400 haircuts? foreclosing on Katrina vicitms? Edwards is the most hypocritical, ambulance-chasing, panderer to ever appear on the American political lanscape. There's two Americas alright, he just represents the wrong one. His candidacy is a joke and he will drift into the political dust. He may think he's pretty smart … Americans are way too smart for him. We see through his false face.

I think Rove is trying to make it seem like he wants Hillary to be the nominee to scare our side into not picking her. They try to make it seem like he is really scared of Barack Obama. I think it is a sad ploy at reverse psychology. After all, how can we ever find out if Hillary can win if we don't choose her as our nominee?

This happened in the last election and it apparently is happening again. John is the most electable, he appeals to southern Americans, he appeals to the regular Joe or Jane, he doesn't present as a Washington "insider" (like Hillary), he appeals to those who want change, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, his family was typical middle class, he worked hard and made it. He has a populist appeal. Slimeball Rove knows that by attacking Clinton everyone will rally around her and hopefully hand her the nomination. Hillary epitomizes "insider" and most don't associate her with change but rather more of the same. If she is nominated than Republicans will have a much easier time winning the election and they know that, this is why most of them are joining Rove and attacking Hillary. Hillary is the most controversial among candidates. In the polls she has the highest number of people who "definitely would not" vote for her, she is behind Rudy. I can say with certainty, being from NYC I do not want Rudy as the next president, but, the rest of the country doesn't seem to care what NYers or the FDNY think of Rudy. but if dems nominate Hillary, Rudy will be our next president! (check out rudy-urbanlegend)

If John Edwards were to become President, I will move to Canada.

Come on people lets get serious Rove being scared by a former WalMart Board of Directors and a personal injury lawyer. It isn't Hillary that Rove is afraid of he's just trying to get more democrats to support her by bashing her. He isn't afraid of Edwards and he knows he doesn't even need to bother attacking him because he will unravel himself. He is really scared of a former community organizer with a funny name, Barack Obama. Why you might ask, it is because Barack Obama is the only candidate who can really bring all different types of people, Black folks, White folks, Brown folks, Asian folks, Old folks, Young folks, etc, etc, etc… out to vote for a democratic candidate. Joe Trippi is doing exactly that tripping. He knows that if he says its Edwards that Rove is afraid of that Edwards might get a little bit more support from Democrats that want to nominate anyone Rove is afraid of. Don't fall into a pity trap. Do the right thing listen to your heart on who should be elected if you really think its Hillary or Edwards go for it. For me I know who my candidate is, Barack Obama the Uniter.

The whole premise is ludicrous. No one can get Democrats to rally around someone they don't want to rally around. Democrats aren't sheeple. As for Edward's being more of a threat in the 2004 primaries than Senator Kerry, just consider that his inclusion as VP on the ticket gained Senator Kerry or the Democrats nothing. He didn't even bring us his home state.
Senator Kerry came within 60,000 votes of becoming President-almost unseating a war time president-something that has never been done before in our countries history. Kerry also gave strong debate performaces-and accordingly most people say he won all three debates. A great showing for someone Rove though was easy to beat.

In the general election, Hillary is the most likely loser of the top 3 Dems. As a lifelong, and fairly old Democrat, I pray that Democratic primary voters come to their senses and reject Clinton before it's too late. Otherwise, I am certain, we will have President Rudy, which makes me feel hopeless and almost suicidal.

Edwards is the Republicans worst nightmare?

In your dreams Johnny!

Edwards comes closest to being a true liberal Democrat. I don't really trust Clinton, because her husband was too much in bed with the corporate world and she appears similar. Also Clinton will energize the Republican base to get out. For some reason, they can't stand her even though of all the candidates she comes the closest to being a Republican. She also has a lame approach to getting us out of Iraq. Plus do we really need a Bush followed by a Clinton, followed by a Bush followed by another Clinton? What kind of change is that? Either Edwards or Obama would be more representative of real change and real Democrats.

To iLarynx, of Atlanta Georgia:

I used the term “haircut-gate” and I certainly didn’t get it from Hannity. (I thought I coined it).

For the record, I am an undecided loyal Democrat.

I agree with Edwards on many issues, and will support him if he is the nominee, but I think he is our weakest choice among the serious contenders. I’m about to post my reasons under a more recent story.

I am an independent. I don"t go withone particular party. I vote for the people that I believe are going to change things. I would vote for a Edwards/ Obama ticket. I like Edwards and haven't found any I like more. I believe the lady from Wilmington is right. The south doesn't like clinton. She will not hold the south! As for Republicians, have a hard time finding one I can rally behind. To bad Powell isn't running.

Correction: Hillary is not electable in the general.

Hillary stands the best chance of losing to any of the lame Republicans. Edwards was the best candidate in 04 and the same holds true today. The Dems better take 1 or 2 red states in the south or they're screwed again. What is it going to take before the Dems face the obvious: the only times we have taken the White House in the last 40 years was when a Southern Democrat did it!!

John Edwards has created absolutely no buzz. Hillary is not electable in the primary. The only one who makes sense is Obama and he's the one Rove is afraid of. And rightly so.

"I have to admit that John Edwards was creamed by Dick Cheney in that debate."
Jane, Moorestown, NJ : August 23, 2007 2:43 pm

Don't know what Debate you were watching there in Moorestown – but it was all Cheney could do not to get up and choke the intelligent and impressive Edwards…Clinton stands for the status quo…that is money equals power.

John Edwards is the best candidate the Democrats have!!! I'm sure 95% of the people that have critized him here have never taken the time to listen to him and find out what he stands for that is why Hillary will get elected and the Democrats will lose. She's not sincere! She just wants to win baby win and will say anything to achieve that.

Plain and simple, Trippi is attempting to use the media to carry water for his candidate by advancing the notion that Rove is engaging in a political three-card Monty game. Perception is everything. If Trippi can use the voice of the media to introduce his candidate as the one the Republicans are afraid of, Edwards stands a chance of saving his dying campaign.

