Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Iowa Without Edwards

Would Hillary Clinton have won Iowa if John Edwards had been forced out of the race? Howard Wolfson thinks so....

Wolfson, former director of communications for Clinton's presidential bid, suggested to ABC News that the New York senator would have prevailed in Iowa had Edwards been forced from the race before voting started in early January.

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson told ABC. "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."

It is a pure hypothetical, of course, and the entire dynamics of the contest would have been different without Edwards. But the public data do not bolster the notion that Clinton would have won.

In the networks' Iowa entrance poll, 43 percent of those who went to a caucus to support Edwards said Obama was their second choice, far fewer, 24 percent said they would support Clinton if their top choice did not garner enough votes at that location. The remainder of Edwards' backers said they would be uncommitted under such a scenario, offered no second choice or said they preferred someone else.

Nor was Clinton the obvious second choice among Edwards supporters in Post-ABC pre-election Iowa caucus polls in July, November or December. In July, for their alternate pick, Iowans split 32 percent for Obama to 30 percent for Clinton. In November, Obama led 43 to 26 percent as backup pick, and he had a slight 37 to 30 percent edge in December.

By Jon Cohen  |  August 11, 2008; 11:07 AM ET
Categories:  Exit polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hardest Hit: Reaching Low-Wage Workers
Next: For Most, Obama's VP Likely a Blank Slate

Comments

Let's not be hypothetical:
Why has Obama refused to release these basic documents?

.1.Certified Copy of original Birth certificate
2.Columbia College records
3.Columbia Thesis paper
4.Certification of Live Birth showing where born
5.Harvard College records
6.Illinois State Senate records
7.Illinois State Senate schedule
8.Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9.Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
10Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11.Occidental College records
12.Parent's Marriage Certificate
13.Record of baptism
14.Selective Service Registration
15.Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16.Scholarly articles
17.Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Habits are hard to break, eh Mr. Wolfson? Spin, self-justification, failure to accept reality continues. Give it up. You weren't credible when you mattered, you aren't credible now.

Posted by: Utec | August 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse


Love the anonymous quote.
Now who could it be...
Hillary or Johnny Mac???

Posted by: McClintonBush | August 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Interesting, but not as interesting as the scenario pointed out by someone - I forget who - that had Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican race before South Carolina's primary, Huckabee likely beats McCain, with who knows what effect on the final Republican outcome.

Posted by: Jim S. | August 11, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"Would Hillary Clinton have won Iowa if John Edwards had been forced out of the race?"

Probably. At the very least, she wouldn't have come in third ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

And If and If, Hillary took bad advise, ran a poor campaign,If she had attacked the Bush Adminstration, she would have won, If she had better accountants she would have not blown $140 Mil in 6mos. she panic when she notice all the attention going to Sen. Obama and started mindless attacks, If she had just focus on the Current Adminstration she would have pull this off and stayed away from Snipper fire stories and false hospital stories.. And maybe The American voters do not want Bush, Clinton,Clinton, Bush, Bush maybe we are smarter than they think.

Posted by: gtalkspolitica | August 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Utec:

That all depends on how / when the Edwards admission would have unfolded. The networks' Iowa entrance poll, and even the earlier readings, all depended on Edwards being a viable candidate. What if the affair came out AFTER Edwards had dropped out and the day after Obama and he publically hugged each other on stage?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

This is beyond pathetic. The Clinton supporters are determined to sabotage this election for Obama. If McSame wins and gets to make another republican appointment to the Supreme Court, I hope they will accept their culpability. And if they think an Obama loss will give them another opportunity in 2012, they are greatly mistaken. Their attempts to split the democratic party in half will no doubt hurt their efforts 4 years from now. In fact, this lifelong New Yorker and democratic voter is seriously considering not voting for her in her next run for Senate. It all depends on how she behaves for the remainder of Obama's campaign. And that includes her surrogates, supporters and husband. Enough already. Have some dignity.

Posted by: Gerard Madison, NYC | August 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

This is beyond pathetic. The Clinton supporters are determined to sabotage this election for Obama. If McSame wins and gets to make another republican appointment to the Supreme Court, I hope they will accept their culpability. And if they think an Obama loss will give them another opportunity in 2012, they are greatly mistaken. Their attempts to split the democratic party in half will no doubt hurt their efforts 4 years from now. In fact, this lifelong New Yorker and democratic voter is seriously considering not voting for her in her next run for Senate. It all depends on how she behaves for the remainder of Obama's campaign. And that includes her surrogates, supporters and husband. Enough already. Have some dignity.

Posted by: Gerard Madison, NYC | August 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

gtalkspolitica:

And if Obama loses, Hillary Clinton's stock in the Democratic Party could go way up -- of course, she and Bill could still blow even that -- she probably won't say "I told you so" in those exact words ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Gerard Madison, NYC:

How exactly can she stop American citizens from protesting Obama's nomination in Denver? I am sure she will do anything else the campaign asks of her. If Obama loses, it will be his fault and only his.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line is that "Boys will be Boys" and the boys cover up for each other.

This scandal was apparently known before the voting in the primaries but yet the MSM did not report on it.

The failed us in Iraq by that constant "drumbeat to war", as if war was something that couldn't be prevented. And they failed us here by paving the way for someone with no record of legislative accomplishments to become the leader of the free world.

Who knows if the Edwards supporters, if he was exposed for the self-centered hypocrite he is, would have broken for Clinton. We'll never really know. But the MSM failed us. That we do know.

Posted by: Elizabeth | August 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

So this means Hillary is a pathetic incompetent loser instead of a horribly pathetic incompetent loser. Congratulations smearheads! LIne up for queenie buttsmear.

Posted by: dick cabesa | August 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Elizabeth:

Good points. I hope you are not voting for Obama then.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

This Howard Wolfson (a.k.a. former director of communications for Clinton's presidential bid and now FOX News Political Analyst) statement is the mainly the reason behind why Hillary Clinton lost.

Instead of taking responsibility for being a poor communicator and having an even poorer and consistent campaign message from the beginning, Wolfson falls back on the Clintonian view of things, blame somebody else, in this case, the media.

Wolfson continues to spin untruths and distorts the known facts, mostly in that the polling data doesn't even support his claims.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

dick cabesa:

You just called Hillary Clinton a "pathetic incompetent loser instead of a horribly pathetic incompetent loser" and are REALLY upset about "queenie buttsmear"?!

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I guess if Wolfson can make his statment then I can make mine.

OBAMA WOULD BE LEADING MCCAIN HIGHER IN THE POLLS IF "BIG-MOUTH TROUBLE-MAKERS" LIKE LENNY DAVIS, HOWARD WOLFSON, AND GERRADINE FERRARO WOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Junkie:

That all depends on how / when the Edwards admission would have unfolded. The networks' Iowa entrance poll, and even the earlier readings, all depended on Edwards being a viable candidate at the time. What if the affair had come out before the primaries but AFTER Obama and he publically hugged each other on stage?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

what a crock... Edwards supporters specifically distanced themselves from Rodham Clinton because she was pro-Corporate money for her campaign. Sheesh... interviewing some loser communications Obama hater is not going to change anything. You Rodham Clinton fembots are beyond redemption.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Want to add a couple of more things to 'THE LIST' by Anonymous:

1. Costco Shopping List
2. Pet Peeves List
3. Date, Time and Duration for all "Calls of Nature" for the past 8 years.
4. What he ate for Breakfast for the last 8 years.
5. Etc.. etc...

Grow up, will ya? Here's a list for you:
1. McCain will cut taxes for all - but the people that end up benefiting the most are people with the top 1% of income. Obama, on the other hand is proposing tax increases for people with more than $250K/yr income. If you are in that category, then, you are definitely in the minority.
2. Drilling now for oil will not get the oil to the pumps for at least 10 more years and will delay our transition from oil to cleaner, renewable energy sources.
3. McCain does not have a plan for curbing the rising cost of health care. His idea is to let the free-market decide. Wow! Hasn't that worked wonders for the last 8 years?

Finally:
It's an amazing country where an Arizona multimillionaire can attack a Chicago South Sider as an elitist and hope to make it stick. The Chicagoan was brought up by a single mom who had big ambitions for him, and he got "scholarshipped" into Harvard Law School and was made president of the Law Review, all of it on his own hook, whereas the Arizonan is the son of an admiral and was ushered into Annapolis though an indifferent student, much like the Current Occupant, both of them men who are very lucky that their fathers were born before they were. The Chicagoan, who grew up without a father, wrote a book on his own, using a computer. The Arizonan hired people to write his for him. But because the Chicagoan can say what he thinks and make sense and the Arizonan cannot do that for more than 30 seconds at a time, the old guy is hoping to portray the skinny guy as arrogant.

