Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination

by indydem99, Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM EST

I believe Wolfson is correct when he says:

I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

I totally agree with him when he says:

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."

Wolfson is some what correct when he says:

But he says he is mystified about the failure of the national media to pursue the story as it has allegations of other candidates' affairs.

"I can't say I understand the rules of the media and I'm not sure they do either," he said.

I think the real reason the MSM did not follow up with the Edwards story was because they knew it would hurt Sen. obama's Chances.

Here is the full article: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1




Tags: wolfson, Hillary, Clinton, Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 204 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 9)

This is pretty pathetic.....

If the media had pursued Edwards' sex scandal, Hillary would have won.

But of course, it ignores the fact that when Edwards dropped out, Obama did BETTER.


by Glaurung on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST

The if's and but's and candy and nuts theme (2.00 / 11)

Agreed.

If the media had found out about Edward's earlier*...
If Michigan had counted...
If all the caucuses didn't count...
If Florida counted...
If it wasn't all a conspiracy between Howard Dean, the Free Masons, and the MSM...
If...
If...
If...

How about if Hillary hadn't been completely incompetent at running a campaign?

How about if Hillary had fired Mark Penn?

Those are the real questions the tinfoil hat conspiracy pumas need to ask but can't.

* I actually believe Edwards being out of the race would have helped Obama early on. I believe Edwards siphoned off Obama voters in the early stages.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

You may have done worse than killed my family, but I more than agree -- this is pathetic.  "If only a big honking sex scandal had been the primary issue, Our Girl would totally have dominated?!"  Girlfriend, please!


I am not a crook!
by username on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (none / 0)

Er, signed... "Turin Turambar."


I am not a crook!
by username on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards was running as the non-Clinton. (none / 0)

That's why Obama saw a bigger bump after he left than Clinton did. This crystal-ball gazing to determine what could have happened is meaningless anyway.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

crystal-ball gazing (none / 0)

For McPumas, political reality is too grim to bear.


by Glaurung on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or because it was just a smear back then (none / 0)

My question is: why is the MSM not following up on McCain's adultery?


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST

Easy (2.00 / 3)

Because it happend 30 years ago.  Cold story.

If you mean the recent thing with the NYT... that was some of the least substantiated rumormongering anti-journalism I'd ever seen, and was almost certainly instigated by the McCain campaign in the first place so they could refute it and look good to the base for bashing the "liberal media."


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Easy (2.00 / 2)

True.

Also, McCain did what America (being a provencial bedroom peeping country of sexual adolescents) thinks is the legitamizing act, he married his mistress AND stayed with her.

Bringing up McCain's infidelity was a loser before, NOW it's absolutely radioactive.

Obama and his campaign won't go within 100 miles of it.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:29:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But it'll keep McCain mum on Edwards. (2.00 / 1)

He'd still be too easy a target should he make anything out of infidelity - 30 years later, or not.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When did he marry Vickie? (none / 0)

Woudn't that be bigamy, if he is still married to Cindy?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So there's a statute of limitations? (none / 0)

When does the statute of limitations expire on Edwards expire so he can again run for public office?


by Brad G on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ask Gary Hart (none / 0)

I'll wait.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So there's a statute of limitations? (none / 0)

Maybe someday Edwards can run for dog catcher in a town where no one's heard of him.


by Glaurung on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or because it was just a smear back then (2.00 / 1)

Would anyone believe that McFossil COULD have sex --  with ANYONE?


by Glaurung on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a childish thought (none / 0)

your great-grandparents did it (at least once).

Try to grow up, OK?
The quality of discourse around here has sunk terribly low.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lighten up Church Lady! (none / 0)

At least one person liked it -- which cancels out your dislike.


by Glaurung on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 9)

What happened to "every state should vote and be heard from"? Oh, right...that's only true if Hillary was behind. Otherwise, they would've been fine with wrapping this up in Iowa.

