Lots of folks have been recommending Lots of folks have been recommending Noam Schieber's interview with Joe Trippi, which indeed, is quite interesting. I think Trippi has lost it if he really believes John Edwards, after a decisive loss in his strongest territory, Iowa, had a chance to win New Hampshire and turn the race into an Edwards-Obama slug-fest. The final New Hampshire debate showcased Edwards trying to knock Clinton out of the race, which wasn't his finest moment. It contributed to the "pile-on" narrative that actually worked in Clinton's favor. And from Trippi's comments to TNR, it's obvious he was one of the authors of this strategy. That's not a big surprise, of course, but his stream-of-consciousness here is remarkable:
The only other way the story would have been different is if she lost New Hampshire. If instead of winning by half a point [Note: Clinton won by about 2 percentage points], she lost by five. My guess is if she loses Iowa, New Hampshire, she would have probably lost Nevada, she would certainly have lost South Carolina--she lost so badly anyway. There's an argument that there was a possibility we would be standing with Obama. Except for that half point in New Hampshire, she lost four straight. Those are all the kinds of things that happen in politics.
She teared up, she choked up. Whether that had anything to do with it or not, we had no control over it.
This is really less than charitable. Have some grace and stop bringing up the "crying" thing. And as I've written before, in the five days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, many Edwards supporters came to the conclusion that he was not a viable candidate, and selected a second choice. Exit polls show that less than half of New Hampshire voters who held a "strongly favorable" view of Edwards voted for him, compared to 81 and 66 percent of those who felt the same way about Clinton and Obama. I don't see how Edwards could have won New Hampshire under those circumstances.
--Dana Goldstein