Posted by: Venkat | August 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Talk to people who were from Iowa. I am, and have talked to many people who were at the caucuses through out the state. Obama would have picked up the Edwards vote (more than any other candidate). And to be absolutely truthful, it would have opened up an opening for Joe Biden. Hillary was not winning Iowa.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I was in IA for the two weeks leading up to the caucus as a volunteer for the Obama campaign. All of the Edwards people I spoke to had Obama as their second choice and were united in their dislike of Sen. Clinton. I was in W. Des Moines on caucus night. At the caucus, the Edwards people were not viable and had to figure out a deal. A sizeable chunk tried to make a deal with the Clinton people to see if they could take some of their caucusgoers to become viable. The Clinton people rebuffed them in the rudest of manners which caused the entire Edwards contingent to go to Obama. None of them were interested in supporting Clinton. This played out the same way across the entire district I volunteered in. Wolfson is just trying to put ANOTHER postscript on a disastrous campaign. Apparently another attempt as saving face. It's really just embarrassing at this point.

Posted by: Samantha | August 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

the Clinton Rodham criminal conpiracy marches on...

Posted by: jakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Now she has two pricks to blame instead of one.

Posted by: A.K. Agikamik | August 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

As an Iowan, I can tell you how far off Wolfson's statement is. Before the caucus, I heard from numerous Edwards supporters they would back Obama if Edwards was not a part of the race and vice versa.

The Edwards contingent and the Hillary people were not in the same camp. Edwards people usually align more with Obama.

Good try, Wolfson!

Posted by: Iowa Girl | August 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Edwards were on the same page back in Iowa. End corporate ownership of the government. That to this day is not something Hillary is behind.
As Hillary's Communication director is it no wonder she lost.
Hillary wants her name placed into nomination because she thinks she can steal the nomination. Now her pimps are out there trying to make a case for her to get what she truly deserves, her coronation.
So just let me get this right, twice now she has been done in by philandering politicians, welcome to our world.

Posted by: steve | August 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

i think most can agree the posting by Anonymous shows how much of an idiot s/he is.

really, hillary people need to stop whining...they ran the worst campaign in history? the campaign manager thought CA and NY were winner take all? are you kidding me. you lost. get over it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Edwards were on the same page back in Iowa. End corporate ownership of the government. That to this day is not something Hillary is behind.
As Hillary's Communication director is it no wonder she lost.
Hillary wants her name placed into nomination because she thinks she can steal the nomination. Now her pimps are out there trying to make a case for her to get what she truly deserves, her coronation.
So just let me get this right, twice now she has been done in by philandering politicians, welcome to our world.

Posted by: steve | August 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Senator Clinton would already have the nomination locked up if only the Democratic nominating process were conducted hypothetically."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166850&title=indecision-2008-clintons

I guess they'll be able to recycle that skit.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

*yawn*

Hillary who? There is no Hillary in the race anymore.

Now we're going back in time and inventing alternate realities in order to keep a dead story alive? Move on!


Posted by: sequoia | August 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Coulda, woulda, not shoulda Who cares she lost. Its over.

Posted by: nclwtk | August 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Seriously all these Clinton "if" point to the only "if" that matters: If she her campaign had been run better she would not have lost, but she did allow her campaign to go the way it did and she did lose. We have a guy in the white house now who doesn't know how to run his organization, why should we ponder the possibilities of another person who lost? I voted for bill and hill proudly twice, but she didn't do what it takes to win, just like Gore who I voted for and Kerry who I voted for. She lost. She didn't do what it took to convince more people to vote for her, not in the beginning and not in the end. Let's move forward.

Posted by: JScott | August 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Iowa Girl:

Please see my post to Obama-Junkie. Maybe all of your friends said voting for a black man was their "second choice" but it's a very different thing actually pulling that lever.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

How come the media doesn't bring up the fact that McCain left his 1st wife (a model) after she got into a car accident and was disabled and somewhat disfigured. While she was at home recovering, McCain went on vacation to Hawaii where he met Cindy McCain. Cindy became his mistress for 3 years when McCain finally divorced his first wife to marry Cindy.

These are all facts and it really frustrates me that the media won't report on them.

Posted by: Mike - PA | August 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Why hasn't McCain released his full navy records?

John Kerry did in his campaign?

Posted by: nathan | August 11, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama:"I am the one I've been waiting for!"

Hillary doesn't have a chance! LOL What a Loser!

Up with Barack. Hillary and her supporters are dimwitted anyways

Posted by: Nick | August 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

steve:

Edwards did not hug and endorse Obama before Iowa.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the Edwards supporters were Richardson second choice voters. If you look at the results in the western/rural counties where Richardson beat both Hillary and Obama but lost to Edwards I think it is possible to make the argument that the gun-toting westerners would have voted for the western governor with an A rating from the NRA before voting for Hillary or Barack. I would say that Richardson would have benefited the most from Edwards dropping out.

Posted by: Pat | August 11, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Get Barack in there!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/07/obama-america-is-no-longer-what-it-once-was/

Squash Hillariouses chances!!!

Posted by: Robert | August 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Move out of the way Hillary voters, you are dimwitted and narrow minded. You thought you were going to outdo the "smarter" vote for B. Obama... you were sooo wrong! Now you can eat it!

Posted by: Delila | August 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

If Bill Clinton did not goof up, We would not be talking about all this mess!

Posted by: Ravi | August 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

And what if:
The South had won the civil war? Hitler was assasinated in 1936? And especially, what if Jesus skipped out and was unavailable for the crucifiction.

Gee we can indulge this junk or get on with it.

Posted by: Frank Stein | August 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Let's not be hypothetical:
Why has McCain refused to release these basic documents?

.1.Certified Copy of original Birth certificate
2.College records
3.Academic Thesis papers
4.Certification of Live Birth showing where born
5.More College records
6.Senate records
7.Senate schedule
8.Lobbying client list and billing records/summary for staff and Senate office
9.Locations and names of all illegitimate children, half-siblings, step-mothers
10.Medical records (the media has not yet seen infrared x-ray pictures of his rectum)
11.More College records
12.Parent's Marriage Certificate
13.Record of baptism
14.Selective Service Registration
15.Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16.Scholarly articles
17.Campaign donor analysis

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Or, you know, Hillary could have opposed the war in Iraq. That might have helped her almost as much as Edwards imploding sooner.

Posted by: Aleks | August 11, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I remember the news discussing the second choice picks prior to Iowa and I remember a strong Obama second for Edwards supporters.
I think Wolfson is full of garbage anyway and is just looking to start more divisiveness and whining.

Posted by: vwcat | August 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Many of the 'missing' documents that anonymous would like to see are a matter of public record. If it is so important to you anonymous...look it up. Then you can share with everyone who is interested in participating in thoughtful discussion rather than paranoid insinuation.

Posted by: anonymous 2 | August 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

well

http://www.sundaram-art.com for portraits of Obama and Clinton.

Shan the artist

Posted by: Shan the artist for Obama | August 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Ah...There does appear to be 2 Americas as Edwards has proclaimed in the past.....1 set of rules for the dem party.....amd one set of rules for the rest of us....

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

To "Anonymous" with his (or her) list of 17 items: don't you have balls even to put your name (even an alias) or ear drums to hear the truth?

Posted by: Joe Hannes III | August 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

If, if, if. To quote Jamal Simmons from earlier this year: "If my aunt had a male appendage, she would be my uncle."

It's sad when supposed adults, like Wolfson and the Clintons, don't take responsibility for their own actions.

Another if: If Hillary couldn't control her campaign - HER campaign -, how was she going to control the White House?

Posted by: Dailyfare | August 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I could post a comment on all the references to the word 'pathetic' in this blog, that what is really pathetic is the notion that any of these people,(Obama, Clinton, McCain, on and on) really make any difference whatsoever. Have you listened to what they are saying, have you seen their list of donors-notice any commonalities? Pete Townsend said it best long ago-'Meet the new boss... he's the same as the old boss'. Pathetic doesn't come close to describing this entire subject, it's too nice a word.

Posted by: David | August 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"Scumbag" is a compliment for Edwards.

Posted by: Jack Straw | August 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Frank Stein

Posted by: antmuk | August 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

If only Hillary had her bazooka with her during all that sniper fire in Bosnia! lol.

Posted by: vwcat | August 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.kp.ru/daily/24143.5/361873/
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Inga SAFRONOVA — 11.08.2008

Journalists of Russian Pervy Kanal (Channel One) television news found an unusual refugee in the Vladikavkas (North Ossetia).

John Mestas is an Аmerican, he married to Ossetin woman. Не himself was caught up in the fighting in Tshinval. He saw Georgians killing residents:

«It's propaganda that has been shown in the American and Western mass media...It'a a barefaced lie. I myself was caught up in the fighting that was unleased by Saakashvili.. I spoke to residents.. It is not Russia, it is Georgia that unleashed war. Frankly, it doesn't look like a war, it looks like genocide, it's a war crime...»

