"Why," the media ask, "is Edwards going after Hillary instead of Obama? Shouldn't he be attacking the new front-runner? That's the way this game is supposed to be played! How dare Edwards not follow the rules?!"
It looks like he learned a lesson from 2004 when Kerry and Dean got all the post-Iowa media coverage. I think there's a method to his madness if you stop and look at it (and remember Edwards was the one who framed the "status quo lost and change won" dynamic when he was the first to speak on caucus night):
The press is giving Hillary more coverage right now because they can sense that "the inevitable front-runner" is about to go down. Edwards gets less coverage, even though he was the one who edged her out for second place Thursday night. Nothing Edwards can do about that but try to use it to his advantage. How? Here's how...
It's political judo, using the weight of the media coverage against Hillary. Edwards knows that if he were to team up with Hillary and they both went after Obama, and then Obama still wins New Hampshire (a virtual certainty in a matter of days, with his momentum), the media would play it as Obama beats Hillary AND Edwards.
But if Edwards goes after Hillary instead, painting himself as a kindred spirit with Obama in a battle for CHANGE, then the media's spotlight remains focused entirely on Hillary losing, and the negative coverage of her gets magnified, while Edwards is sort of "on the winning team" by helping to take her out.
If he can do this while doing "better than expected" in New Hampshire (and he is gaining in the polls -- up to 20, 20, and 23 in the last three), while Hillary collapses, then he can come out looking like the alternative to Obama.
Then we'll see if he can get that one-on-one debate about which kind of change Americans really want: REAL change or just the IDEA of change. That could be a barn-burner.
Chuck Todd's take on the debate is interesting, and he's curious about Edwards' strategy. His concluding paragraph in particular caught my eye (with my bold):
Still, the story of this debate is the gang-up on Clinton. It's interesting, Clinton may now be the candidate who needs to get Obama in a one-on-one; Edwards and Richardson are now distractions and are complicating her ability to go after Obama; Obama, meanwhile, needs the extra candidates. Amazing how things change; a few weeks ago, the larger field seemed to benefit Clinton more than Obama. This is how fast things can change in this era of the 24/7 news cycle. Toss in the compressed calendar and realize things could either change quickly again or end a lot sooner than any of us realized.