Fire it Up

I think there's an obvious confluence of interests between the Edwards and Obama campaigns in many ways, but this seems pretty odd:

How good was Barack Obama's speech at the Iowa Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson dinner Saturday night? Long after the event ended, as a scrum of giddy Obama staffers were all-but-forcibly exited from the bar of the Fort Des Moines Hotel, they struck up a spontaneous chorus of the campaign's newly debuted catchphrase: "Fired up!" Beat. "Ready to go!" Beat "Fired up!" Beat. "Ready to go!" This slightly manic release of tension and elation wasn't surprising. What was surprising was the person leading it: John Edwards campaign manager Joe Trippi, who punctuated each explosive slogan with a pumped fist.

Of course, while it would be inconceivable to me for Trippi to be hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign, one could imagine Barack Obama capturing the nomination and hiring Trippi for something or other so maybe Trippi has perfectly good reasons for playing footsie like this. More speculation from Noam Scheiber if you're interested.

Comments

Isn't this evidence of the power of the Democratic advisors that Kevin Drum is up in arms over? Trippi obviously doesn't have any fear of his primary employer (partially because Edwards has a very low chance of winning the primary or of being on either of the frontrunners' ballots). He also isn't worried that the show of disloyalty will hurt his future hiring prospects.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not sure, but it's certainly entertaining.

Posted by heedless | November 12, 2007 1:54 PM

There might not be any significance to this episode other than the fact that they were all drunk.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 12, 2007 2:03 PM

Dan Kervick brings up a good point. Also, I wouldn't be surprised that if Obama wins the nomination that Edwards would have a good shot at the VP slot. Their positions and campaigns are more aligned ideologically than either of them are to Clinton, so there might also be a bit of coming-from-behind, true-liberal solidarity at play.

Posted by Reality Man | November 12, 2007 2:10 PM

Strangest thing I've ever heard.

Are you sure this is true?

Posted by Armando | November 12, 2007 2:13 PM

This Time account lacks important context provided elsewhere by Politico's Ben Smith:

They switched on the lights in the bar at the Hotel Fort Des Moines at 2:00 a.m. Sunday, and a crowd of two dozen buoyant young field organizers for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) spilled out onto the sidewalk, some jostling past Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, who had paused for a moment just inside the hotel's glass doors.

The organizers were men and women in their 20s, and all dressed identically: jeans and red T-shirts with Obama's logo and his call to arms, "Fire it up."

When a man on the edge of the group yelled the slogan, they answered with the response they'd been chanting all night: "Ready to go."

"Fire it up!" the rumpled, older man yelled again.

"Ready to go!" the crowd shouted back again. "Fire it up!" he called. "Ready to go!"

"Let's kick her ass," the cheerleader finally called out, and the crowd roared.

The cheerleader — Joe Trippi, chief adviser to Sen. John Edwards, new-politics guru, and all-around mischief maker — glanced gleefully over at McAuliffe.

[...]

But Trippi, for his part, an hour after his performance in front of staffers for all three campaigns and several reporters, urged perhaps a bit too much that this reporter not write about the scene, virtually guaranteeing it would see print.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6822.html

Posted by Will | November 12, 2007 2:22 PM

Would it be gauche or weak for a top contender who needs a big bump soon (Obama) to announce that the third-place contender (Edwards) is already his pick for VP? To me this move would make sense because it would make it perfectly clear that neither man is going to work with Hillary, and those who like Edwards now would probably throw their support Obama’s way. It’s a win-win for both guys. Edwards is still young enough that he could have 8 years as VP before running for the WH as an experienced Gore-like candidate, and he’d probably inherit a better situation than a Democrat will in ’08. Obama gets the aforementioned bump of Edwards’ supporters, and their young, handsome, dynamic ticket makes Hillary look like even more of a bad deal than it already is. Is this simply not a possibility? The Trippi stories and the way neither of these guys have gone after each other makes me think that these guys may have long ago recognized the game-theory logic of this.

Posted by tinisoli | November 12, 2007 2:28 PM

"this seems pretty odd"

Meh.

The largest configuration in the lefty grassroots for months now has been Edwards/Obama '08!

