Comments on: Edwards Cost Clinton the Nomination?

By: Booker Rising

Booker Rising — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:14:06 +0000

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…

By: Jim S

Jim S — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:51:59 +0000

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

By: mike mcEachran

mike mcEachran — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:41:03 +0000

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…

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:42:18 +0000

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.

By: Dr. Pete

Dr. Pete — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:16:57 +0000

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.

By: Grant Gould

Grant Gould — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:17:28 +0000

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.