Edwards Cost Clinton the Nomination?

By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Edwards, Hillary

Hillary Clinton’s former communication director, Howard Wolfson, is claiming that the media’s failure to uncover/disclose John Edwards’ affair cost Clinton the nomination. In Wolfson’s thinking, if Edwards had dropped out before Iowa, Clinton would have won that state and then cruised to the nomination.

Man, those Clinton supporters are bitter, aren’t they? Obama put up a lot of wins after Edwards dropped out, so I think it’s odd that Wolfson would think Edwards voters would have naturally gravitated to Clinton rather than to Obama. Without Edwards in the race, Obama would have likely still won Iowa.

Additionally, given that Clinton’s husband ran for the presidency while lying about his affair with Gennifer Flowers, I don’t think anyone in the Clinton camp should get too high-and-mighty about Edwards’ affair and his decision to keep the matter private.

John McCain must be loving the continued whining coming from Clinton supporters.


This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Edwards, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to “Edwards Cost Clinton the Nomination?”

  1. Grant Gould Says:

    Fivethirtyeight has a good piece on this. In essence — the Iowa caucuses already take second-choice picks into account, and the polling reflects this, so it is very unlikely that Edwards actually swung a substantial number of caucus votes against Clinton.

  2. Dr. Pete Says:

    Honestly, no matter who you supported, how do claims like this help anyone? If they had uncovered evidence that Obama has somehow cheated the system or manipulated Edwards, that would be one thing, but timing (good and bad) is just a reality of politics. Plenty of events could’ve swung the other way for either candidate, but they didn’t.

  3. kranky kritter Says:

    Right, because among petulant children, failure is always someone else’s fault.

    Hillary Clinton lost because her team decided that they would not need to seriously contest the caucus states. It was not an entirely unreasonable assumption based on the way many recent primary campaigns unfolded. But 20/20 hindsight clearly shows that they were wrong. By looking ahead to the general election, they were WAY OFF.

    Bottom line, they showed up for a coronation, and they got a battle instead. They weren’t ready for Obama to become as viable as he did as quickly as he did. And they never really recovered. That’s no one else’s fault. Not the media’s, not Obama’s, not the vast right wing conspiracy’s… .

    Clinton’s supporters need to accept that Hillary lost because she got strategically outmaneuvered during the primaries. Or keep looking like sore losers by blaming all the usual meanie boogeymen who they think are always lined up against them.

  4. mike mcEachran Says:

    Amen Kranky. And isn’t it so incredibly Clintonian of them to act haughty about sexual relations out of wedlock?!! My god. Their ballsy, you gotta give em that…

  5. Jim S Says:

    I always thought Wolfson was slime when I saw him on TV during the primaries and this just confirms my opinion.

  6. Booker Rising Says:

    Edwards Cost Clinton The Nomination?…

    Alan Stewart Carl writes: “Hillary Clinton?s former communication director, Howard Wolfson, is claiming that the media?s failure to uncover/disclose John Edwards? affair cost Clinton the nomination. In Wolfson?s thinking, if Edwards had dropped ou…

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: