Trippi effect

I think I've said this before, but way back in the day, I remember hearing insidery yammerings--I can't even remember from whom--that the Democratic candidate who had all the Republicans worrying was John Edwards. At the time, I remember thinking that I thought it made sense, if only because the obvious attack against Edwards (that he lacked experience) would look silly coming from George W. Bush.

Today, in 2007, I have no idea if this is still true, but there's an obvious incentive for the Edwards campaign to want people to think this is true. And so we get this.

John Edwards’s campaign continues trying to make political lemonade from lemons when he or other Democrats come under attack.
In a “strategy memo” to supporters, Edwards adviser Joe Trippi called recent remarks by Karl Rove slamming Hillary Clinton as divisive a “page straight out of his tired old playbook.” Rove is attacking HRC “because he doesn’t want” Edwards to win the nomination and he knows Dems “will rally around whomever he attacks.”

Rove and the GOPers “want our [Democratic] opponents to win — because they know John will be the strongest candidate in the general election,” Trippi wrote. He then asks for a campaign contribution. “All we need is your support to drive right past Karl Rove’s see-through tactics — and keep our campaign on the road to victory.”

This argument is perfectly reasonable, but the fact is that many of the speculative arguments you hear and read about Karl Rove's motives have the ring of plausibility to them. When the conversation turns to the question of what Karl Rove is thinking, I'm reminded of This Great Moment In Film History.

Which is to say, I think it's a fairly futile exercise.

However, Edwards is still saying extremely daring (and often convincing) things about the nature of governance in America and I think he'd be on firmer (if less sexy) ground pointing out that his inability to get any substantive purchase in the national press has a lot to do with the very nature of these positions.