Kevin Sullivan

Trippi Talk

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Tom Bevan conducted a must-read interview on Wednesday with the always colorful and candid Joe Trippi.  Trippi–the chief strategist for John Edwards’ campaign–shared some thoughts on where his candidate stands, and what the field might look like coming out of Iowa:

Anybody who takes third is going to have a problem. Our problems relate more to money, their problems are how do you explain it politically? How the hell do explain either of them taking third? Kerry raised $2 million a day over the internet after he won Iowa. Edwards raised $1 million a day when he took second in Iowa. For us the problem isn’t so much politics, we ,literally need that first or that second to really give us the resources we need to push through February 5. We take first here and $2 million a day is coming in and we are going to be really competitive.

And let me tell what’s going to happen to third place candidate – I’ve been there – the third place candidate’s money dries up. That’s our problem with third. It’s not that he’s not viable, it’s not that he doesn’t have a message – in your 31-29-28 scenario the problem for us isn’t political. We stayed with these two giants and in that situation got nipped by a tenth of a point or something, but the reality is we need the money that comes with that first or second place finish.

And we’re within range in New Hampshire. We’re in the 20’s now in New Hampshire, and Iowa is worth a good 10 points there. So we’re very competitive and we’re really happy with where we’re at. Given where we’ve come from, we are really on the verge of threading that needle – of winning here, pushing through to a win in New Hampshire, or at least a second there, and it takes us right into South Carolina. And John Edwards won South Carolina last time after taking 2nd here and 4th in New Hampshire, so if we win here and take a second in New Hampshire, I’m pretty sure we’ll do well in South Carolina.

Read the entire interview.  Trippi also speculates on 2nd choice voters, arguing that none are likely to end up with Hillary Clinton.  Chris Bowers believes these voters could lock it up for Obama.   

Nadir of Edwards

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

John Edwards continues to push the goal post:

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.

Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.

Mr. Edwards’s plan, like that of many of his Democratic opponents, is at odds with the strategy developed by American military commanders, who have said the situation is still too fragile to set a timetable for such extensive troop withdrawals and a curtailment of the training effort in Iraq.

Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.

Over the past five years, Mr. Edwards’s position on Iraq has undergone a substantial evolution. In 2002, as a senator, Mr. Edwards was among the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Mr. Edwards has said he was convinced by the intelligence that Saddam Hussein controlled stocks of unconventional weapons, but in the Senate speech explaining his vote he also endorsed the Bush administration’s argument that a new democratic Iraq “could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.”

The Edwards ‘08 campaign serves as a great example of the problem with electoral populism, or “progressivism,” or whichever label is in this week. It’s not wrong to change one’s mind based on the available facts–as James Joynernotes, Edwards has good reason to be concerned about the lack of political progress in Iraq. But the ‘04 and ‘05 Edwards seemed to understand the significance of the Iraq mission, noting that the way we leave the war-torn country is nearly as important as how we went in. A defeat-like withdrawal will affect a generation of military personnel, and a hasty retreat could potentially endanger troops and civilians on the ground. It would no doubt embolden our enemies there.

John Edwards seemingly got this, at least he did up until recently. This is why his rapid withdrawal plan comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Rather than continuing to embrace the democratic rhetoric of, ahem, President Bush, Edwards has instead turned to the America-as-Pariah logic–our very presence is bad, and Iraq will simply sort itself out upon our departure. He opposes a prolonged training mission, but proposes we make a token effort of it outside of Iraq. So not only is he withdrawing our forces, he’s withdrawing theirs as well. This would pose a logistical nightmare–a detached foreign force detaching an Iraqi force with no on the ground training, then dumping them back in an already volatile war zone.

This isn’t policy, it’s politics. It will appease the sensibilities of some on the Left, but it doesn’t strike me as terribly viable. It’s the kind of irresponsible rhetoric that will win you the support of some Left-Wing elements, but hopefully, the broader electorate will see through it.

UPDATE:

Kudos to Fester for breaking down the 2nd choice/Richardson element in all this. This does sound very Richardsonian, and it makes sense that Edwards would try to scoop up his caucus support.