| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Clinton aide: If affair pushed Edwards out, she would have won |
| 2008-08-12 |
| I think he might be right. If reporters had nabbed former presidential candidate John Edwards lying about his extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton would have captured the Democratic presidential nomination, her former communications director said. "I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com in an interview released Monday, because internal campaign polling showed "our voters and Edwards voters were the same people. 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." Two months after Edwards first denied rumors of the affair, Barack Obama's win in the Iowa caucuses — and Clinton's third-place showing behind Edwards — fundamentally altered the shape of the race. "Any of the campaigns that would have tried to push that [rumor] would have been burned by it," said Wolfson, who said he did not understand why, in his view, the national media had not aggressively reported the story. "I can't say I understand the rules of the media and I'm not sure they do either." Clinton officials have long blamed the media for her failure to live up to pre-vote expectations. Obama's campaign has disputed the idea that Edwards voters were natural Clinton voters if he were to exit the race, pointing to the fact that once the former North Carolina senator dropped out, Obama immediately went on to a string of victories, racking up 11 in a row. They also say that anti-war liberals in Iowa would not have supported Clinton, given her vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The available numbers tend to argue against Wolfson's point of view, says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Among Edwards voters in Iowa, CNN polling indicated that Obama was the second choice of 43 percent, and Clinton of 24 percent, with 11 percent naming other candidates. "Since Edwards got 30 percent of the vote, we can estimate that if Edwards had not been in the race, Obama would have picked up an additional 13 percentage points, and Clinton would have picked up an additional 7 percentage points," says Holland. "So hypothetically, if Edwards had not been in the race, Obama would have still won the Iowa caucuses by a 51 to 37 percent margin." |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #6 "Any of the campaigns that would have tried to push that [rumor] would have been burned by it," said Wolfson, who said he did not understand why, in his view, the national media had not aggressively reported the story. Because bringing up a story about a smooth talking Southern candidate who cheated on his wife and lied about it brought up too many bad memories? |
| Posted by: Steve 2008-08-12 16:43 |
| #5 Breck Boy has been at the very top of their shit list for some time. And, she probably would have taken those votes. But, she may still win at the convention. I think Hill & Bill don't give a shit if this turns Dummocrats inside out. She actually has a real chance to beat McPain, something Hussein can't do. And, face it, if it wasn't for the votes the Arky took in the South, Romney would be the Pub nominee. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-08-12 12:24 |
| #4 I read one person suggesting Edwards should be invited to the convention because he'd make Obama look clean by comparison. Yeah, but it would really rile up HIllary's fans. Should make for an interesting convention either way. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-12 12:10 |
| #3 There is no way to accurately estimate how many people would have voted for either one. Wishful thinking. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-08-12 11:50 |
| #2 The media distorting the results of a Presidential primary? Unthinkable. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-08-12 11:31 |
| #1 As if things weren't bad enough for Breck-Boy, now he's on the Clinton's shit list. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-12 10:26 |