And enough with the "media held this back to help Obama" foolishness. They didn't hold back on Wright. They didn't hold back on Ayers. They didn't hold back on framing the contest as if Hillary had a shot after Ohio and Texas, when she actually ended up losing at pretty much the same deficit of delegates several weeks later. They're not holding back on framing the current race as a tie when Obama has held a steady lead since getting the nomination, and is way ahead in the electoral college. They're not holding back on incessantly asking why Obama isn't winning by more, yet acting like McCain is doing fine with a 43 percent ceiling he has yet to crack. They're not holding back on giving McCain free pass after free pass.

The media is NOT Obama's friend, nor ours.


by Reeves on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (1.00 / 6)

The media FAILED to report on Wright until they KNEW their beloved had already wrapped up the nomination-then Beloved gives ONE speech and all of a sudden it's a non-story.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 16)

Quite possibly the dumbest comment I've ever read here.  That's some top-notch, American Natural History Museum quality "stupid" you have there.

Please consider donating it for posterity.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:22:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 6)

Yes...it's not like the story resurfaced full force when Wright did another major speech, and ABC News certainly didn't make him account for it in the final debate.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.


by Reeves on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 4)

Media cover-up of Wright????????
that is beyond the pale.
"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 7)

Did I miss the memo? Is this tin foil hat day on MyDD?


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

You're just upset because the Wright thing didn't work.


by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If the Wright thing worked, ... (none / 0)

... Clinton would have won PA 15-20 points, IN by 5-10 pts., lost NC by at most 5 (probably won), lost OR by at most 5 (probably won), etc.


by Brad G on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 5)

Just let it go..


John McCain: Drill, Drill, Surge!!!!!
by TennesseeGurl on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 3)

I have another silly hypothesis, if IndyDem was born with 5 braincells instead of only 3, he may be able to write diaries better than this tripe.


by Dog Chains on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07:23 AM EST

Dog chains are you related to Ms Bitchell??? (none / 0)


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Complete and utter bullshit! (2.00 / 8)

Edwards was the netroots' favorite, and when he dropped out his support went disproportionately for Obama. Just about every poll tracker showed this.

What on earth is Wolfson smoking?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST

He's smoking rolled up wads of money (2.00 / 6)

Remember who Wolfson works for now.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's smoking rolled up wads of money (2.00 / 3)

He's thinking of his future and how to get out from under the widespread charge that HRC need not have lost except that her campaign staff were incompetent when they were not being stupid and it is All Their Fault. Not hers. He IS looking to 2012, but for himself.


by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Complete and utter bullshit! (none / 0)

What on earth is Wolfson smoking?

Most likely a Sativa.  They tend to be more trippy than Indica strains.


by snark adam excuse on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I can't stand is.. (none / 0)

the deification of Elizabeth Edwards.  Just because you have a terminal illnes doesn't disqualify you from being a cunning manipulator.  She and hubby must have known that this scandal could have broken at any time during the nominating process-and yet she allowed John to proceed. Ah but ambition knows no boundariies.  I was watching Kate Snow on ABC on Saturday morning editorializing on the air about Elizabeth Edwards' "courage" in all of this.  "Courage" my ass. First of all to Ms. Snow--shut your stupid face, and secondly to all the Edwards devotees out there-imagine if he had won Iowa and perhaps the nomination. It's not Mrs Edwards' courage that's the issue, it's her phoniness.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST

Re: What I can't stand is.. (2.00 / 5)

Serial affairs were not fatal for Bill and therefore they might not be fatal for Edwards if handled properly. Remember, she was the one who took the position that she would work through the illness because his election was so important (even if she might not live to see the administration.)  If you want us all to overlook it for Bill, you need to chill out on why it should be fatal for Edwards.


by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I can't stand is.. (none / 0)

Right, important for her own ego.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And yet... (2.00 / 3)

your deification of Mrs. Clinton--who knew about her husband's philandering back when he was Governor of Arkansas, well before his presidential run, and thus knew that scandal could erupt at any point in the 1992 elections and thus destroy Democratic hopes--continues unabashedly.  Really, how dare she allow her husband to run?

Look at the pot calling the kettle phony and ambitious.  Even better is that Mr. Pot here probably considers himself motivated by feminism, even as he plays a classic game of "blame the female victim."  Ah, but irony knows no boundaries!