Why does CNN report as news what flows from the mouth of a campaign operative?

I back John Edwards because he is the only candidate who can win this election. In the actual election, I will back any Democrat against the party of corruption–the Republicans (who are chipping away at our civil rights and image in the world right now). Why Edwards instead of Hillary and Obama? Because he ran for VP last time, he has public name recognition, he is likeable (most Americans like Edwards–most Americans have mixed opinions of Obama/Hillary), and EDWARDS HAS EARNED THIS NOMINATION.So PLEASE GIVE HIM A CHANCE at the presidency, because HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN. This country is NOT ready for a minority president yet, even though I WOULD VOTE FOR ONE IN A MINUTE.

"This is not the candidate you are looking for . . . you can go about your business . . . move along"

But then again, if he is a Sith lord, maybe it is a double cross and Rove really wants to attack Hillary because she is the stongest candidate. Apparently Jedi mind tricks work on on the weak-minded Trippi and the Edwards campaign. LOL

I'm reminded of Karl Rove's confession in Bob Woodward's "Plan Of Attack" that the candidate they feared most in 2004 was Dean, because he was aggressively going after Bush's weakest issue: Iraq. So what did Rove do? He pretended that the GOP wanted Dean to win because he wasn't a serious candidate and would be crushed; thereby tricking the Dems into nominating the "electable" candidate, John Kerry, who Rove knew would not be as tough of a candidate as Dean.
If anything, this shows that primary voters should do something radical: vote for the candidate who shares their views and interests. This is an extreme concept in a world when the MSM annoint the candidates two years before the general election, but if voters arent' voting according to their interests, then what's the point of democracy? Who cares if your party wins if the candidate doesn't represent your interests.

Any Democrat who thinks that John Edwards has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of winning against the GOP is severly delusional. Does anyone even remember the VP debates against Dick Cheney. Even as a staunch Democrat, I have to admit that John Edwards was creamed by Dick Cheney in that debate. For all his litigation experience, he was an embarrassment to us Democrats. His two Americas theme is uninspired and cliche and he comes off even more manufactured and rehearsed than Mitt Romney. He was a disappointing VP candidate and would be an even worse presidential candidate. Only Senator Hillary Clinton has the experience, intelligence, and discipline to win this fight. No one can take down the GOP like the Clintons.

Ah… if America, as a whole, is so quick to spot a phony, please explain to me why GWB was elected not once, but TWICE?!? Anyone who follows politics even a touch, knows there will be 'Jedi Mind Tricks', manipulation and a whole lot of trash talk goin' on. However, as proven by the election and re-election of W, they W O R K. Be a smart voter – DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Yeah, in John Edwards' dreams.

I agree with the comment that Karl Rove and the Republican Party is and has pushed Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Edwards is a straight forward person, I think he would cause problems for the GOP in the national election. I am for a Edwards/Obama ticket.

Edwards doesn't need any "help" from Rove.
He could indeed be a great candidate if he was not so angry and conceited (much more so than other candidates).

It doesn't help also that his wife, with all due sympathy for her sufferings, seems to be as well a very angry person.

You people are dreaming if you think Edwards have a chance of becoming president. As noted earlier, on the Kerry/Edwards 2004 ticket he was not even able to carry his own state. So give me a break.

The reason that Rove is starting to attack Clinton is because they fear her. In case anyone has forgotten, the Republican machine tried for 8 years to take the Clintons down and they still left office with a 60% approval rating in 2000. So they want to knock Hillary out early during the primaries.

Clinton's got to go…

Edward/Obama ticket would dominate in a landslide. Clinton will lose in the general election.

John Boy ( and his spokesperson)–all bluff and bluster. They both realize that his campaign is in the can,and that his realistic chances of winning are of two types—slim and none.

Does anyone, anywhere, other than GOP fanboys, still care what Carl Rove says? Or can give any actual credence that anything he says resembles truth?

To Heck with Karl Rove. Democrats need to vote for the best candidate NOT what Rove and the repukin's think or may think.

Vote your Morals and we will win!! We have the higher ground!! Believe in that and we'll pick the right one!!

I think Trippi gives way too much credence to Rove's rather obvious analysis of the way many Americans see the race shaping up. Edwards is currently a distant third and does not have a compelling message and does not have a meaningful track record as anything other than an ambulance chaser.

America can spot a phony a mile off and this guy comes across as self-absorbed and cocky. Hillary and Obama are the clear leaders in the race and it's just killing him.

I am not sure why everyone has it out for Edwards. He is a true democrat that is just as left as the republicans are right. It seems like this country is just not used to Democrats having a spine and standing up for the values the party represents. I went in open-minded and his position (yes, he has one) on the crucial topics are right where most democratic and middle of the road voters are at. It is obvious to me that the republicans would prefer not to run again Edwards, hence all the attention on Clinton. It gives Clinton valuable air-time for free and helps her campaign. I really hope that America doesn't fall for these ploys again. They have worked before and I just hope they don't again.

I don't know what Dan from Baltimore, MD is smoking.

In poll after poll, John Edwards defeats Giulini, McCain, Thompson, and Romney by larger margins than Clinton or Obama…that is, when the media DECIDE to poll him instead of only polling Clinton and Obama.

Al Gore's not in the race, so some polling companies include Al Gore, and if Gore gets 13% and Edwards gets 11% even though one firm stated that Gore hurts Edwards the most if he gets in, since Gore gets 3rd in those polls as should be expected, it's a convenient excuse not to match Edwards against the Cons.

But in almost every poll that's come out so far, even if the poll has "AMONG DEMOCRATS," Clinton leading like 39% to Obama's 25% and Edwards' 11%, in matchups against the GOP candidates, Edwards still usually out-polls Clinton and Obama.

That is particularly telling, considering the fact that even though Edwards ran as a VP candidate last time, he still has less "recognition" than Clinton and Obama. Americans have short memories, and Obama v Clinton has been shoved down their throats so far this campaign, so naturally those two will have greater recognition than Edwards.

