Edwards Adviser Trippi: We Held Our Own Against Hillary
Now that Obama has been projected as the winner, Edwards adviser Joe Trippi is already out there declaring that the main significance of tonight's race is that Edwards held his own against Hillary.
"It's really a repudiation...of the Clinton campaign," Trippi just said on MSNBC, interpreting tonight's results.
"Clinton doesn't have a lot to talk about," Trippi continued, adding that the vote tonight showed that voters "don't want the status quo that the Clinton campaign represents."
A sign, obviously, that the Edwards campaign wants the story tonight to be all about Hillary's loss, rather than Obama's win.
Comments (48)
brm wrote on January 3, 2008 9:59 PM:Yes Celebrate
The end of the Bush-Clinton era
Yes...that's right folks. In a very diverse country of 300 million people, several white midwesterners decided America doesn't want Clinton. Heh-heh.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 10:08 PM:It seems entirely possible to me that Edwards could actually pass Clinton in NH. It really depends on whether she loses much support, and if support from Richardson and Biden also realign.
Dusty wrote on January 3, 2008 10:14 PM:Ditto what loki said..remember..less than a 100K worth of white folks picked Obama first and Edwards second. who would of thought sHillary would finish third? ;p
john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 10:16 PM:Bill begs "take my wife please"
67% said "we gave at your office"
FX wrote on January 3, 2008 10:20 PM:FX shows a combination of brand new must see drama's from the US,Better luck next time.FX
john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 10:20 PM:Maybe ole Bill can wag his crooked finger and get black leaders in South Carolina to stop Obama!
justinb wrote on January 3, 2008 10:23 PM:How much money did Edwards spend? How much money did Hillary spend? For that matter, how much money did Obama spend?
We already know how slanted the media coverage was, it's a miracle Edwards did as well as he did, given the institutional barriers.
Chino Blanco wrote on January 3, 2008 10:27 PM:Yeah, but did you crack 30%?
Forget dollars spent, how many YEARS did Edwards spend in Iowa?
Time is not on his side now.
john mccutchen wrote on January 3, 2008 10:35 PM:Third Place for Mrs. Bill
Obama 37
Edwards 30
Clinton 29
Turnout Demo Caucuses 2004 - 125,000
Turnout 2008 - 250,000
Obama won on EVERY issue in entrance poll. Obama beat Clinton AMONG WOMEN. Obama brought independents and new voters to the Democratic party and THAT is the story of tonight and the lesson for Dems nationwide
FX shows a combination of brand new must see drama's from the US,Better luck next time.FX
David G. wrote on January 3, 2008 10:44 PM:No matter the spin Edwards puts on this, America now knows that Clinton is stoppable and that she is not fooling all of us all of the time... So congrats Barack and Edwards... Now to New Hampshire where we need another victory over the corrupt Clinton campaign. D.
colonpowwow wrote on January 3, 2008 10:45 PM:john mccutchen celebrates Obama's great victory by stomping his little feet even harder with hatred in every tiny toe.
I'm shocked, I tell ya. Shocked!
Again, congratulations to Obama and his supporters on a well-earned and confidence-building victory.
I look forward to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday when the registered Democrats will have their say in actual primary elections.
John McCutchen - by all means, don't contemplate that Hillary may actually still win the nomination. That bile tastes horrible.
Oh, BTW, Edwards is toast you know.
jkb wrote on January 3, 2008 10:54 PM:It's unfortunate that someone who campaigned for Lieberman (I) won on the Democratic side.
mike wrote on January 3, 2008 10:58 PM:well, for hillary to come in third, after practically being christened and crowned by the media already, *is* a pretty big story, wouldn'tcha say? or, like the all-powerful, all-deciding media has been doing all along, should you just turn this into an opportunity to dump all over edwards? i am a lifelong democratic voter in pennsylvania, and i have yet to hear one viable argument as to why edwards is not the best candidate. and yet, every time he speaks he convinces me more and more that he is the one, and perhaps only, democratic candidate with the vision to put the party and the nation back on the right track.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 10:59 PM:MSNBC just said that Obama beat Clinton among Democrats, 32-31.
Of course, one would think nominating the guy who was also drawing independents and even some Republicans into the Democratic party would be a good idea.
zero wrote on January 3, 2008 11:02 PM:You do realize, that it was a lot more than 100k voters on the Democratic side, right? Record turnout, 218k for Iowa.