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And yet... (none / 0)

Ah , you forget that Bill Clinton's philandering was common knowledge. And #2 Clinton didn't present himself as the perfect Ken Doll family man the way Edwards did. I knew Edwards was a phony a long time ago--too bad you didn't. And of course Mrs Clinton NEVER had a terminal illness or excuse me (in remission) as if that makes a difference.


by handsomegent on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (2.00 / 7)

I also believe Edwards adultery NOT being revealed is was what caused the Seattle Mariners to have the worst record in the American League, the first time a team with a payroll in the top 3 have suffered that indignity.

My assertion is JUST as provable, and logical as yours:

A occured, B occured, therefore A caused B.

Meaning, both are a logical equation that is not apriori true.

Without a time machine, and a quantum re-universe event generator, what we both did was wildly speculate on an unprovable assertion.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (none / 0)

Well Obama certainly wanted Edwards' support as the final straw against Hillary.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (2.00 / 6)

The final straw was shortly after Super Tuesday when Obama ran up the insurmountable lead. Anything after that was icing.


by Reeves on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (none / 0)

Except that "icing" included losses in Ohio, Indiana, Penn, West Virginia,Texas, and South Dakota--and Obama did use Edwards as his ah-ha moment.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (2.00 / 2)

Pfft. Ohio and Penn are going Dem anyway. The other states are irrelevant to electoral victory in November. Thanks for trying anyway...


by Reeves on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (none / 0)

Don't count on Ohio. And if Mccain picks Ridge, don't count on PA either.


by handsomegent on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:09:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (2.00 / 4)

And not a single one of those losses was unexpected.  Edwards' endorsement was not a significant factor in Obama's victory.  No endorsement was.
Obama racked up a significant pledged delegate lead in February and then played out the string trading primaries with Clinton through the last three months.
by bottl4 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (2.00 / 1)

And when, exactly now, did Edwards drop out?


by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:58:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A happened, B happened, therefore A caused B? (2.00 / 8)

I lost a sock in the dryer around the time of the Iowa contest.  Now I know what happened.  

Damn you John Edwards, damn you to hell!

;)


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're being too kind, WSB (2.00 / 4)

This is worse than a case of coincidental correlation. It's speculation that's in stark contrast to what was blindingly obvious from all tracking polls - that Edwards supporters went overwhelmingly for Obama. Does anyone have links to the tracking polls for that timeframe?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 10)

I think the real reason the MSM did not follow up with the Edwards story was because they knew it would hurt Sen. obama's Chances.

Absolutely unfounded, unnecessary and just a tad paranoid.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST

What if it was a scandal involving Hillary? (none / 0)

Do you think the MSM would have given the same coverage?


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What if it was a scandal involving Obama? (2.00 / 6)

What's your point?

The MSM got itself into an orgy over any hint of controversy surrounding either Clinton or Obama. Edwards clearly didn't get as much scrutiny because he dropped out early.

Regardless, Wolfson has zero basis for making this claim. He's either been unable to get his head out of his ass, or is trying to burnish his credentials for future employment. The Obama camp must have made it clear that they won't have a place for him. What a dipshit.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:32:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess Obama bought everybody else! (1.00 / 1)

I am sure Mark Penn and Patty Doyle were Obam's paid staffers. How else could you account for their behaviour?


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A more believable conspiracy theory. n/t (2.00 / 2)


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess Obama bought everybody else! (2.00 / 3)

Umm there's already a site for the paranoid delusional. It's called NoQuarter. I am sure your post will get a rousing reception over there.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You Obambots can't even take a joke! (none / 0)


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:35:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Current employment, I should have said. (2.00 / 1)

Wolfson's now with the Faux gang (thanks Draco), I should have guessed. How these comments must just warm the cockles of their Faux hearts.

He works for the enemy now, Indy. Let it go, man!


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:45:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current employment, I should have said. (2.00 / 1)

They have hearts??


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Faux hearts, I said. n/t (2.00 / 1)


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current employment, I should have said. (none / 0)

"He works for the enemy now, Indy. "

For Indy, Faux is not the Enemy.

