There was a great interview with Joe Trippi, Edwards' campaign manager, in The New Republic on Monday. Now, no one can accuse Trippi of being a shill for Hillary, but he had some fascinating things to say about the state of the race after the LA debate and going into super Tuesday. In the aftermath, a lot of what he said proved to hold water. He predicted, for instance, that Hillary would take on the mantle of change and go positive, while Obama would be forced to go negative - which is exactly what happened in the days leading up to last night.
Here's how trippi saw it:
One of the reasons Obama has to be worried about the California debate is that suddenly there's a celebration going on about how no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, there's going to be big change. Who the hell's spinning that?... That's a huge danger for Barack Obama... The Clinton campaign understands that. That's why they're being so, as they always are, so damn efficient. Everyone understands now that, no matter who wins, it's big change. The Obama campaign let that stand. All the way through the California debate, he never challenged her, never said she was status quo.
Link, excerpts, analysis of the interiview and of last night after the flip.
Here is the interview in full: The TNR Q&A: Joe Trippi
He has a lot of good things to say about Obama, he gets into what role Edwards played in the race, and discusses Edwards decision to get out. But I was most interested in what he had to say about that LA debate because for me that was the moment of sea change. With Edwards gone, with the the two of them alone on the stage, Barack looking young and Hillary looking glamorous, the two of them became a "dream ticket," and that kind of talk only helped her; she is much stronger in the debates and came out that night and in her opening remarks basically cast him in the role of a VP. This is what Trippi says:
The big doubt about him--he answered it. That debate helped him big time. The big doubt about her--that she's status quo--I think he could have pulled off both things, and proved that. He disproved "I'm not ready" by basically standing with her for a few hours and not blowing it. I'm not being crass. He didn't have any gaffes. He did really well. That helps him. Only thing is, it's clear that she helped herself by moving so aggressively to define the race as a change candidate. She can let him quietly keep answering the experience question, and she'll beat him. I'm not sure he can let her move to the change part and beat her.
You didn't get any Clinton fatigue watching that debate. She accomplished what she had to, brilliantly. I think Obama accomplished a lot, too. Given where things were, Clinton fatigue, etc., there was a big opening for him to say, "Wait a minute. Let's not get carried away here on change." Almost with a joke. You don't have to do it meanly. Had I been choreographing Obama, I would have done, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa--it depends on what your definition of change is," if that wasn't too cute. It was a missed opportunity. Given how close this thing's likely to be, knowing what you're up against, I wouldn't miss that opportunity.
Well, in fact, this is exactly what Obama finally tried to do last night in his "victory" speech, but is it too late? He missed the opportunity to make the point in a jovial way in the debate and in the context of a "victory" speech it sounds more like an attack than a pointed barb. This is what he said last night:
But this fall we owe the American people a real choice. It’s change versus more of the same. It’s the future versus the past.
It’s a choice between going into this election with Republicans and Independents already united against us, or going against their nominee with a campaign that has united Americans of all parties around a common purpose.
It’s a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington, or having one about who’s most likely to change Washington. Because that’s a debate we can win.
It’s a choice between a candidate who’s taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race, and a campaign that hasn’t taken a dime of their money because we’ve been funded by you.
And if I am your nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I support the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it’s ok for America to use torture – because it is never ok. That is the choice in this election.
Call it what you will, this is a candidate in attack mode. He tried in harsh terms to REAFFIRM contrasts and to REMIND voters that he is the change agent and the very fact that he had to do that shows that he lost a little ground there.
I find Tirppi's comment about not getting Clinton fatigue fascinating. How true is it? It dovetails into her own line about how she has "survived and thrived" in the midst of almost two decades worth of attacks. She always comes out strong and looking fresh. One has to wonder, if his attacks on her have not made a big dent by now - and they didn't in the states she won yesterday - will they now? Or, even more interestingly, will Obama fatigue set in if he goes even more negative and doesn't come up with a new slogan other than "change you can believe in?"
In fact, when you look closely, he's been negative for a while now, starting with the Harry and Louise like republican-esque insurance-lobby-inspired mailer against her insurance plan, which I think helped her to hold on tight and by big numbers to states like MA, NY, CA where he did try to break in and win or split the vote with her and failed to do so.