That's my configuration. Why is it odd that it would be Trippi's too?

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 2:40 PM

Will:

Um, what do you think that means? To me it means Trippi scrwed up and let his desrie to fuck with McAuliffe get the better of him.

I think the drunk explanation makes good esnes frankly.

Posted by Armando | November 12, 2007 2:42 PM

To me it means Trippi scrwed up and let his desrie to fuck with McAuliffe get the better of him.

Can ya blame him?

Posted by goethean | November 12, 2007 2:45 PM

"I think the drunk explanation makes good esnes frankly."

I've heard Trippi praise Axelrod on TV multiple times during this campaign.

The Edwards campaign has been drafting with the Obama campaign for months now. They've been sharing issues and rhetoric.

The real explanation is that Trippi likes Obama and likes the Obama campaign. As do many of the folks who are motivated to support Edwards

As stated, the largest configuration in the lefty grassroots for months now has been Edwards/Obama '08!

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 2:53 PM

Armando:

Just thought the McAuliffe part was crucial, and it wasn't included in the excerpt Matt posted. Drunk or not, I don't think Trippi "screwed up" - it's no secret he's an admirer of Obama. Besides, it was 2 AM outside of a bar after a long night. I think that this little anecdotal nugget, fun as it is for Monday blog speculation, is way too "inside baseball" to have any effect on caucus-goers.

Petey:

Sounds right to me: Edwards/Obama '08 is the dream. If Edwards gets the nod, I think that's a lock. Conversely, I don't see Obama/Edwards happening. I think if Obama gets the nomination, he goes more centrist, more experienced - a current (and probably long-time) officeholder with foreign policy/military experience.

Also, this was a telling sentence from the Time article Matt linked to:

Privately, rival campaigns concede that Edwards would probably win if the caucuses were held, say, tonight.

I think that despite the polls, Iowa is still looking good for Edwards.

Posted by Will | November 12, 2007 2:57 PM

I think the problem for Edwards is that even if he wins Iowa, he's not in a position to win New Hampshire or South Carolina, at least not at this point, without a landslide in Iowa. He just doesn't have the organization in New Hampshire or South Carolina at this point. And given the primary calendar, I don't know that there is enough time to build an organization off of an Iowa victory.

And it doesn't help that conventional wisdom has Obama as the holder of the Big Mo at this point. If he wields it deftly (and capitalizes on it over the next month), he takes Iowa.

Posted by Keith | November 12, 2007 3:29 PM

Why wouldn't Trippi get caught up in the moment of anti-(newer)old school?

Is it really some hidden agenda between the two camps or is it just part of a larger visceral reaction against the very epitome of old school politics of McAuliffe, Penn and the rest of the cutthroats used by Clinton?

I watched the JJ intently and came away thinking how wonderful the prospects of this nation are if we could somehow combine all the passion and talent on the stage. The notable down notes of that wonder were when the more staid, typical politicians were speaking whether Clinton or the state and local level pols.

There is hope, and the moment seriously is now.

Posted by G Davis | November 12, 2007 3:34 PM

As stated, the largest configuration in the lefty grassroots for months now has been Edwards/Obama '08!

Who cares? That's only because Edwards blew a shot at VP once so everyone knows no one will take him again. Obama is still the more credible candidate at the top of the ticket.

Posted by right | November 12, 2007 4:35 PM

My theory is Matt posted this to bother Petey.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 5:31 PM

"My theory is Matt posted this to bother Petey."

It's not just Matt.

Analysts throughout the blogosphere are getting The Meaning of Trippi wrong.

It's OK. They're not the decider. The good Democrats of Iowa are.

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 5:34 PM

It's OK. They're not the decider. The good Democrats of Iowa are.

Salt of the earth . . . no doubt. But proven fools when it comes to picking Democratic nominees who can win the White House.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 5:41 PM

I think Armando has it right. It's like a Princeton guy cheerleading a bunch of Yalies just to piss off the lone Harvard guy. The Princeton guy is a Princeton partisan first and foremost, but while in a bar with a bunch of Yalies, leading them against the hated Harvard guy seems kind of fun.