But to say that Giuliani polls better against Edwards than the other two in almost EVERY POLL, is either a lie or a sign that you don't know what you are talking about.

If the Democrats want to lose the House and the Senate in 2008 just like the did during the 1990s, then nominate Hillary Clinton.

no, Edwards is America's worst nightmare. he should drop out and let his wife run.

Edwards is drinking the cool aid. This guy was on the ticket last time and could not win his home state. Give it up and go home. He will not finish #1 or #2 and after his failure last time Clinton, Obama and Richardson could all find somebody better for the VP spot.

Hyptheticals taken to another level. This is just gossip and pondering about the 'hidden agenda' of Karl Rove, and if he's going to play the "Jedi mind trick" on us again.

I can see the black helicopters circling my house right now, better hide in the basement where the mid-probing rays can't penetrate the concrete.

Please, vote for the person you think is best suited to lead the country forward and do what the American people have empowered them to do.

Or, go ahead and vote for that one from Manchuria.

While I like much of what John Edwards has to say, especially about poverty in this country, I don't think that he is a real threat to get the Democratic nomination as president. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that Karl Rove's recent attacks on Hillary are a stealth approach to getting at the real threat – Edwards. I don't think Rove thinks that way. He is just an attack dog and a hatchet man. If Edwards was a stronger candidate, then Rove would be going after him.

We lose sight of what is really important when we start concentrating on what Karl Rove says. He is a political lackey and the last midtern election debunked the myth that he is a genius at manipulating the American people and winning elections for the Republicans. He has used up all of his bag of tricks and should just be ignored.

Let's nominate the candidate who has the best chance of winning and who can do the best job of rebuilding this country after the disaster that has been the Bush presidency.

I'm a Democrat; liberal on social issues, and moderate on foreign policy, fiscal, and economic issues. I'm still on the fence about who I'm going to support in the primaries, but I think any ticket of some combination of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would be very strong and difficult for the Republicans to beat. Of course, I'm an eternal optimist, and a lot can happen in 15 months, so who knows…

STOP THE NAIVETE!!!ADMIT IT!!
THIS COUNTRY IS LARGELY STILL RACIST AND SEXIST–THE MAJORITY IS NOT READY TO ELECT OBAMA AND/OR HILLARY.
NO HYBERBOLE INTENDED–WE CANNOT!! AFFORD ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT–WE NEED TO SUPPORT EDWARDS.

Clearly, the Big Money is running this campaign. The way that CNN, and likely, other corporate media outlets report on Rove and Trippi should lead anyone to believe that the Kingmakers are at work and Corporate Spin is in high gear, even at this early date. Every locally controlled poll that I read and heard about places Edwards in first place. But somehow, the national polls place Hillary at the top of the heap.

Karl Rove is just looking for a job.

are democrats really going to let themselves be led by karl rove? if they let him sway them one bit they deserve to lose.

Looks like the Hannity crew is out in force here in the forums. The oft-repeated clichés of the wife as "mouthpiece" and "haircut-gate" were being trumpeted by fact-free Hannity just yesterday, to be regurgitated by his mindless minions here today.

Republicans willingly voted for a failed oil-man, a failed businessman, and a failed president, in the form of G W Bush. But for some reason they think their smoke and mirrors attack on Edwards' successes will resonate with the American electorate. Maybe so, for the non-thinking, ditto-headed ~25%. But for the rest of us who focus on the issues rather than trivia, Edwards is a solid candidate who could trounce any of the Republicans currently in the field.

Edward's is the best man for this job. I will suppoort him again. To: A. Thomas of New York who said he was just running as Kerry's sidekick must not remember that he was running for Pres. and when Kerry got the nomination, he did the best thing and that was take Edwards along as his running mate. Now I wish he hadn't because it may ruin his chances this time. My choice: Edwards/Obama this time, then after 8 years Obama/?? next time.

I think the American people have more common sense than to listen to Karl Rove….give us a little bit of credit for at least that, would you?! Clinton and Edwards are making their own mistakes and setting themselves up for failure without any help from anyone. It is all just a political game that someone has to win and all the others will have to lose.

I think the MSM and Dems are giving Karl Rove too much credit. I mean, his divide and conquer tactics to win the Whitehouse didn't actually work in 2000 and only really succeeded in dividing the country so starkly that W couldn't get anything done. Now he comes out and bashes Clinton and everyone thinks "Ohh, what is the evil genius plotting now?" Maybe he just thinks that Clinton will be the nominee and its time to start with the negative campaigning. Maybe he is just trying to get us to all talk about something other than W's failure as a president, Iraq, poverty, health care, infrastructure, etc. This is really just the oldest magician's trick in the book, he gets us to pay attention to this stupid crap while Bush continues to run the country into the ground.

The Democratic Candidiates should all get together and file suit to make Rove pay for the extra costs incurred due to external interference in campaign strategy.

What's Trippi tripping on???

The latest Zogby poll has Edwards way behind Clinton in Iowa, a state where he campaigned assiduously. He's not doing too much better elsewhere.

Democrats

Clinton 30%
Edwards 23%
Obama 19%

Republicans

Romney 33%
Giuliani 14%
Thompson 12%

Rove attacked Clinton because he does think that she will likely win the nomination and he's already salivating at the prospect.

As for the person that thinks Giuliani can win over Clinton. If you're not from the NYC area you have no idea what kind of megalomaniac this guy is when he's unleashed. His performance after 9/11 is just a blip compared to his behavior during his tenure as mayor. Suffice it to say that the firefighters union put out a video requesting its members to vote for anyone other than Giuliani. Also, if we talk about personal baggage we should start by saying that he and his current wife have 6 marriages between the two of them (3 each).

No, Why would Karl Rove be afraid of someone he already beat?

Dems. need to have more faith in their guru instead of worrying about the Reps. guru. Bill Clinton saw what kind of campaign Hil ran in upstate New York & he feels she's doing just fine right now. He hasn't even had to step in to clean up any faux pas'. She's gotten better as this thing goes on.

