Why is Joe Trippi singing the praises of the DLC Chair?

by: Adam Bink

Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 16:00

After reading it, here's a few reactions:

1. First, Trippi doesn't come at this with clean hands and a unimpeachable good government interest. Don't forget he was chief strategist for Carolyn Maloney, who was in the primary until she dropped out shortly after. Let's not also forget he was caught astroturing for her without revealing who his client was, and sockpuppeting at DailyKos. So I don't trust his motives.

2. Normally I am a big supporter of primaries as instruments to move people to the left. Despite his pander on marriage equality, it is far from clear that Ford will run a campaign at Gillibrand from her left. What in the world would he have to say? He was one of the most conservative Democrats in the House and a member of the Blue Dogs. He ran against Pelosi from the right for Minority Leader in 2002. He ran a campaign for Senate that would make Creigh Deeds look like Donna Edwards. Then he became Chair of the DLC. Then he signed on as a Fox News contributor. Then he became Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch. Harold Ford embodies everything progressives fight against, so how in the world is this going to push Gillibrand to the left?

3. Gillibrand already has a challenger from the left- Jonathan Tasini. Sure, his campaign isn't very good, but notice nowhere in Trippi's piece did he mention Tasini or pushing Gillibrand to be more progressive. It depends on whether you actually want to push her to the left, or you think she should have a challenger just because you want her to have a challenger, in which case, like Trippi, it seems you pretty much support anyone who comes calling.

4. Trippi talks about democracy and the right to choose in an election. Here's what that ignores. Um, Ford might actually win! Harold Ford Jr. is a DLC, Joe Lieberman clone. I have no faith whatsoever he will be at all progressive while in the Senate. So I have no problem with keeping him from running.

So, it depends on what is more important to you- having a primary just so a Joe Lieberman clone can run, or keeping a Joe Lieberman clone out of the Senate. I know which I care more about.

From Joe Trippi's Twitter Feed...

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:23

Urging every candidate that I am working with to join http://www.responsibleplan.com... A responsible plan to end the war in Iraq.

It's the List, Stupid

by: Micah Sifry

Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 13:18

Cross-posted from my blog at techPresident.com.

Time for a bit of a rant. I listened in on the Edwards campaign's press call this morning where they launched a new website called AmericaBelongstoUs2008.com, asking voters to sign a pledge "not to vote or caucus for a Democratic presidential candidate that accepts campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

Edwards' top advisers Joe Trippi and Jonathan Prince were on the call, making much of how our broken political system is dominated by lobbyists and special interests, and trying to distinguish their candidate from the other Dems for not taking contributions from DC lobbyists.

But here's what offended me--and I'm sorry if this is going to sound like an attack on the Edwards campaign, because it's not. It's just that with Edwards making the biggest and boldest claims to be a change agent, my expectations are higher.

When my colleague Josh Levy, who was also on the call, asked the Edwards folks how they were going to use the list of pledge signers (they're aiming to get 1 million names by Feb. 5th), Trippi and Prince basically punted, mumbling something about going after lobbyists.

Look guys, don't treat us like we're dummies. Clearly this is a list-building exercise (and a way to earn some media coverage). After someone signs the America Belongs to Us pledge, they're taken to a sign-up and donation page for the Edwards campaign. And that's it.

Now, there's nothing wrong with political campaigns trying to build up their email lists. Nor is there anything wrong with doing it by riding the news and connecting their campaign priorities to voters' concerns.

But what bothers me is the hollowness of the exercise.