio - just clear blue skies! Also, no ruling class, just citizen control of government. After all it is the citizens tax money, right, not the oil companies' and defense contractors'!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 12:44am

17. Also, no ruling class, just citizen control of government.

    Wow!! Most people outgrow that idealistic fantasy by about age 27-28. What did you get from "Santa" this year??

    Posted by Sliver at 01/01/2008 @ 02:56am

18. A vote for Demoncrats is a vote to kill the American economy,

    dollar's at par with canada's! now, for chrissake.

    junk our military superiority

    actually most of it is now full of sand

    and march toward a "third world" society

    really, it's more like borrow towards....

    dominated by special intrest extremism.

    ever heard of jack abramoff?

    America WON'T be respected

    do you really care?

    and will certainly have no credibility,

    the euro's the new reserve..............

    and none of our future energy needs will be met

    yep. demoncrats sure gonna piss of them canadians and mexicans.

    if Demoncrats gain control of the nation.

    don't worry. ruport murdoch and hu jintao already got dibs.

    Of course we won't have any need for energy to power an economy

    sure you will. all those new chinese factories will soon be opening up here

    that will rapidly declining and moving into another recession like the Clinton administration started!

    damn!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/31/2007 @ 11:19pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 03:36am

19. and guys like B_KOOL are going to be broken-hearted.

    ~Maskot @ 9:07pm

    Coming from you, Maskot, that's pretty close to a slam-dunk case for my future happiness :-)

    In all seriousness, though, I've never claimed that John Edwards was some kind of second coming of Christ --or Bobby Kennedy for that matter.

    I'm simply spending more time in these threads than I would prefer because I'm hoping to see us get the most progressive candidate possible after seven-plus years of a virtually unmitigated disaster.

    Hopefully, The Nation mag gets their act together soon and joins the fray with some gusto.

    As things currently stand I'm beginning to wonder if The Nation isn't heading over to "The New Republic" territory.

    Say it ain't so, Nation mag.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 11:53am

20. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 11:53am

    B_KOOL, if Edwards gets the nomination, you better practice a phrase for the General Election next fall....

    "Well, he HAS to say that, but watch he'll govern as a progressive once he's elected..."

    Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 12:22pm

21. Trippi's just grasping but now the Edwards' are in attack mode. For Elizabeth Edwards to join her hubby with attacking statements of Michelle Obama is representative of desperation and 'old school politics' which is exactly what the Obama's are against and above doing. There are SOOOOOOO many things that the Obama's could bring out about both the Edwards and the Clintons.....but they choose to stay above these tactics. The Obama's could stress how Hillary was actually a Republican in college. How Bill is a cheater and immoral. How Hillary won't allow her records to be opened which means they obviously have things to hide, although she repeatedly states she's been well vetted. How Bill will actually be running the White House, not Hillary. How Musharraf got the nuclear weaponry on the Clinton watch......just to name a few re: the Clintons....As for the Edwards....he's a loser. He lost in his own state. Claims to be for the poor but has done NOTHING to help the poor. Thinks that since he went to Katrina he helped the poor. Gets $400 haircuts....and his hair looks no better than anyone else's which shows extreme waste. And Elizabeth is actually too sick to be first lady....(although we wish her well)...Why would you put a first lady in the White House who could have major medical issues soon that would distract. But again.....the Obama's are above stating these facts. Instead they are concentrating on what we all need......the Re-Birth Of America !!! But you'd better believe, the Republicans will bring up these issues and a whole lot more. VOTE OBAMA !!!

    Posted by gregjones at 01/01/2008 @ 12:23pm

22. Happy New Year...but fast Eddie won't carry his own state....he would be far easier to beat than Obama, or maybe the Queen herself.

    ~Monsta' Maasch @ 12:04pm

    Hey, it's my favorite Monsta' :-)

    Funny, all the polling data indicates that Edwards is the most electable of the Dems by a statistically significant margin.

    By the way, all that supposed conventional wisdom that "he can't carry his own state" is largely based on the Kerry-Edwards '04 run where the campaign simply conceded NC by not running ads there. That's not a strategy that John Edwards would likely copy --and he's said so himself.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:29pm

23. b kool, if Edwards gets the nomination, you better practice a phrase for the General Election next fall....