Posted by: From osetia | August 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Will you people wake up?! If it was not for Oprah, we would have forgotten Obama's name MONTHS AGO! She made the man what he is today!

Posted by: SGK | August 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

And if her husband hadn't had an affair?

Posted by: C hike | August 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

A couple of comments:
First, call it fate, fortune, or divine intervention the truth is that Barack Obama won the primaries.
Secondly, those who want to say that Barack Obama is a manchurian candidate of some kind should know that when a person becomes a candidate for the US presidency the secret service does a background check based on information supplied by the candidate. Such as all of the addresses you've ever lived at and the name of neighbours from each of those addresses who can verify those facts.
If you can't provide that information you can't run.

Posted by: tc | August 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Good point, SGK. Should any one person have that kind of power in America?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Would Al Gore be president if there hadn't been a Monica Lewinsky?

Posted by: Lrob | August 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Wolfson needs to remember that, among the web of reasons that many people did not embrace Hillary, was the specter of her cheating husband hovering at her back.

Just enough of us didn't want to revisit our disappointments with the last Clinton administration, let alone take a chance on having to live through yet another one and get let down again. Those were the Circus Years.

Although as a 62 year old white female who came up through the same ranks as Hillary, I wouldn't mind having a woman president in the White House one of these days, she is not the one. Let's get it straight: if any lie kept Hillary out of the White House, it was the lie of Bill. A small margin of disaffection with the Clintons as a marital and political couple maybe was all that it took to sink her ever getting the nomination. But she has to live with her choices and she chose to stay with Bill and to argue on the campaign trail that she was experienced by virtue of having been in the White House along with him. You live by the hubby, you risk dying by him, too.

Posted by: Jane | August 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

anonimus you are an idiot where you get this BS that Obama refused to provide this stupid records you mention, your comments are not worthed a spit in the bucket

Posted by: joe | August 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

anonimus you are an idiot where you get this BS that Obama refused to provide this stupid records you mention, your comments are not worthed a spit in the bucket

Posted by: joe | August 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

tc:

Do you have a source for your claim that such a person "can't run"?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Like Hillary Clinton or not, the Democratic party has made a grave mistake by getting caught up in the excitment and nominating someone they know little about who seems to flub up every time his teleprompter is turned off. McCain could very well win if Obama keeps tripping from now until November or starts to show the arrogance he is known for by the press.

Posted by: Ryan Healey | August 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Wolfson's assertions don't add up. In the middle school cafeteria where I caucused (for Edwards), the Obama supporters outnumbered everyone else by a wide margin. And most of the Edwards supporters I spoke with at the time saw Obama as their second choice, not HRC. This was pretty characteristic of the relative numbers throughout the state.

Posted by: Gene | August 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Gene:

How many Edwards supporters did you speak with at the time a) in the middle school cafeteria and b) throughout the state? It all depends on how / when the Edwards admission would have unfolded -- the networks' Iowa entrance poll, and even the earlier readings, all depended on Edwards being a viable candidate at the time -- what if the affair had come out before the primaries but THE DAY AFTER Obama and Edwards publically hugged each other on stage?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Why should we care what Wolfson or Jon Cohen thinks. Hillary lost in Iowa because of her own campaign, her public persona and because Obama was the better choice. The better question is would Hillary have won if Bill had kept his big mouth shut in South Carolina.

Posted by: Give It a Rest | August 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Give It A Rest:

Good question (for another thread ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't really matter now. Why even bring up what if's--- it didn't happen that way. Thats life. Too bad about Bernie Mac. I thought he was a terrific actor/comedian. Obama text messaging his VP choice seems a little childish. I only hope that this won't be his only form of communication. I was really shocked by Edwards admitting the affair. Not at him having did it, but at him admitting it. (Dind't everyone already know he had one!!!???) Why he ever thought he could run for president after having an affair puzzles me. I had always thought he was a smart guy, but this was not the actions of a smart guy. His career as a politician is over. He probably thought he better admit it publically since he got caught coming out of the hotel room last month at 2:30 am after he spent time with this woman. Did his wife know about this liason? They said he ran down the stairs and hid in the restroom after he got caught. Panicked and embarrased. I wonder if his girlfriend had this in mind when she ruined his career. Or if this is the kind of guy she thought she was getting involved with. Whatever. He had a lot of nerve condeming Clintons actions and then doing the same thing a few years later. Hypocrite. What goes around, comes around. Here is a what if for you. What if Edwards had won the nomination... This was known for sometime on the internet, the same as Obama's liason with Larry Sinclair. Are we to expect obama to come out now with his confession?

Posted by: Debra | August 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's all argue the finer points of whatever it is that cannot be undone at this point. And for all the criticism that the left in this country is for a socialistic society---this is straight out of the book 1984 where the party slogan is: "he who controls the past controls the future"----well, I can assure you that it is NOT the Obama folks who are arguing this point here; which then leads one to wonder who IS making the point in actuality. NOW who's the "socialist" candidate running for office?

Posted by: nathan | August 11, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The mindless hoards are going to vote for "Yada Yada Obomba" regardless of what anyone else does or says.
Obama, The Man who Says Nothing, is the darling of the media and can do no wrong....at least until he is voted into the White House, then we can see all hell break loose.
Let's put an inexperienced poseur and bigot into a position of power and see how long he stays the "sweetheart".
I like the analogy of how many of these people would get on a plane with an inexperienced pilot. Well, I guess his voting "present" on over 100 issues, counts for experience in keeping his agenda secret.
Edwards and Clinton are human beings, not portraying themselves as some wannabe JFK going to Berlin and hiding behind platitudes to fool the fools.

Posted by: jennifer | August 11, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with the premise of this article. In my caucus, after the other candidates' groups were found not viable, everyone split between the Obama and Edwards camps. That was nearly 30 people (I live in a very small town). The only person who went into Hillary's group was an 80-year-old lady and she really didn't want to go, but the Hillary camp begged her. I heard the same story from other precincts, also.

I don't think Hillary would have won at all.

Posted by: Iowa voter | August 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

nathan:

I'm unaware of any candidate running, but I do know that Obama's nomination CAN still be "undone".

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Iowa Voter:

It all depends on how / when the Edwards admission would have unfolded -- the networks' Iowa entrance poll, and even the earlier readings, all depended on Edwards being a viable candidate at the time -- what if the affair had come out before the primaries but THE DAY AFTER Obama and Edwards publically hugged each other on stage?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Who give a rats ass about Iowa? No small grouping of people that has nothing to do with the general population of the country should have so much influence. Without Edwards in the race, the whole race changes- Edwards is the one who pushed Hillary into a corner about taking PAC money, and Obama jumped on- Obama's campaign had made no promises before the debate in October. Edwards is the one who called out HRC on Gov. Spitzer's immigration plan- creating the "she is a power hungry bxxxx" narrative that the Obamites rolled with the whole time.

What should have happened is HRC skips Iowa- since Caucuses are completely undemocratic- and let's the underfunded Edwards win (because even if his voters were not for her, her voters were for him---and this is not a racial thing- it is who is more qualified and had more specific proposals--2 active years in the senate and a lot of rhetoric without policy proposals to back it up paled in comparison to what the other 2 big candidates were offering). Then she would have beat him in NH, Obama would have dropped out or come in 3rd to union supported Edwards in Nevada. South Carolina goes on without ridiculous accusations of racism from Donna Brasille- so Clinton gets 25 % instead of 11% and Obama's 2008 campaign is over.

It didn't work out that way- HRC allowed caucuses to break her- but hopefully someone looks at how ridiculous this system is for picking a nominnee- non party people allowed to vote in some primaries, primary caucuses in Texas and Washington, caucuses in general- blow it all up and start over (figuratively)

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

What would have happened if Clinton had not wasted her money? What would have happened if She had run a fifty state campaign? What would have happened if Clinton had not lied about Bosnia? What would have happened if Bill had not tried to project Obama as a "Black" candidate in South Carolina? What would have happened if Clinton did not have 13 million dollars to lend herself? What would have happened if Clinton was a better executive? What would have happened if she was not married to Bill? What would have happened if she had not gotten that big boost from SNL? What would have happened is she had been more decisive? What would have happened if Bill had not authorized the 3 AM add? What would have happened if Geraldine Ferraro was not in Clinton's camp? What would have happened if Clinton had been the best candidate? What would have happened.... Its a stupid game isn't it?

Posted by: Jsump | August 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I was a Clinton suppoter and now am happy to support Obama. If the bitter Clintonistas really want 4 more years of Bush, they are traitors to what the Democratic party stands for. Obama won...He didn't weasel to get it. Support him or shut up.