McCain is not the Enemy.

Barack Obama and the democratic party are the enemy.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if it was a scandal involving Hillary? (2.00 / 1)

There wasn't so why guess what who or what would have or have not done. It's a game I choose not to play.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:39:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 6)

Man, is this dumb.


by rfahey22 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST

Why is wolfson saying this? (none / 0)


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because he lost (2.00 / 7)

losers always make excuses.


by JJE on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (1.00 / 6)

It's not an excuse dear. And if Saint Barack loses in November his "fans' will be blaming the Clinton supporters as an excuse for his lousy campaign.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:25:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (2.00 / 7)

A lousy campaign in which he has a huge electoral lead, a consistent popular lead, and is doing all of this with very little party support, no 527 support, and a hostile media.

What a chump.


by Reeves on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (1.33 / 3)

Uh, I think MoveOn is a 527, is it not?


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (1.83 / 6)

MoveOn closed their 527 operations.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (1.00 / 4)

That may be the case but I see MoveOn ads criticizing McCain all the time so essentially they function as a 527.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Incorrect (2.00 / 4)

They function as a PAC, not a 527.  527s are a specific kind of entity where large donors can give unlimited moneys for nebulous purposes.  PACs have donation limits and generally pretty well-defined goals.  Each of those commercials you see from MoveOn is the result of a whole lot of people coming together for a singular purpose.  Ads from a 527 literally come from the smoke-filled room.

While they might sometime fill similar ecological niches within the political spectrum, there's a huge difference between who MoveOn serves and who, say, Citizens United or the National Campaign Fund serve.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Incorrect (1.00 / 3)

But they have essentially the same function-to advocate for one candidate at the expense of another--and to do it w/o the imprimatur of the party apparatus attached.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes it is sweetie (2.00 / 3)

Sorry you can't move on.  Maybe you and Howard can meet up and cry on each other's shoulders.


by JJE on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (2.00 / 4)

Barack Obama has run a remarkable campaign.  His grass roots, get the boots out, internet saavy style has forever changed the political landscape of this country and elevated the discussion. Your comment would have made more sense if he had lost in the primaries, but then we wounldn't be having this discussion.


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:45:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (1.00 / 3)

He won Iowa because the Republicans in Iowa voted for him to thwart the plans of that dastardly evil woman Hillary, and because the non-threshold Edwards supporters got together with the Obama people-again to thwart the plans of the evil Hillary, who must be stopped at all costs.


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Go to Iowa (2.00 / 4)

Everyone I've talked to who is from Iowa says that Obama ran an incredible campaign there, and even the people who voted for someone else liked and respected Obama.

If Republicans in Iowa voted for Obama before their own candidate was even close to being chosen, it's because those particular Republicans wanted Obama to be president.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (2.00 / 2)

Right.  You don't sound crazy at all.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (1.00 / 3)

And what the fuck is crazy about the quaint notion that Democrats should decide the Democratic nominee?  After all the non-Democrats chose to be something other than a Democrat, didn't they?


by handsomegent on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Democrats DO decide (2.00 / 2)

..the process by which the democratic nominee is selected. And in some states, that involves the opinions of non-democrats. Because the GE isn't going to be decided by democrats alone, you know.

You have a problem with the nomination process? Sell the party on your point of view. And do it before the 2012 primaries, not after the fact.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because he lost (2.00 / 4)

Note to handsome gent: You are making as ass of your self all over this thread. You have lost any respect you might have had here.


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HA (2.00 / 1)


   Lousy campaign? What does that make Senator Clinton's campaign? Considering Barack Obama, with his lousy campaign, BEAT HER!!

  Get some medicine. Your anger and resentment is unhealthy.


by southernman on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is wolfson saying this? (2.00 / 6)

Cause he is almost as bitter as you...

Almost.

Also, chances are, his career is dead and buried in the Democratic party.

