Edwards: A strategy backfires?

I’m offering a quick take on John Edwards’ “pile on Hillary” strategy in New Hampshire.

Apparently, Edwards’ staff didn’t look at the first post-Iowa polls showing the degree of momentum shift in New Hampshire, let alone those polls showing the same shift starting to happen in South Carolina.

If the staff, and Edwards himself, would have paid attention, they might have realized “pile on Hillary” was actually a pretty stupid strategy.

It hasn’t shifted a lot of voters or momentum to Edwards; rather, it’s helped move even more of it to Obama.

So what if Clinton loses by a healthy margin in NH, and even gets trounced in SC? If Obama has enough momentum, Edwards has no chance.

Instead, he should have kept independent talking points in the debate and elsewhere, rather than coming off as a “me-tooer.” From the point of view of potential change voters, why vote for a “me-tooer” if you think Obama’s offering the real deal?