A Hillary nomination will have profound impact on future of the country and the democratic party. Bill was fortunate to be president during a period considered as the best economic growth of the history of the USA. He did not cause all of it but he was the beneficiary. Much had to do with the boom of IT, the internet, wireless, telecommunication and other innovations that improved productivity, reduced cost, increased profit which in turn made corporations make new investments creating jobs. It's naive to give him all credits but he did bring financial responsibility in federal government by balancing budget and creating surplus. So people should not assume that a Hillary presidency means a return of Bill's days. Hillary is no Bill and we live in a different world now than 1990s and we have a economy that is not in a great shape right at this moment.

Hillary nomination will rally all republicans against democrats regardless of the mess in the country and whoever there candidate is. Many democrats will stay home, Independents will lean toward Hillary. There is NO indication that independents or moderate republicans have any interest to support Hillary on general election. On the top, Democrats will loose the slim majority that they created after loosing it 12 years ago (by the way during Clinton's time). Many field candidates are worried already that Clinton nomination might cost them the seat. So even if she is elected in general election, if democrats loose congress, Clinton won't be able to accomplish ANYTHING with a Republican controlled congress. So the American people will be stuck once again for 4 years in the middle of partisan bickering, secret policies, divisive & polarizing politics. Hillary's so called 35 years of experience will not produce any result.

An Obama candidacy will bring republicans and independents to support him to some extent, keep many republicans at home on the day of election and help increase democrats control on congress so that he can deliver changes as he is promising. So the Democrats should really look into the bigger picture and support an Obama nomination. Hillary is a strategic liablity for the Democrats. Sooner they will understand, the better the country will become.

While I think Rove has helped create the worst administration in my lifetime (65 years) he is probably right that Clinton is a flawed candidate. I have voted for every Democratic candidate for President except Humphrey (didn't vote) but given Hillary's position statements I won't vote for her. And no one I know–progressives every one–plans to vote for here. Kerry was the last lousy Democratic Party candidate I intend to vote for. I am not alone.

What I'd like to know is why the press never asks Democrats to assess the Republican candidates.

This reminds me of a little incident in the computer world about seven years ago. Apple was on the ropes and the press was asking "industry experts" Bill Gates and Michael Dell about the future of Apple. Dell suggested Apple sell off its assets and return the money to its shareholders.

Today Apple is worth at least $20 billion more than Dell.

Why does the press solicit "analysis" from obviously biased observers?

Edwards is right if Hillary is the Democratic nomination she will lose in 2008. Come election day when men go into that booth they will choak and vote for a man. Hillary is not a likable person.

Based on the polls, does Rove consider G.W. Bush " fatally flawed"???

I hate to feel this way about where we are in 21st century America,but I do not believe Hilary or Obama can win…Hilary's negatives are just too high…and I think Obama is great but…see Harold Ford…there are still
to many blue collar rednecks in this country…Democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot in presidential elections since George McGovern got the nomination over Muskie…many times, as in 1972 the right wing was right in the middle of the mess…this election should not be close…Edwards, Biden…just about any of these candidates would win. With Hilary or Obama we will be up all night waiting on the returns and again be vulnerable, to God only knows what in voting fraud…I hope I'm wrong…I'm afraid I'm right…I have no faith in the 10 to 15 per cent of undecided voters in any of the key states…these are the people who gave us George Bush…TWICE!!!

Why don't we Democrats just listen to,read about,and compare the candidates then choose the one that we think would make the best president?Forget Karl Rove.

There is no way a old fashion big government "liberal democrat" like Edwards wins a national election.
Rove is just dividing and conquring – something that is so easy to do with us Democrats.
I am not saying Hillary should be the nominee but now we will be spending time analyzing Rove's comments rather than saying what we stand for and what we plan to do.

The only problem with this conspiracy theory is that it fails to realize that Edwards WAS on the 2004 ticket, albeit as the VP candidate. Therefore, it Rove truly feared Edwards back then and thus supposedly does now, because Edwards, in his mind, was the stronger candidate in 2004 who could've beaten Bush, then why didn't the Dems win with Edwards on the ticket? The truth is the fallacy in the premise – that Edwards is the strongest candidate with the best shot at beating the Republicans, in either the 2004 race, or the upcoming 2008 race. There's only candidate who'll be able to take the Repubican Nominee to task, and that's Clinton!

Of course that's who they're afraid of. Just ask Ed Rogers. I've heard him say that Edwards is the candidate the R's most fear. He's articulate, good looking and from the south. Hillary & Obama have no chance in the general election.

I don't get all this hostility towards Edwards. Seriously. Is it because he actually cares about poor people? Is it because he is clearly more honest than the others? Because he's too handsome?

Sorry, but you guys all sound like the pathetic ones here, not him. You so deserve whatever phony actually deceives his or her way into the White House. Too bad the rest of us deserve better.

The dems are crazy if they nominate Clinton to be their candidate. There is no chance of her ever winning an election. All she will ever do is get people out to vote against her that would normally just sit on their couches and not vote. She is a polarizer and that's all she will ever be. The dems are more stupid than even I could imagine if they nominate anyone BUT Edwards. Obama, a wet behind the ears, arrogant first term Senator actually thinking he is ready to lead this country is almost laughable. Once again the dems doom themselves to failure…

I think it's time we all start to wake up a little bit here….

There has ALWAYS been ulterior motives behind what Karl Rove says. Why would this time be any different??

I think this is probably true. Not that I think Rove is right, but I think that Republicans think their only hope in 2008 is if Dems nominate a woman or a minority. Robert Novak even slipped and actually said so.

We will be in uncharted territory if we do. But any open attack on a candidate for being a woman, African-American, Mexican-American or anything like that could trigger a backlash in the electorate. We might still be a racist country but we also really don't like overt racism. (Yes, I know that's weird but that's how it is.)