Posted by Al | November 12, 2007 5:44 PM

"But proven fools when it comes to picking Democratic nominees who can win the White House."

Meh.

Iowans have picked the Democratic nominee in 5 out of 7 contested caucuses.

- In the 5 times Iowa has picked the nominee, they've gone on to win the general election popular vote 2 times. That's 40%

- In the 2 times Iowa has not picked the nominee, they've gone on to win the general election 0 times. That's 0%.

In short, the Democratic Party are proven fools when they don't nominate Iowa's choice.

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 5:47 PM

- In the 5 times Iowa has picked the nominee, they've gone on to win the general election popular vote 2 times. That's 40%

Fuzzy math!

You're counting, I think, Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000. Clinton was unopposed; they didn't pick nothin'. And Gore, for all his virtues, failed to take office.

- In the 2 times Iowa has not picked the nominee, they've gone on to win the general election 0 times. That's 0%.

Fuzzier!

Iowa didn't pick Clinton in 1992; I seem to remember him winning and taking office.

And "Uncommitted" beat Carter in 1976, when he won. But I'll give you Carter, because he got the best percentage of any real person.

1 for 2, 50%.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 5:56 PM

k, forget the last line of mine above. it doesn't even make sense to me.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 5:58 PM

"You're counting, I think, Clinton in 1996"

No. '92 and '96 were not contested caucuses.

There have been 7 contested caucuses so far.

Year - Iowa picks nominee? - nominee wins general election popular vote?

1972 - No - No
1976 - Yes - Yes
1980 - Yes - No
1984 - Yes - No
1988 - No - No
2000 - Yes - Yes
2004 - Yes - No

So while it may admittedly be a (very) small sample size, we know that when the party doesn't follow Iowa's lead, a general election loss is sure to follow.

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 6:02 PM

And while my sample sizes may be too small to be significant, my math is NOT fuzzy.

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 6:03 PM

So 1992 doesn't count because of Harkin's presence as a favorite son?

Devious. But I'll allow it.

The glory of the Uncommitted Carter and Gore picks speaks for itself.

As a peace offering, I do think Edwards is very well positioned on the economy--which, if I read the tea leaves right, will be just about the only issue worth talking about in 4 months.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 6:21 PM

"So 1992 doesn't count because of Harkin's presence as a favorite son?"

Yup. Harkin got over 90% in Iowa since no one ran against him. Discard '92 for the same reason it's sensible to discard '96.

"As a peace offering, I do think Edwards is very well positioned on the economy--which, if I read the tea leaves right, will be just about the only issue worth talking about in 4 months."

There certainly are dark clouds overhead. Be interesting if the problems become apparent to most before January 3rd.

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 6:37 PM

In the 5 times Iowa has picked the nominee, they've gone on to win the general election popular vote 2 times.

Which would be great, if we cared who won the general election popular vote.

What your data actually tells us is that it's ridiculous to have Iowa choosing the Democratic nominee. When they have no role in the process (1992, 1996, minimal in 1976), Democrats win. How obvious is that?

Posted by right | November 12, 2007 7:32 PM

"minimal in 1976"

You have an "interesting" reading of history.

Posted by Petey | November 12, 2007 7:40 PM

You have an "interesting" reading of history.

About as interesting as you counting 2000 in Iowa's favor.

Posted by right | November 12, 2007 8:20 PM

Personally, nothin' against Edwards, but I think two senators on the same ticket isn't a great idea. I'm thinking maybe Obama/Sebelius. (On the off chance that Edwards wins the nomination, I doubt picking Obama as VP would be a great move either.)

Posted by Julian Elson | November 12, 2007 8:34 PM

If Obama gets the nod, he'd be smart to pick Wesley Clark as his veep

Posted by Sophie | November 12, 2007 9:51 PM

Everybody want to claim Obama as their VP. Should he fail to win the nomination, I would be stunned if he agreed to serve as anyone's VP. He would have far more independence, profile, and influence by remaining a senator than by playing second fiddle to Clinton or Edwards.

Posted by Joe B | November 13, 2007 1:27 PM