« 
Obama's Full Anti-Nukes Speech: Blasts Beltway Establishment | Home | DCCC Lands A Major Recruit In Illinois Race »
Obama's Full Anti-Nukes Speech: Blasts Beltway Establishment | Home | DCCC Lands A Major Recruit In Illinois Race »
Trippi, Prince Taking Over Edwards' Ad Operation
In a possible sign of the direction John Edwards' campaign will now be taking, advisor Joe Trippi and campaign manager Jonathan Prince will reportedly be taking over the campaign's advertising, following the departure last month of chief media consultant Marius Penczner.
On yesterday's call with reporters, Trippi and Prince indicated that the campaign will be dedicated to promoting political change by embracing public financing and swearing off donations from business interests — and more directly, attacking Hillary Clinton for failing to do the same. Will this carry over into the next round of Edwards commercials?
Advertisement
Trippi is still an idiot !
October 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't have the cajones to take on Hillary by name, someone's got to to save the progressive wing of the party
his speech todays is too obtuse to catch on
October 2, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When they begin shuffling personnel, you know that they are in trouble...
Just ask John McCain,,,
October 2, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Edwards exercises some measure of fiscal control over the ad budget. Trippi managed to blow through Dean's $50 mill, much of it conveniently ending up in the coffers of Trippi's separate ad business.
October 2, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think JRE is the most progressive, but democrats don't get it. They still believe that Hillary is a progressieve. LOL
October 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards basically had to throw a grenade into the mix to try to stem the "Long March to Inevitability" of the HRC campaign and the MSM's constant drone about the Clinton-Obama horserace. He clearly recognizes that for the MSM it's not about ideas or leadership qualities, its all about celebrity plain and simple.
October 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mommy, it's getting dark in here.
"That mean old Hillary and her naughty machine and all those stoopid-heads who are just being led around by the MSM!
"Honestly!
"Mommy!
"Well, no one is listening anymore, so I'm just gonna stomp my little feet and go home to Redstate where people still know how to dump on Hillary Clinton and support fat-cat corporate capitalist phonies like, uh, I dunno . . .
"It's so dark in here."
October 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's difficult to know what this really means because it could potentially be very bad or very good. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
What's Trippi and Prince's ad experience? Did they have philosophical differences with the other ad guy or is this a move to save money or what?
I'm most curious as to why they've decided to attack Hillary as opposed to letting Obama do the dirty work or delay the attacks until a little later. Perhaps winning isn't the top priority for Edwards? Maybe he really wants to influence the outcome and push the whole party to the left (where it should be)?
The risk, of course, for the candidate who attacks is that he/she has a chance of that tactic working, but typically it is just perceived as nastiness and doesn't catapult someone into the lead in a primary election. If the "attacks" are a means of exposing Hillary's double-dealing on the war and her playing footsie with the interests most opposed to real change in healthcare, labor law, foreign policy, etc... then it could be a good thing.
Tone will be important in terms of the impact of their tactics. It will be interesting to watch given that the numbers for all the candidates are so very soft, it could be Edwards' death knell or it could be that for Hillary, who is, I think well aware of her Titanic status as the frontrunner. What I mean by that is that in ever campaign when you take the lead early and the talk of inevitability begins also while it is still early, it doesn't take much of a ding by the iceberg to sink the ship and turn a sure thing into a disaster.
October 2, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trippi and Prince are smart enough people so it is somewhat of a mystery why they think this public financing issue is going to be Edwards' ticket to the big league.
Perhaps they think that only political junkies see that Edwards is taking the matching funds out of necessity rather than making a principled stand and that they can spin it so the bulk of the voters see Edwards as striking a blow against money dominated campaigns.
Even if they can, I doubt that voters will believe that Edwards is any less influenced by money than the other candidates.
At any rate, voters care more about other issues like Iraq so I am not sure what effect it will have have particularly since Edwards already has somewhat of a credibility problem.
October 2, 2007 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey folks,
just heard an audio of a portion of the latest Dem debate. The portion which has Gravel lambasting Clinton about her vote to support the Bush Admonsters' intents to do whatever they want to do against Iran, which if they proceed to carry out will cause blowback bigtime in Afghanistan. So Mike Gravel, with his fine and great legacy of reading the Pentagon Papers on the floor of the House while Nixon fumed, laid it on the line, laid the moral burden right on top of the B((tch. Her reply? Just a sarcastic cackle. This Vietnam Veteran, this Peace Corps volunteer (who also got a good taste of the Pinochet regime, circa 1975) is left with the thought that if some nut goes and blows her head off, he'll cheer!
It's 1938, folks.
October 2, 2007 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink