According the article, Trippi claims he had a feeling that had Edwards stayed in the primaries, he could have picked up 300 or so delegates, forced a brokered convention, made sure that his populist ideas remained at the top of the Democratic agenda, and maybe even come out of it as the compromise candidate in the general election.
It's an intriguing thought that will probably haunt Trippi and even Camacho. Camacho says
Is Trippi right to regret not urging the continuation of Edwards’ campaign? What if Edwards had stayed in the race? Would he now be winning the electability argument? Would he be a voice of reason in the midst of the Clinton/Obama cage match, or would we simply be witnessing an equally nasty Edwards/Clinton/Obama cage match? The fact that I’m giving so much thought to these questions should serve as a pretty good indication of how fatigued I am by the entire Democratic nominating contest as it currently stands.I sympathize with my young compatriot. But a word to the wise from somebody older and more experienced. Hindsight is always 20/20. Don't drive yourself crazy with this speculation. The primaries will end, we will have a candidate and we may even be a stronger party for it.
While it's frustrating right now, the upside is that in every contested state, citizens are flocking to register as Democrats to take part in the contest. We will have their names and be able to build a database. A ground game is built on that.
Nobody can really know at this point if the seemingly endless primary season will damage our nominee for November. I don't want to seem Pollyana-ish about this. But there is an up side to this, which is that it is building the party.
And another up side is that by the time we reach the general election, each candidate will be so thoroughly vetted that there will be no surprises. Indeed, back at the very beginning, when we had a crowded field, a politically savvy friend pointed to Hillary as the strongest candidate for one simple reason. "What is there that you don't already know about her? What could her opponents possibly dredge up to hurt her that isn't already public knowledge? What's left that would have shock value in October.?"
That's a good point. Both parties really dread the "October surprise." In fact, gleeful as Republicans are with the bloodletting in the Democratic Party right now, I'm sure that the more sophisticated among them is actually a little sad that the Reverend Wright problems have come to light this early.
After all, those videos have been advertised on the church's website for years. Sure the media were lazy and enamoured of Obama's star power and never checked. But don't tell me that Republican operatives didn't know about those tapes. In fact, I'll wager you that there is actually gnashing of teeth in Mudville that all this peaked too soon.
Long, arduous primaries - quite possibly the antidote to damaging October Surprises!