Easily a record turnout for Iowa. But, considering how much work went into it, it's not horribly surprising.
The real key here is that Obama actively courted the youth vote. If you get them to turn out, they'll vote Dem at a much higher frequency than the older voters will. If this were the general election, against any Republican candidate, Obama could win very easily. If it were Hillary, fighting for the older vote against the GOP, you could expect a low turnout and the results would probably be much closer (if not a losing battle).
amberglow wrote on January 3, 2008 11:05 PM:on MSNBC i heard the young vote was only up 3% over last time.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:13 PM:I keep telling you all, Hillary is TOAST. And, BTW, I predicted ALL the winners!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://Osispeaks.org
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 11:19 PM:amberglow
Only 3% is big in this kind of thing. Howard Dean was very pleased with that, several pollsters were surprised too.
Volum wrote on January 3, 2008 11:21 PM:Tis a shame, that Barack won.
But then again, once upon a time %75 of all Americans thought Sadaam possessed chemical weapons.
People in this country are s-t-u-p-i-d
The only reason Obama won is because Richardson and Kucinich deferred their 2nd choice votes to Obama. It was predicted that all those votes were going to go to Edwards, until Richardson and Kucinich made that move this morning, just hours before the caucus. I don't know what Kucinich's deal is, since he's clearly only running to make a statement. Richardson on the other hand obviously did this to save his ego so he could stay in the race a bit longer and because he wants to be Obama's vice president.
The thing is, Obama is the least electable of the 3 front runners. He can't defend himself against ANYONE to save his life. He always comes off as naive. Hillary can at least defend herself, despite the fact that she would make a horrible president and is bought and paid for by Big Business. She sold her soul to the devil and look where it got her.
Man I hope Edwards wins. He's the only one who's taking a strong enough stance on all the major issues, has clear and detailed plans, is not owned by corporate interests, is positive and a unifier, and is totally electable. He wins against every Republican in head-to-head match-ups by far higher percentages than Obama or Hillary.
America Is In Trouble wrote on January 3, 2008 11:39 PM:Iowa once again gives the party a loser. Man when will we stop letting these guys screw us.
The Realist wrote on January 3, 2008 11:42 PM:Obama got the youth vote in Iowa. will that be the case with the rest of the country?
Obama has got the message, but i have yet to here a plan. I have been watching and reading and i still can't figure out what he stands for. I can't go by his votes because he either waited to see what Hillary was going to do or he just voted present.
Edwards is the only one of the top three with a clear stance for change. so far Obama has been all talk and no substance. I want Obama to tell me or show me HOW he is going to change things.
If Democrats go Obama based on what he has revealed so far, he will get clobbered by McCain in the debates and then the general.
Please Obama,if you are going to win the nomination, please start voting and showing some substance.
DTM wrote on January 3, 2008 11:43 PM:MSNBC just reported 236,000 (and still growing).
Crazy.
Incidentally, I think that 3% increase in the youth vote was as a share of the total, which is very significant, particularly when turnout overall was so much higher.
Dan wrote on January 3, 2008 11:45 PM:Joe Trippi is just lucky to be employed, much less in the media.
The Realist wrote on January 3, 2008 11:51 PM:And please don't fool yourself into thinking Obama is drawing republicans over to the Dem side. this was planned along time ago. Repugs are jumping over in hopes of insuring that the Dem nominee is one they feel they can beat.
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 12:02 AM:Ironically, that is a very unrealistic scenario. The number of Republicans joining the Democrats to caucus wasn't enough to swing the results, but they would have been a lot more significant in the Republican caucus. And in general, the Republicans have to worry as much about picking their strongest candidate as whomever the Democrats pick.
familyman wrote on January 4, 2008 12:04 AM:I think more than just a repudiation of Clinton, this was a repudiation of the politics of money. For the people in Iowa, the message was more important than the war chest.