This is a CYA move, to try to recover from HIS part (not the biggest, I think Penn was the true driver that put the car into the ditch) in blowing a huge lead in money, name recognition and a 100 Super Delegate lead from the starting line.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

May be they were all working for Obama! LOL (2.00 / 2)

I would call that a the vast chicago conspiracy!
ROLFLMAO!!!!!!
You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is wolfson saying this? (2.00 / 6)

Because he lost and he needs an excuse?  Anyway, there are two statements made in this diary - 1) that Edwards cost Clinton the nomination (Wolfson's argument); and 2) that the MSM purposefully refused to cover the story in order to help Obama (your argument).  I find both ridiculous.  Take Edwards out of the equation and both candidates change their message to appeal to those voters (as do Biden, Dodd, etc.).  Your argument assumes that the MSM is one single collective with knowledge of every story published on every candidate anywhere, and that in addition the MSM has top secret polling data so that it knows how a given story would affect the race, and furthermore that the collective MSM decided to sit on this story about one candidate because it knew how it would affect the chances of other candidates.

Wolfson's blowing smoke up our collective ass.


by rfahey22 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is wolfson saying this? (2.00 / 4)

Because he works for Fox now.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The first line of reasoning in this diary (2.00 / 2)

... to make sense.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's strange (2.00 / 3)

People have such short memories.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your buddy Murdoch endorsed Obama (none / 0)

Don't forget Murdoch backs Obama. NY post endorsed him. WSJ has written a favorable editorial. Your shameless friends and Huffington post are touting that.

I read WSJ only for the financial news not for their editorials.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

Really REALLY dumb....


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 4)

Remarkably so.  This caliber of "dumb" ought be donated to science for comprehensive study.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

or shamelessness. (2.00 / 2)

It would be worth both cents.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If, if, if, if (2.00 / 3)

whatever.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST

Breaking: Wolfson tries to cover his ass (2.00 / 5)

Blames anything he can think of but himself.

Also breaking: dog bites man


by JJE on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM EST

Re: Breaking: Wolfson tries to cover his ass (2.00 / 3)

...and it was JRE's fault.  Also Obama's.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:31:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who Knows??? (2.00 / 3)

Nobody has a time machine, so we can't go back and find out what would have happened. Edwards helped Obama in the early debates, but I don't think it was decisive. I suspect Obama would have had an even bigger Iowa win if Edwards hadn't been in the contest, and maybe Biden or Richardson would have come in a more respectable third place behind Clinton. Obama probably would have edged Clinton in New Hampshire, and we would have had a nominee even faster. If anything, Edwards probably helped keep Clinton in the race longer.


by Hatch on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST

Re: Who Knows??? (2.00 / 3)

BTW, Hatch, your assumption is JUST as logical and just as provable.

Meaning BOTH are pure speculation.

I remember when students were required to take at least a begining class in logic...

A occured, B occured, therefore A cause B is one of the things you learn about in week one.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 5)

(facepalm)

If any single person can be blamed for Hillary's defeat, it's this one:

---------------> Hillary Clinton <---------------


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST

Not to let facts get in the way of your point, but (2.00 / 5)

The best online statistician debunks this point flat out:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/w hy-howard-wolfson-is-out-of-job.html

Sigh, this site keeps deteriorating ...


by Lolis on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST

Re: Not to let facts get in (2.00 / 1)

Sort of. Poblano bases this on Edwards dropping out on the morning before the caucuses. If this were admitted to much earlier, he probably would have dropped out long before then. There's really no way of knowing what would have happened. It's all meaningless speculation.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rec'd - I agree. (none / 0)

I'm sure you knew you would receive this reaction from this bunch.....keep in mind that these are the same folks that insisted that the Edwards scandal were just lies. Denial.


by soyousay on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST

Sure, denial, but whose? (2.00 / 3)

A picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks for the link, Lolis.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rec'd - I agree. (2.00 / 2)

Denial! That's rich coming from the biggest deadender here, who still can't work here way through the stages of grief.


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rec'd - I agree. (none / 0)

And Lo and Behold! Look who rec'd this turd bomb:

,The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:
soyousay


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rec'd - I agree. (none / 0)

I just wrote that I rec'd this Diary. You're late to the game when it comes to making the announcement; just like MSM was late reporting on Edwards. I call that incompetency.


by soyousay on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 3)

Wolfson sure has been a whiny little prick since the primaries ended...not to mention dead wrong.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM EST

So ... (2.00 / 2)

... Edwards should have never run if he had an affair?