Personally I think Rove will play ugly no matter who we nominate. I just hope whoever it is will manage the mud deflection better than Kerry did.

trippi is absolutely right. Of the three candiates Edwards is the only one who would win and not make it close in a general election. He also has the fewest flaws. Everytime Obama opens his mouth he shows he's not ready even though people like him, and one more "the surge is working" out of Hillary and she might as well fold up her tent. Rove attacking her is his belief that she is the most vulnerable democratic candidate and wants to see her be the nominee.

From Rove's own lieutenant on the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign, Matthew Dowd:

"Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds. So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards." [Los Angeles Times, 8/19/07]

I have thought all along that John Edwards is more electable than Hillary Clinton. The thing about Hillary is she is locked into the money machine of NY democratic politics and that gives her a leg up on the other dem candidates seeking the nomination. I agree the GOP is salivating about the prospect of running against her. They'd like nothing better than to trounce her and I believe they think, probably correctly, that Hillary would be the most inviting target of the potential nominees in a no holds barred campaign. Edwards carries less baggage that can be targeted and I think is more likely to be able to fend off the GOP attack dogs. His easy style lends itself to responding to the GOP challenge and having it come across in matter-of-fact, simple terms that is easy for voters to understand. He would also be less subject to having his comments analyzed to the Nth degree like Hillary would.

Trippi wishes. It's Obama the Republicans are afraid of. Edwards… not so much. Certainly not Hillary. The Republicans have been planning their strategy to defeat Hillary for nearly a decade. They've got mountains of dirt to dump on her the moment gets the nod. Hillary Clinton IS a wedge issue.

I started reading all the comments, and I noticed most of you are or steer towards bushees. Then I asked myself, what site am I on? Do these people watch CNN or something? BINGO! If you're all so pro war and pro Repukingcans, please pack your stuff and go over there to fight for what you believe…WMDs, their freedom, our freedom…whatever the reason du jour is.

Why doesn't the CNN Ticker include the rest of the story, which is that a Rove lieutenant confirms this, and says that's exactly what Rove did in O4: attacked Kerry to rally support for him among Dems, so he wouldn't have to face Edwards. The way it's presented here is that it's some Trippi fantasy, when, in fact, it's corroborated technique from Rove.

There is no way I am voting for Hillary Clinton. The woman is a joke. She thinks the war in Iraq is going just great! I live in Iowa and will not be voting for her. I hope the rest of Iowa wakes up and doesn't add Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Im sick of all of them. It's time for change in this country.

If you guys really think about it, which democrat has the best chance of defeating a republican for the house? A white male, that's who. Even his name is presidential. He is also a member of the CFR, which is really why Rove is scared of him. If you understand the CFR and its function, you'll know why Edwards should be feared.

Rove likes white males and thinks a white male would have a better shot. He would fear a white male on the democratic ticket. Hillary is a better candidate and a better speaker. Gore would be a lock. Hillary will have to break the paradigm of a white male in office as well as get the nomination to win presidency.

John Edwards is just too cute! Hes got my vote.

Actually Rudy Giuliani is not leading Hillary in all the polls. If you click on this link, http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm, you will see a list of all the polls involving Clinton. In some of those polls Clinton leads and in some Giuliani leads, but it is inaccurate to say that Clinton is losing in all polls.

I am not a Hillary fan.

I agree that many will be motivated to vote against Hillary. But I suspect many of those peole would vote against ANY Democrat.

She will definatly bring out many many women that might not normally vote. It could be a significante turn out.

I'm for Edwards. I believe he would bring in many centrist Republicans and Independents.

~Foo Fighter~

Commentors – don't be so quick to conclude there isn't some truth to this idea. I like Hillary and Obama just fine, but Edwards is the only one who can beat whomever the Republicans dig up and throw at us. Plus, he can bring the south, a region any party ignores at its own peril.

Interesting stuff…..I guess one of your 'NEWS IN THE TICKER'headings captures the essence of this story. In the event that anyone is wondering which it is, the operative word is 'INSANITY'.

Its no secret that the rebublicans are salivating at the prospect of Hillary winning the primary. Her negative numbers among the general electorate (read: not Dem primary voters) offer the best chance for the republicans to win in '08. Not only do Hillary's high negatives not bode well for the party, she also represents "politics as usual" which will make it difficult to capture the elusive, non-aligned, independent voters. They are more likely to vote for a NYC mayor who thrived in a strongly democratic city than someone they have seen leading the charge in partisan bickering for 16+ years…

The analysis is sound, but it's not because Rove is afraid of Edwards. It's because Rove wants no part of Obama.

Republicans have nothing to offer to 90% of Americans. They only offer more wealth to greedy people who are already very wealthy. Even the Christian right is abandoning the Republican party.

That being said, in a fair fight, Democrats (any Democrat) will win any time. The Republicans only hope is to take off the gloves and make the election a bare knuckles street fight with no rules whatsoever. That's why Rove is leaving the White House. Its to start arming the Republicans with every dirty trick in the book. If Americans buy this again, they get what they deserve.

So, is Trippi actually saying that Karl 'Yoda' Rove used the notorious Jedi mind trick in '04, and that it actually worked?

I feel a disturbance in the force!

Anything Rove says is political noise. Ignore and focus on what will be right for America. The best strategy against Rove and the Radical Right is to ignore their comments.

Nice try, Trippi.

At least he's trying to earn his money, and not making threatening phone calls to octogenarians.

Edwards has been attacked on a personal level. His negatives were manufactured by the right wing. HIS POLICIES have not been successfully attacked by the right wing.

But it seems we no longer select candidates based on policy. We select them based on innuendo and personal slander. Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes perfected this kind of political campaigning (and news coverage).

The only question left is the following: What kind of results to we get when we choose our leaders this way?

The answer is, we get the terrible policies of George W. Bush.

**

Has a ring of truth to me. Having lived through Rove campaigns for the last 15-16 years in our red state….I think that is exactly what that spineless turdblossom is up to. I read just last week that Edwards beats all repubs by double digits…Not so with Clinton or Obama.

