From the sounds of it the new person is an institution in Iowa politics.  When you have a chance to get major talent, you have to grab it.  That does not have to mean that someone did anything wrong or was "pushed aside," although I can see where that would be something an Edwards supporter is trying to make out of it.   I don't recall the same accolades for Winterhof, so this is definitely a major upgrade.    

It is VERY early in the process, the candidates are just now opening offices and getting things going in these states.  It makes sense to get the best possible team together for the big push in late fall and early winter.  The polls in Iowa are all over the place, which means the state is probably up for grabs, despite the fact that Edwards had a major institutional advantage in the state because of the infrastructure he had built and the donors he had lined up before.  

The "memo."  I can't say.  The memo seemed rather innocent enough.  The writer was not pointing to any type of problem, just was questioning the wisdom of spending perhaps $15 to $20 Million Dollars on one early small state when, given Clinton's overall position in state polls, one can easily see her winning the nomination by concentrating on and building very strong support in New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, etc.   Seemed like a brainstorming memo that raised an interesting point, given the reality as we currently see it (Clinton leads in virtually every state that is being polled.)   Of course, it was shot down, as Iowa is an important part of the puzzle, and you don't want to leave the state as a pickup to Edwards by default.  Better to make Edwards spend a lot of advertising money to keep his lead in the polls in that one all-important (for him) state, thereby drying him up to be unable to compete in other important states.  

If the memo was leaked on purpose, I don't see to what purpose.  To shake up the race in Iowa?  Seems far fetched.    As for "tight ship."  There are lots of people involved in any campaign.  You can't run a campaign ship airtight all the time, it is impossible.   All campaigns will have some problems keeping a lid on everything, now and in the future.  

With Vilsack in the race, I predicted Clinton would finish fourth in Iowa. That was not just based on anecdotes (I actually only knew of a handful of firm Vilsack supporters), but on some structural factors about the caucuses that in my mind favored Vilsack.

With Vilsack gone, I have predicted that Clinton will finish third but have not ruled out a fourth-place finish either.

When I say "distant third," I mean that I doubt Clinton will get more than 20 percent of the delegates, and I think the winner will get more than 30 percent of the delegates. But for the purposes of our just-for-fun bet, any third-place or worse finish for Clinton would be a "win" for me.

You can call me biased, but I vowed to learn something from the last caucus campaign in Iowa. Among other things, I learned that second choices are more important than I had realized.

Also, I should have paid more attention to which candidates undecided voters told me they were considering, and which candidates undecided voters told me they had ruled out.