If John Edwards’ affair had been exposed last year and he hadn’t been on the ballot in Iowa, where he came in second to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee — or so theorizes former Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson. “Our voters and Edwards’ voters were the same people,” Wolfson told ABCNews.com. “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.”
However, a University of Iowa survey showed that far more Edwards supporters had Obama, not Clinton, as their second choice.
24 Comments
Non-issue.
It’s kind of a shame, yet a bit admirable, that Carol McCain doesn’t come forth with how she really feels about John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) and his rebuke of marital vows.
Yes, she can
By Maureen Dowd
Published: August 13, 2008
WASHINGTON: While Obama was spending three hours watching “The Dark Knight” five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring “Aloha attire” and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.
You can almost hear her mind whirring: She’s amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn’t eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.
Now they’ve made Barry’s convention all about them – their dissatisfaction and revisionism and barely disguised desire to see him fail. Whatever insincere words of support the Clintons muster, their primal scream gets louder: He can’t win! He can’t close the deal! We told you so!
Hillary’s orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior.
Her former aide Howard Wolfson fanned the divisive flames Monday on ABC News, arguing that Hillary would have beaten Obama in Iowa and become the nominee if John Edwards’ affair had come out last year – an assertion contradicted by a University of Iowa survey showing that far more Edwards supporters had Obama as their second choice.
Hillary feels no guilt about encouraging her supporters to mess up Obama’s big moment, thus undermining his odds of beating John McCain and improving her odds of being the nominee in 2012.
She’s obviously relishing Hillaryworld’s plans to have multiple rallies in Denver, to take out TV and print ads and to hold up signs in the hall that read “Denounce Nobama’s Coronation.”
In a video of a closed California fundraiser on July 31 that surfaced on YouTube, Hillary was clearly receptive to having her name put in nomination and a roll-call vote.
She said she thought it would be good for party unity if her gals felt “that their voices are heard.” But that’s disingenuous. Hillary was the one who raised the roll-call idea at the end of May with Democrats, who were urging her to face the math. She said she wanted it for Chelsea, oblivious to how such a vote would dim Obama’s star turn. Ever since she stepped aside in June, she’s been telling people privately that there might have to be “a catharsis” at the convention, signaling she wants a Clinton crescendo.
Bill continues to howl at the moon – and any reporters in the vicinity – about Obama; he’s starting to make King Lear look like Ryan Seacrest, the host of “American Idol.” The way the Clintons see it, there’s nothing wrong with a couple making plans for their future, is there? That’s the American way and, as their pal Mark Penn pointed out, they have American roots while Obama “is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”
The Clintons know that a lot of Democrats are muttering that their solipsistic behavior is “disgusting.” But they’re too filled with delicious schadenfreude at the wave of buyer’s remorse that has swept the Democrat Party; many Democrats are questioning whether Obama is fighting back hard enough against McCain, and many are wondering, given his inability to open up a lead in a country fed up with Republicans, if race will be an insurmountable factor.
Some Democrats wish that Obama had told the Clintons to “get in the box” or get lost if they can’t show more loyalty, rather than giving them back-to-back, prime-time speaking gigs at the convention on Tuesday and Wednesday. Al Gore clipped their wings in 2000, triggering their wrath by squeezing both the president and New York Senate candidate into speaking slots the first night and then ushering them out of Los Angeles.
Wednesday will be all Bill. The networks will rerun his churlish comments from Africa about Obama’s readiness to lead and his South Carolina meltdowns. TV will have more interest in a volcanic ex-president than a genteel veep choice.
Obama also allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that “demeaning portrayals of women … dampen the dreams of our daughters.” This, even though post-mortems, including the new raft of campaign memos leaked by Clintonistas to The Atlantic – another move that undercuts Obama – finger Hillary’s horrendous management skills.
Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary’s “hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.”
It would have been better to put this language in the platform: “A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.”
You’re a few days late.
Not really, the democratic convention is going to be a circus.
http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html
Not really, the Democratic convention is going to be the time the party chooses the next president of the United States of America.
I have hoped for an….interesting Democratic convention.
The con convention will be a sure snore fest.
Cons Bob Barr and Ron Paul are likely to be doing….other things.
That leader of P.U.M.A. which is going to disrupt the Dem convention states he has a few hundred delegates that’s gonna cause some grief at the convention.
In addition, the P.U.M.A. leader stated that the large block of Democrats he represents will be voted for…
wait for it…
McCain.
Ever heard of PUMAs?
Party
Unity
My
Ass
They have 200 of the 300 required deligates to get Clinton’s name on the convention ballot…
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/preston.puma/
michellemalkin.com/2008/06/07/hillary-exits-the-pumas-roar/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.barackobama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/puma-hillary-supporters-h_b_118522.html
Beat me to it Reg…
Well if there are Clinton supporters who are gonna vote McCain?
THIS Clinton supporter doesn’t know them. A dozen or so folks I know will vote third party or not at all unless it is close in Kansas. But there is no thought of voting for John McCain.
Notice how the two lame brains calling themselves a maggot and a monkey try to either change the subjec,t or make ‘Edward’s the sleaze’s’ lack or morality and lying a morality “Non-issue”.
You’re right BlueJay. But all they have is the politics of fear and seems that now includes attempting to frighten anybody they can about who will vote for whom… I say, they won’t be having much fun soon so let them enjoy themselves now. Strange isn’t it that they do seem to enjoy fear and smear? No accounting for some tastes!
’subject,’ not ’subjec,t’
No, it was Bill and Hillary’s big fricking hateful mouth.
If the rw thinks Edwards has sown the seeds of division in the dem. party, they are just wrong.
The Clintons’ lie on their political death beds.
If they muck up the convention like Kennedy did to Carter in 1980, they can expect a backlash like hell hath no fury . . .
But then, they may not care, because it’s always been “all about me” with these people.
Phantom
Posted August 14, 2008 at 10:48 am | Permalink
If the rw thinks Edwards has sown the seeds of division in the dem. party, they are just wrong.
——
The Clintons did that.
Linda
That you are so friendly with BJ, and the other obnoxious, hate filled libs, shows that you are no better than any of them.
Maybe worse.
YOU are a coward, unwilling to say what MP and BJ and MH say, but believing every word of their hate, in your own cowardly heart.
Thank you Franklin for sharing your opinion.
Linda,
This is what MH said, on the Phelps thread, and your other hero(s) agreed with him:
—–
“Monkeyhawk
Posted August 14, 2008 at 6:32 am | Permalink
Phred Felps’ message is just a notch or two past what is worshiped by traditional evangelical “christians.”
All you twice-born Kansans know it.
Phred Felps simply says what you believe in words that you think.
In a perverse way, you almost have to admire Phred Felps for his willingness to say what all you twice-born really believe.”
—-
So, if your hero can tell us what we believe, and what is in our hearts and minds —
Seems we can do the same towards you, Linda, since you NEVER, not even once, have corrected anyone on the left for any insult, attack, smear, lie or any other abuse.
Your silence is your consent. You support the anti-Christian bigots on this blog.
The Democrat Party is the home of radical Atheism.
The Democrat Party is the home of anti-Christian bigotry.
Thank you Franklin for stating your opinion.
Damn and here I thought paulie was just starting a meltdown on another thread.
Seems it began earlier in the day.
I liked finding this blog post…