Posted by: pegleg | August 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Venkat,

And the Arizonian was tortured for 5.5 years in North Vietnam while the Chicagoan was listening to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. I mean you can't TOTALLY make McCain and Bushie the same. Obama is going to get smoked like a pack of Kools.

Finally:
It's an amazing country where an Arizona multimillionaire can attack a Chicago South Sider as an elitist and hope to make it stick. The Chicagoan was brought up by a single mom who had big ambitions for him, and he got "scholarshipped" into Harvard Law School and was made president of the Law Review, all of it on his own hook, whereas the Arizonan is the son of an admiral and was ushered into Annapolis though an indifferent student, much like the Current Occupant, both of them men who are very lucky that their fathers were born before they were. The Chicagoan, who grew up without a father, wrote a book on his own, using a computer. The Arizonan hired people to write his for him. But because the Chicagoan can say what he thinks and make sense and the Arizonan cannot do that for more than 30 seconds at a time, the old guy is hoping to portray the skinny guy as arrogant.

Posted by: Mastiff | August 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I was a Clinton suppoter and now am happy to support Obama. If the bitter Clintonistas really want 4 more years of Bush, they are traitors to what the Democratic party stands for. Obama won...He didn't weasel to get it. Support him or shut up.

Posted by: pegleg | August 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

May all those who condemed both of the Clintons for the actions of one be cursed with having the same thing happen to them. Then they can play out how they would have reacted in front of the rest of the world for real. Then they can see if divorce really made them happy or more miserable.

Posted by: Debra | August 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Let's measure this up a bit:

Commander McCain -
*Decorated Veteran who nearly lost his life serving our Constitution and Our Way of Life. Seventeen military awards and decorations include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medal, for actions before, during, and after his time as a POW
*Public Service in House/Senate since 1982 (or longer)
*Known as The Maverick for not only reaching across the aisle and supporting Democrats but for standing up against his own party on issues he doesn't support
*Made changes in the laws to make the use of political campaign finances clean

1st Term Senator Obama
*Child of turbulent/unsure family whose father left the country to return home just after Barack was born and mother decided to leave the country to raise barack in Jakarta with a different father
*20 years of following the glorious Pastor Wright, who consequently says America deserved the 911 attacks but still didn't change HIS mind after getting thrown under the bus
*Skipped out on serving our constitution and our nation's great military to instead use bare fisted politics to win elections in the great state of Illinois.
*Honored and endorsed by Louis Farakan and many, many other questionable characters
*Worked on trying to be the Marlboro man by smoking dirty-nasty cigarettes
*Held friendships with many sensational characters such as: ayers,wright,edwards
*Successfully named Mr. Clinton as a racist, thereby increasing his own political gain
*Said he's all about public campaign finance
and then changed his mind
*Said he would absolutely withdraw all troops from Iraq in 16 months and then changed his mind to the same plan that George Bush is using anyway(note: change of mind had perfect timieng, as it was after using the former position to help win the majority of the primary)
*Can easily change mind on a whim, it's what "change" as in "change my mind like you wouldn't believe" is all about
*Tried vigorously to label War Hero McCain as a racist and then changed mind after it didn't work(oh well, got Bill with it anyway)
*Creator of new and wondrous sales pitch techniques to promote self by taking advantage of the niche of bad times for USA and promoting "change" "hope" and "unity" - with no measurable details on how he will make it happen!! Marvelous!!
*Expert Teleprompter reader
*Expert dodger of debates with McCain, has managed to NOT EVEN have one yet.. woohoo!!
*successfully made the PRESS look like racists for presenting an Anti-American question from a regular citizen
*Can pull wool over the eyes of the best of them
*Did I miss anything? List to be continued soon...

Now which candidate is more worthy of being our President?

Obama of course!! NOT - get real.

Posted by: Jody | August 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

@ Refusing to release documents

Why would he need to release those. Many of those are public record. They are available for anyone to see already.

Please save your FUD, and get your facts right.

Posted by: MindWideOpen | August 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

pegleg:

President Bush is not running for re-election.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

All I see in the above comments are insulting remarks and and smear campaigns about each candidate. I have read nothing about how Obama plans to stop the illegal monopolies the oil companies have on their product. The huge profits they are making at the consumers expense would have been stopped with any other product. Microsoft was sued over monopolies. We need some sanity in our government. When candidates have no plan and they just wave their arms and smile charismaticly, I get frightened. People are falling over like their in puppy love, and have the mob mentality over a political candidate. He is not a movie star.
He needs to lead our country. I know what the Clintons can do. Lord knows they have their faults, but they are brilliant when it comes to public service and leading the nation, and economics. Do your homework. Do the math of the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Linda | August 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

But she couldn't/wouldn't expose him for two reasons: 1) she stood by her man to get where she is today and 2) the liberals were on a quest to make themselves look "good".

Posted by: Fightertom34 | August 11, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Once again, the Clinton approach is to blam "that woman" for their failures. To get really convoluted, to a Rube Goldberg level, what if Bill's philandering had been openly acknowledged before his first visit to Iowa. What affect would it have had on Hillary's presidential quest if Bill had never been President, Hill had never been first Lady (of anythin' other than Arkansas), and of course she had never had the resultant NY senatorial perch.

Posted by: Sump Pump | August 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Linda:

This thread is about the numbers behind an Edwards effect on the Obama / Hillary race, not stopping any alleged "illegal" monopolies the oil companies have, etc.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

If Ross Perot hadn't run, George H.W. Bush would have won a second term. If Ralph Nader hadn't run, Al Gore would be president. If, if, if....

Posted by: jjgasp | August 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Jim S said: "Interesting, but not as interesting as the scenario pointed out by someone - I forget who - that had Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican race before South Carolina's primary, Huckabee likely beats McCain, with who knows what effect on the final Republican outcome."

I was going to point out the same counterfactual but with Huckabee dropping out... McCain only won South Carolina because there were two conservatives left in the race (Huckabee/Fred Thompson) and thus the conservative vote was divided in two. Had one of them dropped out, a majority-conservative South Carolina would have clearly favored a conservative Thompson over the moderate McCain.

Posted by: Fred Fan | August 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"What If's" don't exist. Sorry this is the present, it didn't happen, we can't go back in time. Now, let's focus on what might be, not what could have been.

Posted by: Emy | August 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

jody, I think you better study McCain war record better. He is not as exemplary as you describe him I still pick Obama over Mc cain any day

Posted by: joe | August 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Mr. (snake) Edwards worked wonders for Barack's campaign. Nice Job!

What's better is this:

Hillary supporters, you are dumb! and there's nothing you can do about it but vote for Barack Obama!!

Hillary and her supporters, you got Pimped!

Go Obam!!

Posted by: Dennis | August 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Emy:

What "might be" is that super delegates wake up in time to save their party from a defeat in the fall election ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"1.Certified Copy of original Birth certificate"

- It's posted on his website


"2.Columbia College records"

- What, his grades? I don't think anyone cares about that. Has anyone who matters ever asked him to release it? I'm sure he did better than the 5th-from-the-bottom that McCain managed at West Point.


"3.Columbia Thesis paper"

Do you think he even has a copy of that? Who keeps a copy of their 30-year-old undergraduate thesis. He wrote on the probability of success of the current nuclear disarmenment negotiations with the USSR - do you really care what his analysis was when he was a 21-year-old undergrad?


"4.Certification of Live Birth showing where born"

Why do you care which hospital he was born at?


"5.Harvard College records"

He graduated summa cum laude. What other records do you want?


"6.Illinois State Senate records"

These are a matter of public record.


"7.Illinois State Senate schedule"

Like what? His planner?


"8.Law practice client list and billing records/summary"

Already released do the degree that they do not violate the confidentiality of other members of the firm.


"9.Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers"

Huh? Why the heck should that be anyone's business? The identities and his half-siblings and step-mother have been openly reported in his own books and in media articles, but I'm not sure what the point of their current location is.


"10Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)"

He's released exactly what he's been required to release, and the summary showed him in good health - what else do you need to know?


"11.Occidental College records"

The school he attended when he was 18 - why do you care at all? Again - he did well there, and how could he possibly have gotten worse grades than McCain?


"12.Parent's Marriage Certificate"

Since his mother died almost 15 years ago, I really, really doubt he has this.


"13.Record of baptism"

Huh? Do you doubt he was baptised? What president has ever released his record of baptism? John McCain claims to be a Baptist but has never been baptized into that church, and no one's demanding anything of him.


"14.Selective Service Registration"

He was registered. What other information about that is necessary?


"15.Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007"

He's been quite open about this - what exactly do you want?


"16.Scholarly articles"

Aren't those public record by default?


"17.Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups"

He has released far more detailed donor analyses than what is required by law, and far more than the McCain campaign has.

Posted by: Jonathan | August 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Why does it matter that a> edwards cheated? b> that hillary is a revisionist c> what documents you can and can't get a hold of. Isn't the most important thing to get rid of Bush and his cronies and by extension John McCain who is not McSame on everything but to get core votes has cowtailed to the conservative ideology therefore casting himself as bush the 3rd. If something is heading in the wrong direction why would you vote in the wrong direction ie. america/mccain, that is total non-sence and hope this doesn't catch prevailing wind.

Posted by: Rob Cincy | August 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Barack has superdels in his pocket yo... there's no coming back for that b****

Hillary supporters, stop whining, your vote is for barack, cuz he is the one yo

Obama '08

Posted by: Ned | August 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It was the media, it was sexism, it was the DNC not ex-post facto changing the rules to make MI/FL count.

When will ONE politician in this country step up and take responsibility for their own actions? Hillary lost, someone had to, get over it and move on. Instead we are treated to the political-conspiracy-theory/what if thinking we are seeing today. Of course there are scenarios where Clinton may have won, there are still others where Edwards could have, and still others where Obama would have steamrolled the both of them. The point, that this all is getting filed in my circular bin.

Someone must win, someone must lose. My problem is that the Clintons and their entourage can't seem to get over themselves and move on. Even now they still must demand the spotlight because their egos can take nothing less.

Are the Clintons really supposed to be the representating of the elite of the Democratic party, if so, that explains why we still can't seem to get our stuff together and make the changes that need to be made in this country, our leaders are too busy tripping over their own egos.

Posted by: tlhwraith | August 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Ned:

If Obama was killed during his vacation, the super delegates indeed would switch to Hillary -- I'm not saying I want that -- but, that's at least one possible example to refute your claim: "there's no coming back for that b****".

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous: Would love to see McCain's psychiatric records related to his post-traumatic stress disorder. Did he ever get over it? Doubt it. If the Keating 5 Inquisition was bad for him, doubt that the presidency will go well for him either when 300,000,000 people get mad at him simultaneously for something he did or didn't do--like pardon Bush for his war crimes.

Posted by: Linda | August 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh how pathetic! The Washington Post is now trying to cover their butt for their not reporting on John Edwards by this article. This data is irrelevant. It does not include the scandal and how many people would have changed their minds about the vote for either men in the race. Its doesn't know what the undecided would do. Sorry WaPo, this does NOT resolve you of your lack of investigation!

Posted by: Narnia | August 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to objective journalism. Just by posting this, and the way it is presented, the Post is playing into the hands of the Clinton machine's propaganda machine.

Here's a hypothetical: "If Ross Perot had not run in 1992..." where would Bill Clinton have been?

Why shouldn't the first line read, "Would Obama have beaten Clinton my more votes if Edwards had not been in the contest..."

Of course the former communications director of Clinton's campaign would argue that votes for Edwards would have gone for Clinton, and they will do whatever they can to get their propaganda message out.

Maybe the Clinton machine should focus on helping to win this year's presidential election rather than undermine the candidate that won.

Maybe the Clinton machine should privately try to understand why they lost and also understand that the Clinton's popularity was never, and has never been, as great as they thought. Again, if you want a hypothetical for the Clinton's, "What if Ross Perot did not run in '92?"

Lastly, this hypothetical discussion about something that has already happened, and is history, is a feckless and a waste of time.

Posted by: mdoc4425 | August 11, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

nclwtk,
I can't wait to say the same words to you and like minded folks
when McCain wins in November. Politico expertly summed up the 7 problems YOUR candidate has ( I am a Democrat that will NOT vote Obama) .

Posted by: mendaciousshrub | August 11, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Stop the hate. You all know what happened when Edwards dropped out, his voters went to Obama because they were the progressive candidates. Did any of these 'experts' even watch the debates, or the national numbers right before and after Edwards dropped out. The media is trying to create reality by running a TREMENDOUS amount of misinformation so the election can be close, so they can have their big story to sell.

PS
Obama would be violating attorney client privilege if he released all the information you are demanding. Why doesn't anyone even attempt to pretend to hold McCain to the same disclosure standards as Obama? My only guess is that racist people don't have the heart to express their beliefs so they veil them in nonsensical hatred of Obama. I am voting for McKinney, but I pray that we as a nation check this visceral hate that is being showered on Obama because the potential fallout or blowback could quite literally ruin this country if things get ugly again (see the Civil War).

Posted by: KGC | August 11, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

And why has the university refused to release to the public the last couple of years the thesis of Obama's wife? I read a great part of it years ago and she is a revolutionist, anti-white person.

Posted by: Georgia | August 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Barack is a deciding member of the DNC, that b**** hillary and her dumb-*** supporters ain't sh**

And what are they going to do about it? Nuthin' ha

Obama '08

Posted by: Ned | August 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Linda:

This thread is about the numbers behind an Edwards effect on the Obama / Hillary race, McCain, etc.

mdoc4425:

Those are all interesting questions -- none of which bring up the Bradley Effect though -- as I recall, the consensus is that Bill Clinton still would have won even if Ross Perot did not run in '92.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Does Howard Wolfson think we all have no memory of the events that took place a mere seven months ago ? Lets get back to living in the real world. Before John Edwards dropped out of the race on January 30th, it was well understood by any rational observer that Edwards & Obama were splitting the anti-Hillary vote. Once Edwards dropped out of the race, most of Edwards' supporters, endorsers, and staff (including his campaign manager) joined Obama's campaign...NOT Hillary's.
Clinton supporters have every right to wallow in their regret that their candidate came up short....but it's undignified of them lie about the facts that the rest of us witnessed for ourselves.

Posted by: JC | August 11, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

mendaciousshrub:

Thank you.

KGC:

I certainly hope there are no race riots when Obama loses.

Ned:

I can't imagine any TRUE Obama supporter would post that. You do realize he is trying to ATTRACT Hillary voters, right?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

JC:

It all depends on when / how Edwards would have dropped out. For instance, what if Edwards would have confessed to an affair with Michelle Obama before Iowa?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Would Hillary Clinton have won Iowa if Bill Clinton hadn't had an affair? This discussion is a complete waste of time.

Posted by: Would Clinton have won Iowa | August 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Yes, if women found out that yet another politician cheated at that time, they would of voted for Hilliary 100%, no question.

Posted by: John Boom | August 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
You are making a false argument of when Obama/Edwards hugged. It was way after Iowa, so it has no effect. Also, I believe that it would of harmed Hillary if it came out during the primary. Democrats do not want "here we go again" in the election. It would of been Bill all of the time (and he has not been vetted after 2000 - and I'm a big Bill supporter). The numbers back up Obama as getting more of Edwards supporters. I also know this because I had multiple family members who were Edwards precinct captains. I have also talked to multiple people who were at differing locations through out the state (big and small towns). Obama won Iowa, but the other main story was that Hillary lost it. If it was first vote, she would of got second. She was not well liked in Iowa.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

John Boom or vahawk:

It all depends on when / how Edwards would have dropped out. For instance, what if Edwards would have confessed to an affair with Michelle Obama before Iowa?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Why has Obama refused to release these basic documents?...."
He has, but you would have to look further then right-wing e-mails. I got a e-mail that said the world was flat, I guess its true.

Posted by: Sam | August 11, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
What if Edwards admitted to an affair with Hillary Clinton before Iowa?
Please tell me you are kidding because it is absolutely embarassing.
Also, if you all want to speculate, you need to talk to Iowans. The race was different in early January than what it was in May.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Who cares? Nobody wants that socialist Obama anyway. Get jobs people. Quit trying to elect someone to give you hand-outs. Leave the corporations alone; they are the ones who employ you. Go ahead and tax them and as a shareholder, I will expect them to cut costs to give me a fair return on my capital. They will cut costs by cutting people Liberals obviously grew up watching too much of the Disney channel where they never got to see the consequences of their actions.

Posted by: Mike - PA | August 11, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

If, if, if ... this is all pure speculatiod and hyperbole. The primary race is over and this voter is tired of watching it being rehashed over and over again. This isn't news! Get over it, already!

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that matters now is November and Hillary better be doing her darnedest to make sure that the Democrats win. Consider this: if Obama loses the race, who do you think Obama supporters will blame?

Oh, and somebody needs to tell Hillary's speechwriter to stop ending sentences in the word "me". In fact, she should just stop using the words "me" and "I" alltogether.

Posted by: Barry in WV | August 11, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

I believe that would have ended BOTH of their campaigns -- see how easy it is to answer simple questions -- care to answer mine now?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The article states: "Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson told ABC. "
Which is nonsense: Edwards was getting the majority of the environmental groups votes, and Hillary Clinton had come out in FAVOR of the hog farms in Iowa (the single worst polluters in Iowa, but big contributors to the Clinton campaign). There is no way anyone who cared about the clean air and water in Iowa was going to vote for Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: Marian Martell | August 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"I've only met her once," Hunter told Newsweek reporter Jonathan Darman in late 2006 during a lunch in which she mistakenly cast him as a friend. "She does not give off good energy. She didn't make eye contact with me."