If Wolfson and others really believe that's the case, then Bill Clinton knowing he ad affairs most certainly should not have run, and the arguments surround Sen. Clinton having too much baggage are/were completely valid.


by Brad G on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM EST

Obama caught lightening in a bottle (1.50 / 2)

All luck, all the hype, it all went his way.  

Lets hope McCain doesn't break that bottle over his head.  It is going to get ugly.

As for Edwards, he has to be the most arrogant POS in a century.  Just imagine for a second that he pulled it off and he was the nominee today.  Imagine the mess we'd be in.   He didn't care.  He just cared about stroking his own ego.


by RichardFlatts on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST

Re: Obama caught lightening in a bottle (none / 0)

"All luck, all the hype, it all went his way."

Why do insist on continue to trash Senator Clinton all over these boards, Richard.

You do it time and time again, we all support Senator Clinton here, and I insist your insults need to stop.

Making her out to be so weak as to get beaten simply by luck and hype.

I wish you had more respect for Senator Clinton then that.  


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Just imagine for a second that he pulled it off and he was the nominee today.  Imagine the mess we'd be in.   He didn't care.  He just cared about stroking his own ego.

This I agree with.

All luck, all the hype, it all went his way.

This not so much.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST

Of course (none / 0)

Because after Democratic voters learned about John Edwards's affair, Democrats would have been even more willing to potentially send a philandering ex-President back to the White House.

Come on.


by Brad G on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:24:49 PM EST

Tired of this (none / 0)

We are getting all these Clinton Surrogates sniping at Obama, and of course Bill can't even bring himself to say Obama is qualified to be president!  I cannot remember a party leader ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE not supporting his party's candidate.

Getting to sound more and more like the opening guns of the HRC 2012 campaign.  

What the hell happened to party unity!?!


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:34:45 PM EST

Re: Tired of this (none / 0)


  the Clinton gripers aren't interested in party unity. They're interested in Clinton unity. Anything else is off the table.
by southernman on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton, unity or not, has nothing to do with this (none / 0)

I disagree. They CLAIM to be Clinton supporters, but clearly, they are just angry people who can't admit they were wrong, made hundreds of wrong and stupid statements, and their pride can't admit how foolish and petulant they look.

Senator Clinton has nothing to do with it, she has a life, a career, she has moved on to helping the democratic party and the people she was elected to serve.

These people are so angry they were wrong and stupid, they just continue to lash out with there inane and pointless falsehoods.


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

long ago I started working on a diary (2.00 / 4)

about this. I am not sure that Clinton would have won Iowa if Edwards had dropped out or been destroyed as a candidate.

A lot of Edwards supporters were anybody-but-Clinton. Some would have preferred her, but many would have preferred Obama or one of the second-tier candidates.

Maybe Biden or Richardson would have been viable in a lot more precincts, and Hillary still would have fallen short.


See if Saxby Chambliss is helping you.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:44:44 PM EST

Re: long ago I started working on a diary (2.00 / 2)

There's no denying that it would have been a different race. Whether the results would have been different is entirely speculation.


by LakersFan on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too much of a leap (none / 0)

Biden/Richardson/Dodd could as well argue they were not allowed to emerge as the ``third option''.


by ann0nymous on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:46:27 PM EST

Re: Too much of a leap (none / 0)

This is possible. And this could well have benefitted Clinton (or could have hurt too) For example, it was pretty clear, as Trippi pointed out, that Edwards wasn't going to attack Obama. His strategy, dumb as it was, was to basically do Obama's dirty work and hope for the best. Dodd and Biden in particular did attack Obama from time to time. If one of them emerged as another "not Clinton" option, they might have hurt Obama. There's simply no way to tell.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' Cover-up (2.00 / 1)

I think they didn't follow it up because Edwards was being a guy, and there are always false allegations as well as true ones.  Edwards did help Barack, when Edwards was in it the debates were more interesting and Hillary had two fellows trying to bring her down, they double teamed her a few times. But then that also showed the sexism, which made most women able to identify with Hillary, gave us a common experience to bond over.  