If Hillary wins the nomination and the general, the power'll just shift the way it's been shifting for the last forty years. The Democrats will get their turn, and then the Republicans, and then the Democrats, and nothing will ever really change. The power structure, and those who are in power, will stay the same. John Edwards on the other hand, besides his bold plans for health care reform and the environment, proposes to reform and clean up the entire political system by pushing lobbyists out of the dealing rooms, and their money out of campaigns. If he we to so revolutionize the entire system, who can say how that would damage the future of the Republican party? They'd be right to be scared of him. This Clinton, on the other hand, promises to be even less revolutionary than the last Clinton.

Calculating, tactical Rove.

A completely believable theory, given what we know already…

I finally have something I can agree with Karl Rove on? John Edwards winning the primary is my worst nightmare too.

This story is a real laugher. Karl Rove is smart. He would know there's nothing to fear from popular support for a socialist. Hillary would be a push over in the election, but Edwards loses to Rudy by an even wider margin in polls. He would be slamming Edwards now, not Clinton if he wanted to tailor the election to his preference for a GOP win.

Rove already proved his political incompetence by losing the popular vote for Bush in 2000, barely winning in 2004, and losing historically in 2006.

Rove is an idiot to attack Clinton, he is going to make her even more popular among Democrats and every REAL political strategist agrees that Clinto has probably the best shot of taking down any GOP rival (hence the fact that she is now beating even
Giuliani in the nationwide polls). "Turd Blossom" is a loser who was pumped up by the GOP and the FOX news morons, but failed to get the job done for his party when it really counted. Rove is a guy who got lucky a few times, and now he has been sent back to Texas in disgrace…. Bush will follow soon.

Greg in Phoenix,
thanks for a very good laugh to temper what has been a very bad morning here across the pond. Fantastic comment!

I read the other day that Rove was attacking Clinton out of fear of Obama.

Sad that so many Democrats are so obsessed with what Rove thinks of Clinton/Edwards/Obama/Whoever. They ought to just focus on their game, rather than worrying about Karl's.

Well I agree with him. I have never voted for a Republican and I certainly would not start now but if the choice was between Hillary and whoever the Republicans nominate I will opt to not vote at all. As far as I am concerned she is not electable and I will not vote for her. She has not come out with a plan to get the troops out of Iraq. She does not have a good healthcare reform plan. She has been joining in the saber rattling against Iran. In addition she has the likability of a pit bull. And I do not mean to insult pit bulls:-) BTW, most of my circle of friends and family feel the same way. I am not sure who actually supports her and why. I can honestly say no one I know will vote for her. I think Edwards would be an excellent choice to run against any Republican. Once again the media has helped decide who the front runners are by focusing the most attention on certain candidates.

Not so funny. The Republicans, starting with Gingrich more than two years ago, have been promoting Hillary as the probably nominee for exactly the reason Trippi cites. Their strategy is so obvious – she is the one candidate they have a chance of beating. And we Dems are such suckers we're going to fall for it.

Anyone who doesnt think this is true should see the documentary "american blackout." Cynthia McKinney was railroaded in a similar way.

John Edwards is the best candidate in this election. Everyone else is just a novelty. Please Democrats dont send America another John Kerry.

I don't know if he's afraid of Edwards or not, but I do know that distraction/misdirection is one of Rove's favorite strategies. What worries me is that he's going to be roaming free now. At least in the White House, we knew where he was. Now he's got time to work on stealing 2008 without distraction.

Would Rove try to use some sort of reverse pyschology on the voters? Why not?? More to the point, do we really think racism and sexism will not be factors in the general election? Dem's must put forward the candidate who stands for the right things AND has the best odds of winning the election. This county, this planet, won't survive any more of the Republican agenda.

Edwards is the only Dem candidate who has risked coming out with specific, detailed plans for addressing many of the major problems faced by this country. He is certainly the only one to draw attention to the problem of poverty, and has taken the lead on refusing money from lobbyists.

I think Trippi may be reaching (quite) a bit with his comments on Rove, but who cares? – The press would rather parse to death comments such as his than look deeply into what the candidates are saying about the issues – that's the unfortunate truth.

I have watched Clinton go around the country for months pandering to whatever crowd she's addressing while dancing around the issues (including her record of support for GWB's Iraq escapade) – she IS a polarizing candidate who carries a lot of baggage. I voted for her hubby twice but have serious concerns about her as a candidate. But sure I'd vote for her against anybody the GOP has to offer right now…

Obama doesn't have the baggage of Clinton, but he's a babe in the woods.

I do agree that Edwards/Obama would be a near unbeatable ticket…

Remember that at this time in 1991 few had a clue who the heck Bill Clinton was, and there's a long way to go. Early front runners have a history of coming up short in the home stretch.

…and Al Gore might still be lurking, waiting for his opportunity – who knows?

Hillary Clinton's nomination as president would be the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party since Michael Dukakis. The only thing greater than her potential capacity to serve as a great commander in chief is her ability to motivate the Republican base. The stakes are too high, and I am too tired of my party only attaining moral victories. John Edwards has the Republicans scared to death because he is the real deal with the best chance of winning the general election. I find it no coincidence that the past three Democratic presidents were from the South. Edwards and Obama in 2008.

What's wrong with the idea of an Edwards/Obama ticket with Edwards on top, with the promise to Obama that he is 'da man in eight years. No more talk about "not enough experience" after eight years as Vice President to a popular Democrat President – John Edwards. Progressive wing of the party prevails with a supportive electorate. Edwards beats all Republican contenders in recent polls. Not so for Obama or Hillary.

Why isn't this a winning combination for the Democratic party?

If Edwards were the nominee, The GOP are in trouble in states like Ohio and Florida…These are states they (GOP) need to win.