Christopher London wrote on January 4, 2008 12:07 AM:Joe Trippi is 100% correct. The story is that 70% of the vote went againt Hillary Clinton despite her campaign's virtually unlimited war chest, support of the Democratic Party apparatus and significant and somewhat excessive favorable coverage by the mainstream media. To those who truly study and understand HISTORY the CLINTON LEGACY IS A FRAUD. THE CLINTONS ARE A FRAUD. Americans, including grassroots progressives saw how the CLINTONS built a party apparatus which inured solely to and for the benefit of BILL & HILLARY CLINTON. Democrats who supported CLINTON in the 1990's were left with egg on their face by the never ending immorality, corruption, scandal. The stench emanating from the Whitehouse emboldened an era of CORPORATE GREED & FRAUD. The CLINTON LEGACY is ENRON, WORLDCOM,TYCO, REFCO and in many respects enabled the administration of BUSH/CHENEY and an Executive Branch which is no longer accountable to the American people. What the F__K does Hillary even stand for? Her campaign has no overriding theme than we promise to be everything to all people. So yes it is a REPUDIATION of the CLINTONS. When Iowans had a chance to get up close and personal with her over 70% of voters chose someone else. THERE IS NO RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. There never was, just so many INCONVENIENT TRUTHS about the CLINTONS that now the mainstream media chooses not to cover.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 12:30 AM:20% independents, 4% Republicans. There was no jump in by Republicans as part of an evil conspiracy to nominate the candidate they think whatever pathetic loser they nomination can beat and there there was no massive influx of indy though criminals who thwarted the goodthinkful party members of the their real choice. Obama won among Democrats and, oh yeah, he won among women too.
Possibly, just possibly, it might be time for some of you to reexamine your cherished electabiity dogma.
The Realist wrote on January 4, 2008 12:39 AM:ronically, that is a very unrealistic scenario. The number of Republicans joining the Democrats to caucus wasn't enough to swing the results, but they would have been a lot more significant in the Republican caucus. And in general, the Republicans have to worry as much about picking their strongest candidate as whomever the Democrats pick.
Really, then why was it a story? What was the number of Repugs who switched? If caucus turn out in Iowa was in the millions, i would agree, but we are talking 220,000.
Possibly, just possibly, it might be time for some of you to reexamine your cherished electabiity dogma.
I did after we nominated Kerry in 2004.
steambomb wrote on January 4, 2008 12:48 AM:I tend to agree with Trippi. I think people took a good look at Clintons voting record in the senate and could see how disengenuine she is.
DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 12:53 AM:The Realist,
The reason it is a story is that Obama won among the Republicans and independents who caucused with the Democrats, but also among liberal and moderate Democrats. That indicates his appeal is very broad.
Tne numbers (accordingly to the other poster) are about 4%. In the much lower turnout Republican caucus, that would be more like 8-9%, enough to make a real difference.
c wrote on January 4, 2008 2:30 AM:The great thing about tonight's results is they refute almost all the trollish nonsense and empty bravado that's been on these boards for months: Obama won registered Democrats, he did very well among independents, he won essentially every group except really old people. Yes he did especially well among really young people, but among my (pushing 50) generation he did really well and validated what the polls have been saying.
So: we have ample polling data from Iowa and NH that tells us Obama does best among the Democrats in attracting independents and even a few moderate Republicans. It's now been confirmed by actual voters who had to go to the trouble to attend caucuses. We'll see how NH and GA go.
Naysayers: stop pulling electability arguments out of the air and start paying attention to data.
And let's stop calling republicans repugs and so on. This is beyond childish. Half my relatives are Republicans and they're decent people. We need a conversation. Obama gets this, and connects with them. Who knew.
radlib1 wrote on January 4, 2008 3:01 AM:Be nice to Republicans. I agree. My own parents were Republicans. Fortunatley, they died before they voted for George W. Bush. Otherwise, they would have died with shame.
Any American who voted for George W. Bush will die in shame. Unfortunate, but true. George W. Bush will die and forever be in Dante's Ninth Circle of Hell. (If there were a Tenth Circle, I'm sure he would have ended up there.) So good-looking, so charming, so absolutely evil!
He may be superficial, but he was truly, deeply evil.
mcm wrote on January 4, 2008 3:45 AM:Spinni is trippin', I mean, Trippi is spinning: Edwards bet everything on Iowa and lost, including the union vote, to Obama. They didn't buy his class warrior personae coming from a millionaire trial lawyer.
bigbay wrote on January 4, 2008 6:49 AM:Congrats to Obama,
but I don't think he wears well. I liked him 9 months ago, but I got tired of being scolded. I think America will too; whether that happens after the nomination is anyone's guess.
Mc Cain is going to win for the Repugs. Huckabee cannot compete in Florida, NY, California.
