Will the Edwards/Trippi "attack dog" strategy benefit or hurt John Edwards?

[Colobo]

As the primaries get closer, we can notice John Edwards attack his Dem opponents more forcefully, especially Hillary Clinton. Trippi just went hard after Hillary's "Homeland Security" fundraiser, and we can expect their attacks to get stronger and stronger as primaries approach.

So, will this help or hurt John Edwards in the long run?

[msongs]

1. look at trippi's election win-loss record. 'nuff said and I know

he was hooked up with my man, howard dean. not sure how much trippi had to do with the implosion of that campaign, but if I recall, he was fired eventually.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[rpannier]

2. Contrary to what the media will tell you

Aggressive campaigning works...Ask Bill and his his team from 92.

[Colobo]

3. It does work, but it can backfire.

[OHdem10]

4. Ask the GOP as they ascended over the last 20 years.

Agressive campaigning is necessary, otherwise regular voters
believe you really are not all that excited to win.

While I would not want Guilliani to win, he so far has maintained
a lead because he comes across as assertive, agressive and
wants to win.

When our candidates decide to get agressive assertive I would
want them to remain honest.

Guilliani and Romney LIE. Call Hilary's Healthcare plan a great\
bureaucratic mass and based upon European Healthcare.
This is a baldfaced lie. It is a Public-Private Endeavor.
It is not government run. Guilliani runs around "The Democrats
will bring you socialism."

They are mor dishonest than honest and I hope it catches up with
them.

My point is you can be be strong and agressive yet honest.

[slick8790]

5. I think it'll help him to a certain point.

Edwards is getting relatively little media attention, and if a truthful attack is what he needs to do get his name out and have people take a second look at him, so be it.

But as long as he keeps talking about his own issues and positions and doesn't switch to 100% negative campaigning, i think it'll be to his benefit.

[jcrew2001]

6. In this 3 person or 1-person race...

Edwards and Obama both have to focus on defeating Hillary. As long as there is a 3-way tie in Iowa, it helps Hillary in NH, and so on.

In order for Obama or Edwards to win the nomination, they need to Guarantee Hillary finishes a strong 3rd in Iowa. This would embarrass her and force her to "must-win" NH, a place that Obama can beat her.

For Hillary, it really is all about Iowa, as long as both Obama and Edwards are in the race.

[Cameron27]

7. It may help only if he doesn't get called on his attacks

by Obama or Clinton. Trippi's going after everyone, it's the old 'Edwards against the world meme', but right now he's inching up to 2nd place, and Obama should start to fight back now IMO.

[Inspired]

8. Both Obama and Edwards should be in this fight....

but not against each other.

[Cameron27]

9. I don't know about that,

right now Obama's got to be looking over his shoulder at Edwards or he's going to be overtaken IMO.

[Inspired]

11. Well.....

as an Edwards supporter, let me just say that if Edwards' numbers are creeping up, that is a good thing! I think my point was missed though.

I support Edwards and Obama is my number 2 choice. The biggest challenge BOTH face is Hillary, not each other.

[rpannier]

10. I'm with you on that

It's important that each candidate carves out where they stand on the issues.

However, I would like to see a certain level of unity on the serious issues of the day -- Health Care being at the top.

I haven't studied each candidates Health Care plan fully, but I want a provision that prevents these private companies from cutting you off if you get really sick, or denying you treatment because the insurance companies don't want to pay.