So, it's Howard's idea, but it's hard to say for sure. I think the African American community would have gotten behind Barack in any instance, even if he's been a close second in Iowa.  

Barack's biggest problem was that he couldn't close the deal and Hillary's biggest asset was the primary going on long enough so that Americans could take a fresh look at her, and see her as a person, and not just somebody who's husband used to be president.

This stuff isn't so productive, the primary is over, and it was tie, broken by the super-delegates. What's important now is to win the GE, and for that Barack can do nothing smarter or more uniting than to choose the one that got half the votes to be his running mate.

Then, really, no one would care about this old stuff, what was said in public, what was said in private, Barack is right about one thing, Americans are sick of the bickering and the back stabbing, we all want to see some big moves, some reaching across divides and some uniting. That means Obama/Clinton and what fun will that be.

anyone else notice that due to our incompetent current president there is war between Russia and Georgia, and Georgians somehow had the idea we'd fight on their side for democracy? Yet again an irresponsible president had led a foreign nation to suppose we'd fight alongside them.

Any historians out there - how many has that been now?  


what a relief
by anna shane on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST

Birds of a feather. (none / 0)

Please note:

Anna Shane is a front page poster at the racist hate site noquarter. Birds of a feather.


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Birds of a feather. (2.00 / 1)

And here's what she really believes:

From Flowbees site:

I confirmed today that several teams/individuals visited Jakarta during the last six months to gather up critical documents regarding Barack. It is amazing what money can buy. The information includes details of how Barack made his way to Pakistan. Oh! Did I mention there have been similar efforts underway in Pakistan. There are several lessons and warnings in the John Edwards affair for Obama. First and foremost, you cannot hide your past.

Did I also mention how small Hawaii is? Republican operatives, with help from their own island backers, have unearthed critical information on Obama and are just biding their time until after the convention to drop it on him. Such as? Having a birth certificate that lists you as Barry Soetoro.

Has she gone to (lin)far?


by venician on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Birds of a feather. (none / 0)

no it isn't.  That's so wrong.  


what a relief
by anna shane on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Birds of a feather. (none / 0)

So then why are you posting on that site? Funny in the comments I didn't see you disagree, nor did I see a rebutal diary by you.


by venician on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Birds of a feather. (none / 0)

I've answered this before.  There are several points of view expressed on those sites, being for what Hillary stands for and for her as vice president isn't the same as being against Barack.  I'm not against him and now that he's the candidate I want him to win it.  It's a great thing to post with others when we don't all do 'group think,' some real discussion takes place and that promotes thinking and it's also fun.

I've also pointed out and to you I think that judging people the way you judge their associates is the kind of thinking promoted by those who believe his wright connection says something about him.  I don't judge bloggers at all, we're just nobodies, but I also don't judge Barack for having associates that are controversial, so on that  I'm consistent.  For him too, it promotes thinking and it's probably fun.

How will you blog against smearing Barack by association when it's clear that's they way you (and a few others, no as many as a few weeks ago) smear me.


what a relief
by anna shane on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Birds of a feather. (none / 0)

So posting on racist, anti unity sites is "fun", and that's why you do it? Oh please. You have no integrity. I have not seen one diary by you on those sites trying to dispell any of the crazy lies they put forth about Obama. I don't care if you are voting for Obama or not, I just can't stand people who are dishonest about their real intentions.


by venician on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Birds of a feather. (none / 0)

oh, really?  and you're the judge?  What are your qualifications?   I always speak my mind, and just on this site you'd find what you're not looking for.  Since my comments can only be smeared by my associations, here's a challenge, why should not Barack be judged to agree with Wright, since he said nothing for twenty years?  Me, I'm a nobody but I take issue with what I don't believe. Barack is just a regular guy fathead to me, nothing special, I've never smeared him.  I don't judge him by Wright, I think he has some slimy friends, but he's just a politician, he's not a monster.


what a relief
by anna shane on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:10:15 PM