Querent wrote on January 4, 2008 7:00 AM:You can call Repigs what you want. They have undermined the Constitution to an unprecedented degree. They have deliberately and determinedly tried to dismantle the democratic structure of our society. No filthy trick has been too low for them, from electronic rigging of elections to extrajudicial torture of other human beings, however evil they thought them to be. Repigs are unclean. They tend to be delusional. They are hyper-aggressive, contemptuous, dismissive, threatening, and chauvinistic. More to the point, their political party selects for these characteristics in its leadership.
I sympathize with your having Republican relatives. I have some, too. And yes, they are "good" people. Jingoistic, covertly racist, easily whipped up to vengeful frenzy, secretly contemptuous of the non-traditional. But still good people to have on your side. I would not call them Repigs to their face, but I would not object if someone not related to them called them Repigs. They don't have to be Repigs. They could leave the Repig party. But if they stay in the party, I will continue to think of them as Repigs.
Desider wrote on January 4, 2008 7:20 AM:Christopher London,
Despite Hillary's "unlimited" war chest, she wasn't spending it all on Iowa.
radlib1 wrote on January 4, 2008 7:30 AM:Contratulations, Obama! You outspent John Edwards probably 2 to 1 and you won Iowa Try California for size. You're a nice man, a good man, but John Edwards is on fire tor the poor and the working people.
You are Mr. Smooth, out only for yourself. You're better than Hillary, I'll give you that, but neither of you come close to expressing the righteous anger of the American poor and middle class as John Edwards does,
Robert Lightfoot wrote on January 4, 2008 8:25 AM:As much as I like Obama I still believe he will be more unelectable against a more experienced Republican. Edwards stands a much better chance because he has more experience and because he stands (or claims to) stand for the working class who are the majority in America. But media, the power structure will shape this election according to the will of the ruling class whose ruling ideas will prevail.
Nofoolhere wrote on January 4, 2008 9:04 AM:The strongest recommendation for John Edwards is the almost total blackout of his candidacy by the corporate owned and operated mainstream media. Today's post caucus discussions almost all refer to Clinton. Edwards is hardly mentioned.
The cancerous rot at the foundation of our democracy is the devastating control of every element of our society by corporate greed. Unless this is addressed directly by the highest political office in the land, nothing will change.
Somehow, the word has to get to the upcoming primaries that unless Edwards is elected, this nation as a democracy is virtually finished.
dora_rice wrote on January 4, 2008 9:58 AM:Obama won, because when voters are angry, they have a tendency to swing the pendulum all the way to the opposite from where the present administration stands. Obama didn't win because he is black or white , he won because he made emotional speeches to an angry emotioanl crowd wherever he goes. Hitler made emotional speeches too. The rest is history. Kennedy and Carter made also emotional speeches. Both Kennedy and Carter where medium presidents. Kennedy failed with his Cuba policy and Carter failed in the middle east. So beware of emotional speakers who have no experience in leadership. Ask one question...what would Obama as US president do right now when Kenya is at upheavel and chaos. Since he is very close to Kenya and was celebrated as much as a rock star there. I will vote for an American President with american roots.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:22 PM:The great thing about tonight's results is they refute almost all the trollish nonsense and empty bravado that's been on these boards for months
Indeed, and while we are on the subject of "conventional wisdom" that can be rejected for the nonsense that it is, might we also mention:
1) White people will claim to support a black man but will not actually vote for him. As we can all see, Obama's vote totals were not 10% less than his poll numbers. Indeed, he actually did better than most poll results suggested (except DMR; my hat is off to them).
2) These crowds of young people mean nothing; they will not actually show up to vote. Once again, conventional wisdom about apathetic youth was turned on its head as new caucus goers made this a record turn out.
3) A vote for Edwards is a vote for Clinton. Can anyone really say this with a straight face after last night? Obvious Sen Clinton is not savoring Sen Edwards strong showing at this moment.
kp1269 wrote on January 4, 2008 1:04 PM:I admit it was a bit of a shocker..
You know Hilaray is shaking her head and telling her backers "it's no big deal.. a black man can't win the national election" .. and the bigots are saying "oh hell.. a black man CAN'T win the national election!!"
Third Rail wrote on January 21, 2008 5:11 AM:Check out this article, it outlines a strategy on how the Edwards campaign could defeat Hillary Clinton. Check it out at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/