+++++++++++++++

I wonder why?! LOL

Because you're blowin' her husband in some fancy hotel room!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"Barack is a deciding member of the DNC, that b**** hillary and her dumb-*** supporters ain't sh**
And what are they going to do about it? Nuthin' ha

Obama '09

See, now that is a great view into the mind of an Obama supporter. LOL

Posted by: PumaLives | August 11, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Barry in WV:

The primary race is NOT over until someone officially accepts the nomination in Denver -- anything can happen between now and then -- why do you think he's only referred to as the "presumptive" nominee? How can you say the Edwards affair "isn't news"?! It just hit the MSM this past Friday, after hours.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

PumaLives:

As I noted, above, I have my doubts that "Ned" is an Obama supporter. Even money that "Ned" is actually a Hillary supporter ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Laughable. I am a Democratic activist in Iowa, and before the Iowa Caucuses I worked with both the Obama and Edwards camps. The Edwards folks ALWAYS said that Obama was their second choice, and after the Caucuses most were eager to switch to Obama before the county conventions.

Howard Wolfson is a self-serving windbag. Don't be his fool and believe his re-write of history.

Posted by: rMullin | August 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
I thought the answer to your question was obvious. But its not based in fact. The only question that is based in fact and that there was rumors on the ground in Iowa at the time (yes, us folks in Iowa knew there were rumors of an alleged Edwards affair) is that of Edwards and not with Michelle Obama. So any other hypothetical "mating" you give means nothing. It would be like what would happen if it comes out that McCaion is having an affair with a 13 year old boy? Of course it ends his campaign.
But with Edwards and Iowa, there is polls to back it up that it would help Obama more. And believe me, back in January, it definitely would of helped Obama more.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

rMullin:

How many Edwards supporters did you speak with at the time a) in middle school cafeterias and b) elsewhere throughout the state? It all depends on how / when the Edwards admission would have unfolded -- the networks' Iowa entrance poll, and even the earlier readings, all depended on Edwards being a viable candidate at the time those questions were asked -- no doubt the results would have been different after an Edwards admission. What if the affair had come out before the primaries but THE DAY AFTER Obama and Edwards publically hugged each other on stage?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break! Will these people ever cease their whining and whimpering over this: I'm so sick of this! Edwards was the second choice of Obama's voters; that's already been established. They weren't the same voters. Hillary lost because she was the wrong candidate this time around. Period. These people really need to move on.

Posted by: agrippamom | August 11, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

If it's so "obvious" why is it so hard to answer the question?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

it's really beyond me why this sort of idle speculation is deemed newsworthy. why don't you write an article speculating on what
the country would be like if bobby kennedy had not been shot and
had become president in 1968? at least that might be interesting.

Posted by: tom b. | August 11, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Jake D, you've stepped over the line. And if Obama is ever assasinated, we will blame the Clintons. We haven't forgotten the White Water "suicide". Even something like that won't help her. Remember, she's a liar and we've had 8 years of lies.

Posted by: Linda | August 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Politicians will be politicians!

This was a year when 7 out of 10 candidates had a known history of cheating on their spouses.

The voters were yawning about it.

But a love child is a whole different kettle of fish!

Betcha don't know which president had a love child while running for office, and that it actually helped women win the vote.

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

But because they did, women have choices now. They can stay with a cheater like John Edwards, or walk out.

Now you can discover the sexy, shocking truth of how the suffragetts did it, and it's as easy as opening your e-mail.

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.

There is a ton of heartache, and a LOT of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.

Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series -- each exciting episode is a about 10 minutes -- perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html

Posted by: Virginia Harris | August 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's over and it's well past time to move on and cease giving space to daydreams.

Posted by: timbnqs | August 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey Mike - the unemployment rate in America is about 5%, and most of those people aren't voters, so I really don't think it's the unemployed that are holding up Obama's numbers. Especially since McCain gets a much higher % of the uneducated vote.

BTW, the unemployment rate for the last 30 years was lowest throughout the Clinton administration, and highest during the Reagan and both Bush administrations. So it doesn't look like Democratic presidents are the issue with people not getting jobs.

Posted by: Jonathan | August 11, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

agrippamom:

Even assuming that Edwards was the second choice of every Obama voter (they weren't), would Obama have been the second choice of the majority if Edwards voters -- that's the question being discussed -- are you saying "these people" should simply move to voting for McCain?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Georgia:

"And why has the university refused to release to the public the last couple of years the thesis of Obama's wife? I read a great part of it years ago and she is a revolutionist, anti-white person."

Graduate theses are part of the public record held by university libraries; anyone has access to them. More to the point, it sounds like you find her threatening because she is a woman, because she is educated and eloquent and, perhaps, because she is black.

Posted by: stopit | August 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

It seems that if a sex scandal were to drive Iowan caucus goers away from Edwards in disgust, they wouldn't go to the other candidate whose husband was involved in the mother of all sex scandals. Though it was no fault of her own, and her husbands scandal took extraordinary efforts, and tax dollar expenditures by Republicans to get to the scandal stage, folks would associate her with more of the same. Therefore Obama still would have won. My humble opinion only.

Posted by: Bob | August 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Obama and Edwards were in cahoots. Hillary was robbed and should demand a re-vote! It's just not fair to her. And Obama's kindergarten drawings got more air-time than hers. What a joke. And you silly dimocrats want us to let you run our country? You people are nuts.

Posted by: Darwin_rules | August 11, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

If Edwards had admitted an affair before Iowa, it probably would have reminded everyone of Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers, and voters probably would have decided they don't want to go down that road again. Then they would have voted for Obama, Richardson or Biden.

Posted by: Sweet Marie | August 11, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry. An Obama loss does nothing to help HRC in 2012 as some have written. HRC ran a divisive campaign that was meant to split the Dem party--even on racial lines. When it was clear the Black vote was forced over to Obama (he did not have it until Bill Clinton began opening his mouth--right or wrong), HRC began running a "cultural" campaign.

Let's look at the leaked memo that came out talking about painting Obama as a foreigner and against "American values." This is why she lost and would lose a general election campaign. Many independents will NEVER put any Clinton back in office. Some Obama Dems can't be won over in 2012, just like some HRC Dems won't vote Obama now. Blacks will not feel compelled to turn out and you need a big Black turnout to win as a Dem. Don't let HRC's loud loyalists fool you, she has very serious issues with some parts of the party.

The way she is trying to blackmail Obama to get her way and get her debt paid off by keeping her most loyal supporters pissed off just shows a lack of party unity and a sore loser. She lost most of her cool points for me, based on her behavior during and after the primary.

Keep wishing for 2012, but 2008 was HRC's best chance. Let it go!

Posted by: S. Williams | August 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Linda:

If Obama is assasinated by John McCain on live TV this Saturday, you are going to blame the Clintons?! Wow. I'm speechless (almost ; )

I mean, I don't want the Clintons back in the White House either, but I wouldn't "blame them" for something like that.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

It is unclear as to exactly what impact if any at all Edwards' admission is likely to cause. The Hillary Clinton at the beginning of her campaign was someone I did not like, but from Texas on, who come to like who & what she evolved into and who she is today is by far a better person than I care to admit and I think the trials which she underwent, some by her own admission have made her a better person. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback and ask ourselves what if, but it is hard to deny who she is today, and we can speculate until were blue in the face, but the fact is, we don't know. If Obams loses in November, Hillary Clinton is a better person today and in the future than if she had won Iowa; maybe what we think is bad isn't bad at all, only time will tell.

Posted by: Bill Berry | August 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD -
I have answered, if Edwards was having an affair with Michelle Obama, of course it ruins them both.
But how is that even arguing/debating with any type of dignity. You just made up some story to prove your point. That is non-logical.
But can you not answer the question:
With what we know from the polling data, and what people from Iowa (or people who worked there) have said here, would the news of Edwards affair have helped Clinton or Obama more in Iowa?
Easy question, can you answer it (without throwing in other scenarios that are not made up)?

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

You all just make democrats look stupid with your silly comments. Shut up and vote!

Posted by: spikenails | August 11, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

What's this all tell us? The man-child Barack Obama should drop out of the race.

Posted by: Jerome | August 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Would Hillary had won if the American people felt they could have believed her on ANYTHING?

Would she have won if.....

What does woulda, shoulda, coulda have to do with reasoned analysis?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

But would Hillary have even been a contender for President if she hadn't been married to Bill?
Sterling Greenwood
Aspen Free Press

Posted by: AspenFreePress | August 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Would have, should have, and could have. The issue should be dead, unless Mr. Wolfson knows something is in the works. Senator Clinton held on to her 1900 plus delegates for some yet to be announced reason. Maybe the Denver convention will see the Clinton catharsis revealed.