Good move by Rove, even if it's just stating the obvious in public–it sucks the air out of the room for other Democrats, and it reminds his base and potential swing voters of "Horrible Hillary." It increases the odds she wins the primary while also potentially increasing her already high negatives.

So you are saying that Rove is telling…the truth? Now that would be mindblowing!

I agree that Democrats should look beyond Hillary Clinton, and focus more on other chandidates, particularly Edwards. Clinton has too much political baggage to go actually get elected by a majority of American voters.

Following Tippi's logic, it isn't just Edwards Rove is afraid of, but Obama, Kucinich, Gavel, whomever

Thats a hog wash.It is simple…Rove is attacking Clinton because he knows she will be the nominee. The right wing has always hated Clintons. Rove is just trying to rally the base. The corporate media like CNN like to connive with the ring wing in playing these games.

Edwards is great… sensible, down to earth, fair, honest. I'll vote for him!

Edwards is the dems only hope!Obama and Clinton will not win, Rove and the rest of the (republic) scum know it. Edwards/Clark 08

John Edwards is a smart candidate with a real vision for America. I don't understand why the MSM barely covers him. While he is trailing Hillary and Obama in Dem. polls, he is the smart choice to defeat any of the Republican candidates and in fact beats the Repubs in current polls.

Maybe it's double reverse psychology! And of course Bin Laden says that he wants the US in a long protracted war in the Middle East because that exactly what he's afraid of!!! Why wouldn't Rove know that Joe's going to figure this out and actually attack the person he's most affraid of (Hillary) so that Joe will tell us all otherwise? Joe Trippi's an idiot – Rove is so far in his head I'm going to start calling Karl Trippi's subconscious.

I will be voting for John Edwards and I'm from North Carolina….I will stand by the guy from my state, and many of us also will do the same thing. The latest WRAL.com news poll (Raleigh news) has Edwards leading Clinton and Obama in NC, and he's also tied in SC.

I'm so sick of this administration and seeing my son fight over there in Iraq. I don't care about anything but the Dems winning this election, and y'all aren't gonna do it without Edwards. You need appeal to places like mine that typically don't vote Republican.

I'm not gonna start an argument on this message board, but all I can tell the rest of the country is that the South does NOT like Clinton or Obama.

It seems that those who say Edwards has no chance do not really want to win this thing for the Democrats.

apparantly Barak Obama doesnt factor in at all……Im surprised John didnt have Liz make the statement……..

I think Edwards just jumped the shark on this leap of logic.

Obama/Edwards O8. An unbeatable ticket that would make FDR proud.

Finally two candidates that talk sense about real issues and give me hope that our country can come out of the dark night years of partisan b.s. that have hobbled the middle class.

I'm truly scared for us if it isn't either Obama or Edwards in the seat.

Together, ah man… We could actually seriously put our country back together.

Anyone with a brain knows that Rove fears John Edwards.

Rove almost laughed in David Gregory's face when Gregory asked him if he was going after Clinton because he really feared "OBAMA."

One GOP strategist on CNN slipped up when asked if Barack Obama was their worst nightmare, and said, "no, Clinton or Obama would be acceptable candidates for us."

Of course the Republicans avoid talking about John Edwards, unless it's another fake scandal they want to fabricate, like an expensive haircut, that almost all candidates get for media appearances as a NORMAL part of politics these days. Or an expensive house, when most Presidents have historically been rich with bigger houses than the rest of us…like FDR and JFK. Or a $50,000 speech even though Bill Clinton and Giuliani were getting paid 10 times as much to give speeches to the same kinds of groups. Or working at Fortress Investments, as if there is ONE CANDIDATE OUT THERE who doesn't have questionable business deals, from Barack Obama, to Giuliani, to all of the SCANDALS that the Clintons have been involved in. The fact that John Edwards worked for a company with a hedge fund is MINISCULE by comparison to some of the other stuff out there with the other candidates.

With John Edwards, the Democrats would win big, and pick up a FILIBUSTER PROOF SENATE, which is the main thing the Democrats need, other than the White House, to undo what the Republicans have done recently.

That is what scares the Republicans the most about Edwards. The effect that he would have in not only winning the White House, but gains in the House and Senate.

The Clintons won the White House, and lost the Senate and the House of Representatives throughout the 1990s.

If they run Clinton's polarizing behind this time, that trend will continue. Even if she could defy the odds of 40-50% saying they will never cast a vote for her under any circumstances and squeak her way into the White House, the EMOTIONALLY DIVIDED ELECTION that she would be involved in, that people like Rove love because they thrive off of division, her candidacy would destroy Democrats in Congress.

For Karl Rove, that's a consolation prize. Hey, if Clinton wins the White House, they don't consider her as bad as for big business as some other Democrats, and she loses seats for Democrats in Congress so they don't have a governing majority or are in the majority.

With John Edwards, they get a trial lawyer who doesn't like corporate cronyism any more than the Republican Party liking poor people voting, plus a filibuster proof Senate.

That's Rove's worst nightmare, and why he fears John Edwards and his appeal up and down the ticket.

This Joe Trippi has a crooked line of thinking. That may explain why Edwards fired him as a strategiest. Rove & his cronies attacked John Kerry in 2004, instead of John Edwards, because Kerry was running as a dem presidential candidate, John Kerry was just running as Kerry's side kick.

John Edwards is not on Rove radar screen; a nobody or also run. John Edward has very little chance of being nominated by the dems, and if nominated, he again has little chance to beat the republican candidate to win the general election. Obama says it is a long stretch for him to be the next president, and it would be a longer stretch for John Edwards.

Rove & his cronies only worry Hillary, and if nominated, she has the experience and the campaign machine to easily beat any republican presidential candidate, and that means Rove and his cronies will be in the unemployment lines.

This explains why Karl Who keeps trashing Hillary. Rove is jealous, insecured, and worries to be unemployed in the next 4 to 8 yrs.

It seems like a long shot but I wouldnt put anything past those liers in the Whitehouse. Trippi failed to mention the Unbelievable fear tactics Rove and the gang used in '04. It's hard to believe John Edwards is a distant 3rd. He is what America needs right now. He actually cares about the low and middle class.