    "Well, he HAS to say that, but watch he'll govern as a progressive once he's elected..."

    ~Maskot @ 12:22pm

    That's a chance I'll gladly take, Maskot. In a heartbeat in fact. Only a fool runs on a vigorous platform of progressive principles, and then backs down at the critical moment.

    I don't see John Edwards as a fool, whatever one may think of him.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:33pm

24. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:33pm

    And as noted on the other thread....come September/October 2008...

    we shall see, won't we?

    Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 1:52pm

25. we shall see, won't we?

    ~Maskot @ 1:52pm

    Yes. We shall Mr. Can't Do.

    Yes, we shall.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:57pm

26. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:57pm

    "The only rules that really matter are these: What a man can do, and what a man can't do."----Capt. Jack Sparrow

    Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 2:11pm

27. "The only rules that really matter are these: What a man can do, and what a man can't do."----Capt. Jack Sparrow

    ~Maskot @ 2:11pm

    Lovely quote, mr. movie maven. If you know anything about the work ethic of John Edwards --if we are lucky enough to elect him we may all be surprised by what he can do.

    As someone said in reference to Mr. Edwards, "You can't outwork him."

    That alone would be a cold refreshing blast of crisp air after the seemingly always resting at his "ranch", Dubya.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:18pm

28. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 2:18pm

    Clinton was a workaholic too (with short breaks for, uh, 'conversations' with interns)...

    good speaker too (as Edwards is)...but he didn't govern as "JFK re-born" or whatever (despite numerous attempts to paint him that way by this people ((again, same as Edwards))).

    Edwards may indeed be a "hard worker"...the question, mate, is what will he WORK ON?

    Again, history...who will Edwards emulate as President? T.R?....FDR? Or more like Carter or ...dare we say...Clinton?

    (Note, I don't say "JFK" because the IMAGE of Kennedy, and the way he really governed were too different things....uh, again...just like........well, you know!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 2:58pm

29. Edwards may indeed be a "hard worker"...the question, mate, is what will he WORK ON?

    Well, Maskot, I haven't seen the booklet yet myself, but Edwards' campaign in Iowa is passing out 90 page booklets outlining his major initiatives brightly and clearly.

    First on the agenda, national healthcare.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 3:03pm

30. First on the agenda, national healthcare.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 3:03pm

    perhaps recycling would be a better start.

    how many people are going to read 90 pages?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 3:16pm

31. perhaps recycling would be a better start.

    how many people are going to read 90 pages?

    ~The always refreshing Frosty Zoom @ 3:16pm

    Outstanding point, my crystalline compatriot.

    But, until we all get our info virtually instead so much of it via the pulp mill, I guess we'll have to live with what only we can control.

    Incidently, Bill Moyers Journal had an episode recently dealing with a new organization that helps mail recipients get off of mail order catalogue mailing lists --free of charge.

    And it's a worthwhile journey to the Moyer's Journal website in any case.

    Bill Moyers Journal [pbs.org]

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 3:24pm

32. Click here for a good time:

    Catalog clutter removal

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 3:28pm

33. First on the agenda, national healthcare.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 3:03pm

    Universal single-payer, is it?

    Or something...a wee bit less?

    Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 3:34pm

34. BTW, as noted on the newer thread....

    I assume you think that "once Edwards is elected", guys like METTEYYA who not only don't trust him, but think he's an absolute phoney....

    will rally to Edwards and help push his "bold, new agenda" through Congress.....right?

    Just like METTEYA think that "once Obama is elected", guys like YOU, who not only don't trust him, but think he's an absolute phoney....

    will rally to Obama and help push his "bold, new agenda" through Congress.....right?

    Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 3:37pm

35. Feliz Ano Nuevo Amigos!

    Metteya, I think I love you, but what am I gonna say for, the one's you've always known that...I think I love you, but when am I gonna say that, the guy who always knows that he's not to bad to play for...I think I love you...

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 6:07pm