And today, we get news from Talking Points Memo that the Obama campaign unleashed a new mailer just before super tuesday attacking the Clinton presidency:
In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.
"8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation," reads the mailer, which goes on to list the post-1992 losses suffered by Dems among governors, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. The mailer was forwarded to us by a political operative who told us it was sent to Alaska, though it was probably sent elsewhere, too.
Its pretty interesting how instead of running against Bush, Obama IS running aginst Bill Clinton and his legacy - and I'd argure that at this point his campaign HAS to try to destroy whatever nostalgia there is for the Clinton years among democrats in order to start to pick away democrats! from Hillary instead of just appealing to indepedent and republican-lite voters in purple states. This WAS the big mistake the Clinton campaign made in SC - they gave Obama the CHANCE to run against Bill - and the best thing they could do is keep him on the sidelines. When the focus in on Hillary, this "turning the page on history" pitch has less bite, especially since she has recast herself as the change and history making candidate.
While he has won some good states, the fact is that he has not mangaed to pick up any of the really big prizes of a democratic primary: CA, NY, MA - and some people have begun to question where he stands with the core democratic base. There's no escaping the fact that last night she looked like the progressive democrat with big support from the traditional big progressive states - and in each case she won almost all the counties in those states - while he looked like center to center-right candidate who appeals to midwestern voters of unknown affiliation.
Its also worth noting that his big name endorsements from the Kennedys and Kerry did not help him at all in MA or CA - Teddy K did not siphon off hispanic voters as many people, including Trippi in the interview, said he might. Those endorsements, as well as Oprah, have pretty much run their course now and look meaningless in retrospect.
It is also not clear whether or not the working-class, non-college educated voters who are supporting Hillary would go over to Obama should he get the nomination. These are parimarly economy voters.They're not buying into the cult of personality politics, and, in fact, seem highly skeptical of it.
In the meantime, Hillary is getting better and better. She is learning very quikcly. She will not give up the change mantle anytime soon and it will be harder at this point, after super Tuesday, for Obama to reframe her as a status quo candidate. AND they are already casting him as the "establishment candidate." The business over the state of funding of her campaign is brilliant politics and is coming from inside her campaign itself: it will only bring in more money and they know that.
Last night while Obama went negative, she was almost incandescent, for the first time in the campaign:
You know, tonight, we are hearing the voices of people across America, people of all ages, of all colors, all faiths and all walks of life, people on the day shift, the night shift, the late shift, with the crying babies, moms and dads who want a better world for our children, young people who deserve a world of opportunity, all those who aren't in the headlines, but have always written America's story.
After...
(APPLAUSE)
After seven years of a president who listens only to the special interests, you're ready for a president who brings your voice, your values and your dreams to your White House.
The differences in their slogans are apparent at this point: her "solutions for america" verus his "change you can believe in." The emphasis on solutions is quite powerful and much more forceful, solid, grounded, than the evocation of belief.
Because when the bright lights are off and the cameras are gone, who can you count on to listen to you, to stand up for you, to delivery solutions for you?
She has a great new line, a variation of the "I have a dream," her "I see an America:"
Now, we know the Republicans won't give up the White House without a fight. Well, let me be clear -- I won't let anyone swift boat this country's future.
(APPLAUSE)
Together, we're going to take back America, because I see an America where our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top, where prosperity is shared and we create good jobs that stay right here in America.
I see an America where we stand up to the oil companies and the oil-producing countries, where we launch a clean energy (NASDAQ:CLNE) revolution and finally confront the climate crisis. (APPLAUSE)
I see an America where we don't just provide health care for some people or most people, but for every single man, woman and child, that no one is left out.
(APPLAUSE)
I see -- I see an America where, when a young man or a woman signs up to serve our country, we sign up to serve them, too.
(APPLAUSE)
She's hitting him on all his weakness, but without attacking - its all postive all the way. And while being postive, she is also always policy specific, which people love. When you leave his rallies, you can't remember a single policy point. And this, no doubt, is why she wants to continue to debate him every week.
The burden is now on him to sustain or even build more momentum - after yesterday I think election fatigue starts to set in somewhat and so this may be harder for him to do - especially if he stays negative or continues to attack on all sides - and if he stays negative - she wins.
So now the whole games changes. Everything seems to shift.
Its extraordinary all around.