Joe Trippi to Wolfson: Believe It or Not, Barack Obama Won It

I have to start by saying that I like Howard Wolfson, and respect him. Wolfson is one of the smartest, toughest and fiercest operatives in the Democratic party. I have worked with him, and I have been on the opposing side of him. Hands down I would rather be in a campaign with him.

So his comments declaring that if John Edwards told the truth and left the race earlier then he did, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, leaves me scratching my head. Howard Wolson in denial too? Say it ain’t so.

In politics the number of things you can wonder “if only” about are legion in a losing campaign, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign has hundreds of them.

If only they had actually contested the caucus states, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee.

If only they had known the campaign was going to last past February 5th, and planned accordingly, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee.

If only they hadn’t spent all that money prior to Iowa, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee.

If only they had figured out just a little earlier that change was more important than experience, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee.

If only they had run a more bottom-up campaign that empowered people, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee.

If only they had let Hillary be authentic, Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee.

And of course, if only Barack Obama had not run for President, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee.

If only, if only, if only.

But it was, in the end, the Clinton campaign that decided it was going to promote experience over change, while John Edwards and Barack Obama contested the nomination as change candidates.

Our data showed that the bulk of voters, in Iowa and elsewhere, who supported John Edwards wanted change. When asked who was their second choice if Edwards wasn’t in the race most chose Barack Obama.

John Edwards framed the race better than any other candidate to be about the status quo vs change. If that had an adverse impact on the Clinton campaign, why would that be the case? When you say status quo does anyone think Obama?

The Clinton campaign conducted itself in a way that made voters see Hillary Clinton as a status quo candidate. Its amazing that the first woman with a serious chance at the presidency could be seen that way. But it was the Clinton campaign that created that perception – not John Edwards, not the press, not Barack Obama.

If John Edwards had left the race before Iowa, Barack Obama would have defeated Hillary Clinton by a wider margin in the Iowa caucuses. Clinton would have almost certainly lost New Hampshire as many of the Edwards change voters voted for Obama, and then she would have lost Nevada for the same reason. The Clinton campaign’s calculation that the race would be over by February 5th would have proven correct except that Barack Obama would have sailed to the nomination that much sooner.

The country is hungry for change, and Barack Obama is the candidate Democrats chose to be the nominee.

John Edwards didn’t lose it for Hillary Clinton. Believe it or not, Barack Obama won it.