Posted by: BatCat05 | August 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

What? I thought Hillary won Iowa!

Posted by: singhtjunior | August 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

jake D I have been following your comments for months , you are nothing but an hypocrite, your are a republican and what you are doing is making trouble between the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters, I hope people realize what you really are, your comments are not worth reading, why dont you just go play some golf

Posted by: Joe | August 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Bill Berry:

This thread is about what WOULD HAVE happpened if John Edwards had been forced out of the race before Iowa.

vahawk:

As for your new question: it probably would have helped Clinton more, especially if Edwards had publically endorsed Obama before Iowa. Now, I have answered every question you have asked -- so, please don't insinuate otherwise -- unless I missed it, you had not answered my question until just now.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

JSump- just because your guy had played the best politics does not make either him the best candidate or make the things you are saying true. Just because Donna Brasille calls the Clintons racist- and she is the incompetent person who ran the Gore campaign so that we could have Bush to begin with- does not make it so- if you are reading into other people's words- you can make up anything. Actios speak louder. The Clintons have been and will always be good friends of the African American community.

Barak won by exploiting her weaknesses- 15 of right wing press to make her sound like a manipulative bxxch made it easy to create a narrative about her and then anything she did was interpretted through that narrative. He won only 115 more delegates than her and those were primarily from states with caucuses, where small numbers of college students and professionals could dominate a process that had few people voting (9100 people in WY and AK), states with ridiculous primary/caucus systems where people vote twice (WA, TX) and states where almost all the Democrats are African American (South)- after his advocates had labeled the Clintons racist.

You are right in that he totally outplayed her. That doesn't mean much. McGovern outplayed Humphrey, Mondale outplayed Hart, Gore outplayed Bradley- none of them are presidents. It doesn't make him the better candidate for president and certainly doesn't make him the better president if either were elected. Here is a guy who is essentially a state senator aside from 2 years of posturing in the senate who proposed very little but spoke in broad strokes and now is backing down from almost every liberal position he had suggested he was for.
I am voting for him, many of us who supported her get tired when a bunch of kids, previously uninvolved in or on the other side of the whole process patronize us and tell us why they were right. I don't know you or even assume that you are one of those people, but I will tell you it has dampened my potential enthusiasm for him- I was going to volunteer for him as I have for every Dem since Mondale- I don't know now.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

singhtjunior

Nope, she came in third place.

Joe:

I have a tee time on Thursday. I am also a registered Independent, not GOP. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Leon:

After all that, and you are still voting for him?!

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Okay, let's play that game. If Thompson and Huckabee hadn't split the anti-McCain vote, McCain would never have eked out a victory in South Carolina with 33 percent of the vote. Huckabee had 31 and Thompson, about 19. After placing fourth in Iowa, where Huckabee won, McCain's candidacy would have gone to the dogs if Huckabee had beaten him in South Carolina, too.
Sterling Greenwood

Posted by: AspenFreePress | August 11, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Jeez, Hillary, get over it. You lost. Period. Trying to blame it on sexism, racism, John Edwards, or the man on the moon just makes you look like a sore loser. There is NO ONE to blame but yourself: you went into the primaries assuming you would win the nomination, and the votors chose someone else. Obama is younger, more charismatic, and frankly more likeable. Try again next time.

Posted by: Dr Bob | August 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The key problem here relates back to the perception that the press lacks objectivity with Obama. The press choices on coverage with respect to Edwards now stand subject to a bit of manipulation. Whether true or not that exposure of Edwards might have benefited Hillary, people angry about biased coverage for Obama stand angered again about the role of press and superdelegates in overriding the voter will expressed in large state primaries. The anger represents an eighth worrisome sign for Obama when added to the seven mentioned by Politico and Greenfield during the past news cycle.

Posted by: equityeducational | August 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse


Isn't this HISTORY????? Hey, after all McCain is the CELEBRITY...Hey, Wolfson you wanna lose some more hair or stutter more, Paris was in bed with McCain. The old white haired dude still has it, Paris came out limping and breathing for air WA!!Wa!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rajah kahn | August 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

JakeD-
You have answered my question, but give no reason for it. You are giving an opinion that has every measurable fact going against it. Would you care to explain how it would have helped Hillary in Iowa?
As an Iowan, I would like to hear this. It seems counter-intuitive, and also goes against everything that was said at kitchen tables and living rooms at the time.
And good job of throwing in another hypothetical in there at teh end. I caught it.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters are stupid and they need to be quiet.

Hillary started as a nothing and ended that way and her supporters should move to another country or go take a hike.

Down with DUMB Hillary Voters!

GO OBAMA!

Posted by: David | August 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind, too, that Hillary did not need that many Edwards voters to beat Obama in Iowa -- 60-65% would have done it -- of course, someone pointed out above that other candidates like Richardson may have picked up some of those voters, and some would have stayed home, so that's a wash. I'm just saying it probably depends on when / how the Edwards admission comes out.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jonathan,
I see that you have really researched your candidates well. McCain did not graduate from West Point. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. You are a bleeding liberal. Pee Wee Herman could be running on the Democratic ticket and you would vote for him. For once, actually do a little research to see who is actually a viable candidate.

Posted by: Dan | August 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Voting for Hillary means you are retarded and you are PIMPED by the Obama campaign anyway!

What are you going to do about it?

Obama 08'

Posted by: Ted | August 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton lost because of her vote to give Bush power to go to war if Iraq did not cooperate. I don't believe that she's stupid enough to think that Saddam would cooperate and we would not go to war AFTER what happened on 9/11 and our just completed invasion of Afghanistan.

Clinton lost because of her vote to allow the Iraq War, even some people in her campaign have admitted that.

Posted by: Paul | August 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

A lot of Hillary voters were not stupid. They genuinely belived she was the best choice and, even though an Obama supporter, I respect that. I also am disgusted with posters purported to be Obama supporters bashing Hillary. Can't help but think they're "wolves in sheep's clothing" (i.e. GOP, PUMAS or uber feminists). It's no way to win an election or unite not only the party but the country.

Posted by: No Basher | August 11, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that polls showed that Obama was usally the second choice of Edwards supporters. Keep in mind that at actual caucuses (I know because I can give you names of people who were at them all over the state), when Edwards supporters had to move, it was to Obama's camp.
Keep in mind, the first question in Iowa was are you for Clinton or not? That is how most people viewed it.
You still have not giving any facts to show why the Iowans would of moved from Edwards to Obama in huge amount. Waiting...

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

David:

Are you REALLY voting for Obama on Election Day? You are aware that he is actively seeking Hillary voters and may ask her to give the Keynote Address in Denver, right?

vahawk:

I already "explained" that it depends how / when the confession comes out -- of course, if Friday's confession had come out right before the Iowa vote, there's probably no change, but if it was far enough in advance, Hillary would have made an even bigger push to gain those -- please (re)read my posts and let me know if you have any specific questions for me?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Uhh... Because he is American and by definition doesn't need to sacrifice his privacy rights. If anything, not disclosing this type of information which is impertinent reminds us all of our rights under the Constitution.

Posted by: Chris Getz | August 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

I already gave you one possible scenario of how Hillary gets at least 60-65% of the Edwards vote right there even in Iowa -- i.e. Edwards and Michelle Obama confessing to an affair with each other -- remember that "obvious" question which you declined to answer for so long? I mean, it is at least possible to imagine similar scenarios.

Chris Getz:

Well, which on is it -- make up your minds on this -- Obama HAS or HASN'T disclosed said information?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I'll go further. If Obama hadn't run, she would probably have won Iowa. Further, if Rudy Guiliani hadn't contracted prostate cancer and dropped from the NY Senatorial race against H, she would have lost that, and then even if Obama hadn't run and Edwards had been exposed, then she probably would not have rund in Iowa and lost or won. Let me go further......

Posted by: Doc Green | August 11, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Bottom line is that "Boys will be Boys" and the boys cover up for each other.

This scandal was apparently known before the voting in the primaries but yet the MSM did not report on it." Elizabeth.

Not really. You're half correct. But the reason the MSM failed was not 'boys will be boys.' It's much more reasonable to suspect that the MSM was concerned about supporting the Democratic party in the primaries than reporting the truth The National Enquirer was digging a year ago. The MSM had no interest in a possible Edwards affair, but could find space to print a half-baked, unsourced, unproven allegation of an affair between McCain and a lobbyist. Once it began to come out, the Times of London carried the story, nearly two full weeks before the New York Times of the other MSM picked up on it. And then there are the reports of the LA times actively discouraging their reporters and bloggers from looking into the Edwards matter. Bow none of this is metaphysical, absolute proof that the MSM are corrupt lackeys for the Democratic Party,but it does not look good to see so obvious a difference of reporting standards depending on the political party of the subject.