I prefer Edwards over Clinton and both over Republicans but Trippi's comment strikes me as tortured at best. I see Rove attacking any Democrat necessary to relect another Republican regime to the White House. A far more productive use of your time would be to pursue select cases of impeachment and contempt providing the best return on the investment.

No endorsements implied here. I’m just talking tactics.

I’m not convinced that Senator Edwards can deliver southern and red states better than Senators Clinton and Obama.. Edwards may be southern, but he’s hardly a conventional good old boy, and he’s running a long way to the left in his attempts to play catch-up. Plus, haircut-gate isn’t going to play well in these regions. Obama can energize the African-American vote, but I actually think Hillary Clinton is the most competitive Democrat in the south. I know this seems counter-intuitive, she’ll split off some moderate independent women and she’ll have a pretty famous Bubba out on the trail. I think she can carry Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida, and maybe Virginia and Georgia as well.

Absolutely 100% correct. Hillary "Pro-Free Trade" Clinton will sink Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are stock full of steel and textile factories by haunting workers with a new outsourcing scare. Those are states that we need to win!

John Edwards poses a real threat to not only win all the states Kerry won in '04, but also to cut into the Republican strongholds in the South and Midwest. Hillary just won't do it. Why? She's fatally flawed.

THE GOP FEARS JOHN EDWARDS! Hillary is their best case scenario.

Everyone watch Meet The Press from Aug. 19. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
In that episode Tim Russert asks Rove does he have to say anything bad about Sen. Obama. And Rove refrains from answering the question. Rove is scared of Obama and he is scared of John Edwards. The Democrats need to unite around one candidate that can win in the general election like Edwards and Obama. I agree with David from MI a Edwards/Obama ticket would dominate and the Democrats would finally be able to take back the White House.

He has a point. Very possibly the next person in the Oval Office will be a white non-minority male, no matter the level of competence or incompetence. The Reps don't want Edwards getting in their way. Why doesn't Karl Rove just go home?

Could CNN find a better picture of John Edwards? He appears to be a carnival barker coercing fair goers to play his game, "Come on yall – just one time… just once.. "

Joe Trippi is right on!

This is exactly what they did in 2004, because they were more afraid of Senator Edwards, and they should be.

Rove got one thing right, Senator Clintons unfavorables are higher than Senator Edwards.

Senator Edwards would be a more unifying force in the general election.

Three questions;

1. Who trusts a personal injury attorney?

2. Are personal injury lawyers known for truth and credibility?

3. Who would want a personal injury attorney as president of the US.

Case closed. But he is so darn cute : )

I had no idea people like Trippi actually had positions of consequence.At first I thought he was kidding and I had a good chuckle.I read it again and realized this guys serious.This sort of convoluted paranoia will get Edwards nada.If Trippi is an example of Edwards personnel choices – whew!!

Oh please. Why would anyone be afraid of John Edwards? He is unpopular with the majority of Democrats for a good reason; he is not a good candidate. He has shown himself to be weak and if Carl Rove and Republicans in general are afraid of him, they have a big problem. I don’t trust John Edwards (or his mouthpiece Elizabeth)…can you say SMARMY? Is that a toupee?

I think it's a great theory. Thinking like Karl Rove this would make sense and is part of the brilliance of his evil political strategy.

I'm a republican and I laughed hard. Had Rove said nothing at all it is still very likely that Hillary will win the nomination. She leads the national polls by a huge margin. She doesn't need Rove's help in any way. As it stands right now the democratic nomination is Clinton's to lose.

[...] Edwards' top campaign strategists clearly is suffering from Rove Derangement Syndrome: Well, Joe Trippi, one of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' top strategists, thinks [...]

True. Republicans don't want to get in a fight with Edwards/Obama (either of them would make a fine Dem. candidate, and the two of them on the same ticket would be awesome) because they know that they can rally the independents and apathetics and actually WIN.

i thought this scumbag karl rove was flushed down the toilet!! ahh, ok–he crawled out [again] from the slime of the sewer!! arrgghh!! go away!

Wow – I never realized how much influence Karl Rove has until now. Every word and suggestion is put through a maze of mental gymnastics by the media and democratic camps.

He calls Hillary "fatally flawed" which means he REALLY wants her?

No wait – He calls Hillary "fatally flawed" because he's AFRAID of John Edwards?

Gee – and here I thought from all the negative comments about Rove on the blog this guy was "irrelevant"?

Why would Trippi pay so much attention to this irrelevant political "hack" (not my words)?

Yes…the Democrats had better wake-up and vote for either Edwards or Obama. Clinton may dominate in the party primary…but she'll be easily defeat by Guiliani.

Already Clinton trails Rudy in polls.

Edwards would appeal to voters in the South and Red States…Obama would appeal to moderates and some disillusioned Republicans that want real change.

Edwards needs to get over himself and realize that he is just not worth attacking since he does such a fine job of sinking his own ship without any help.

Doesn't seem like all that many democrats want him to win either…

Van

Correction: White House.

As much I disdain Karl Rove, it makes sense from a strategical standpoint. I mean look at the options for the Republican nominee not that great. It makes sense to attack someone politically who has the most baggage so to speak. Hillary Clinton is the most popular among the democrats vying for the nod so. It's really his way of understanding how the other side works. b/c if he goes after someone so viciously, the opponent will rally around that person for the fact of despising the other. So really it's all about not so much liking a candidate, but it's b/c they hate the other side so much more. It happened in '04 and it can certainly happen again in '08.

Joe Trippi is a loser. He failed Howard Dean in 2004, and Dean fired him. I respectfully disagree with Trippi's analysis of Rove's comments on Hillary. Rove made the comment, because he is frightened about the fact that Clintons are coming back to the whitehouse…Edwards has a ZERO chance of winning the primary. I mean ZERO (0)…

Funny…Just funny…