The sex isn't the issue. Three simple words:

Follow. The. Money.

Got that, Washington Post? You folks are supposed to be a newspaper, for crying out loud. Do a little investigative reporting. Was Edwards using campaign money to pay the mistress off? Who hires someone as a video producer with such a thin resume? Don't you suppose some of your staff should be investigating this? Don't you think Democratic Party members should be concerned about someone who might be mis-using donor's money to pay off his mistress?

Good luck. Clinton lost the primary on her own, Obama won on his own. That's the way it works. You can't always win. I would much prefer Richardson as the Democratic nominee, but he didn't get the support, and he won't be the nominee. That's how the ball bounces. Life goes on.

Posted by: Orson Buggeigh | August 11, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

What if John Edwards dropped out before John McCain cheated on his first wife...or before they separated....or after they reconciled and then he cheated on her again....then married his mistress.....then allegedly cheated on his mistress/wife with a lobbyist. Or what if John Edwards drooped out of the race before Rudy married his cousin..then cheated on her.....then cheated on his mistress/wife with a staffer...then cheated on her again...got divorced...and married his mistress #3/wife #3.
JakeD..crawl back in your hole...we know who you are.

Posted by: anti-Jake D | August 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Doc Green:

Good questions, but THIS thread is about what would have happened if EDWARDS (not Obama or Guiliani) had been forced out of the race before Iowa.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

anti-Jake D:

See my post to Doc Green (besides, was Edwards even born when McCain cheated on his first wife?).

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Joe, I've been following Jake D's posts for months, too. Methinks he might be Wolfson with time on his hands. Jake D's absurd response to my accusation about his intentionally bringing up assasination (when no one else is thinking about it) shows his real intention. Take it easy, Jake D. No job is worth that much. With all the good stuff comes equal and opposite bad stuff. Everything happens because it has to happen that way. Hillary had to lose. But not so she could resurrect her campaign while fighting off a $20,000,000 campaign debt from the primary season. The debt has made us lose respect for her. We would look elsewhere if something happened to Obama.

Posted by: Linda | August 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

For anyone else who didn't read the first sentence of the thread:

"Would Hillary Clinton have won Iowa if John Edwards had been forced out of the race?"

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I see the Obamabots are in full force here. Those caucuses were a setup. There was widespread intimidation of Clinton supporters. An example is Texas: Clinton clearly won the primary election, however she lost the caucus which is only 20% of the Texas electorate. The caucus should have been a reflection of the results of the Texas general primary. It wasn't. Which indicates to me that something not kosher may have been going on.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

EDWARDS LIED ABOUT HIS AFFAIRS, AND HILIARY LIED ABOUT DUCKING BULLETS!!!!! AMONG OTHER THINGS SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT,YOU WOULD RATHER "HAVE A FEMALE LIAR, THAN A MALE LIER" ???????DAAAH!!!

AND YOU, WHO WANTS THE LENGHTY LIST OF DOCUMENTS FROM BARACK, THANKS FOR HIGHLIGHTING ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ,IN THE MEANTIME,SEEMS TO ME THAT THE "MAVERICK" HAS A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR PRESIDENT AND NOT MUCH TIME IN WHICH TO DO IT.

AND YOU WHO WROTE ABOUT BARACK'S CHILDHOOD...ANY MAN WHO CAN ACHIEVE THAT MUCH WITHOUT HIS FATHER BEHIND HIM DESERVES PRESIDENT OF ANY COUNTRY. HE JUST HAPPEN TO BE RUNNING IN A COUNTRY WHERE HIS ACHIEVEMENTS IS BEING BE-LITTLED FOR REASONS "un-mentioned"

Posted by: AngieFLORIDA | August 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: instead of making up bogus scenarios of infidelity...why don't you stick to the documented cases involving Gingrich, Delay, Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Reagan, Craig, Vitter, Foley et. al.

Posted by: anti-jakeD | August 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

EDWARDS LIED ABOUT HIS AFFAIR, AND HILIARY LIED ABOUT DUCKING BULLETS!!!!! AMONG OTHER THINGS SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT,YOU WOULD RATHER "HAVE A FEMALE LIAR, THAN A MALE LIER" ???????DAAAH!!!

AND YOU, WHO WANTS THE LENGHTY LIST OF DOCUMENTS FROM BARACK, THANKS FOR HIGHLIGHTING ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ,IN THE MEANTIME,SEEMS TO ME THAT THE "MAVERICK" HAS A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR PRESIDENT AND NOT MUCH TIME IN WHICH TO DO IT.

AND YOU WHO WROTE ABOUT BARACK'S CHILDHOOD...ANY MAN WHO CAN ACHIEVE THAT MUCH WITHOUT HIS FATHER BEHIND HIM DESERVES PRESIDENT OF ANY COUNTRY. HE JUST HAPPEN TO BE RUNNING IN A COUNTRY WHERE HIS ACHIEVEMENTS IS BEING BE-LITTLED FOR REASONS "un-mentioned"

Posted by: AngieFLORIDA | August 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

EDWARDS LIED ABOUT HIS AFFAIR, AND HILIARY LIED ABOUT DUCKING BULLETS!!!!! AMONG OTHER THINGS SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT,YOU WOULD RATHER "HAVE A FEMALE LIAR, THAN A MALE LIAR" ???????DAAAH!!!

AND YOU, WHO WANTS THE LENGHTY LIST OF DOCUMENTS FROM BARACK, THANKS FOR HIGHLIGHTING ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ,IN THE MEANTIME,SEEMS TO ME THAT THE "MAVERICK" HAS A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR PRESIDENT AND NOT MUCH TIME IN WHICH TO DO IT.

AND YOU WHO WROTE ABOUT BARACK'S CHILDHOOD...ANY MAN WHO CAN ACHIEVE THAT MUCH WITHOUT HIS FATHER BEHIND HIM DESERVES TO PRESIDENT OF ANY COUNTRY. HE JUST HAPPEN TO BE RUNNING IN A COUNTRY WHERE HIS NOT APPRECIATED BY SOME AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS IS BEING BE-LITTLED, AND QUESTIONED FOR REASONS "un-mentioned"

Posted by: AngieFLORIDA | August 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
Read you own post -

For anyone else who didn't read the first sentence of the thread:

"Would Hillary Clinton have won Iowa if John Edwards had been forced out of the race?"

Not if Obama had been. So Hillary would have won if his wife would of cheated with Edwards? That doesn't seem a tad bit outlandish? What would give the impression that she would be the cheating spouse? I think we all know when it comes down to Hillary and Barrack, whose spouse is more likely to cheat.
So please, how does Hillary win in the environment that was Iowa (starting to see that you have no clue how it was on the ground) that Hillary wins without an Obama sex scandal?

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Linda:

Did you not post at 2:41 PM "... if Obama is ever assasinated, we will blame the Clintons"? "We" as in plural Obama supporters, not just you? I pointed out one possible scenario simply to prove your assertion false. I even stated that I don't want that to happen because I don't want the Clintons back in the White House.

I mean, I know there are fake JakeD(s) posting, so maybe someone else posted that claim using your name, which is what I was responding to (absurdly or not).

Angie and/or anti-JakeD:

This is not about McCain, Gingrich, Delay, Thompson, Giuliani, Reagan, Craig, Vitter, Foley, et. al. As soon as "Behind the Numbers" posts a thread about GOP infidelities, I will be right there too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I participated in the Iowa caucuses, and in my district, and several others that I heard from, Hillary wasn't even considered viable after the first round of caucusing. Only after all the other candidates were eliminated (except for Obama and Edwards) did Hillary pick up enough support to finish 3rd -- and that very likely had something to do with the cookies that Hillary supporters brought to the caucus and plied on people in order to get their support! Hillary's 3rd place finish was already generous. In contrast, at my caucus location, and all of the others that I've heard about directly, Obama was the clear winner from the beginning of the caucus. Edwards did not lose Iowa for Hillary; Hillary lost Iowa because of her support for the invasion of Iraq. She went on to lose the primary for the same reason, in addition to the negative tone she adopted after Iowa. (The attacks worked initially, but ultimately made her look bitter and petty; watch the same pattern unfold with McCain.)

Posted by: iowa-caucus-goer | August 11, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I participated in the Iowa caucuses, and in my district, and several others that I heard from, Hillary wasn't even considered viable after the first round of caucusing. Only after all the other candidates were eliminated (except for Obama and Edwards) did Hillary pick up enough support to finish 3rd -- and that very likely had something to do with the cookies that Hillary supporters brought to the caucus and plied on people in order to get their support! Hillary's 3rd place finish was already generous. In contrast, at my caucus location, and all of the others that I've heard about directly, Obama was the clear winner from the beginning of the caucus. Edwards did not lose Iowa for Hillary; Hillary lost Iowa because of her support for the invasion of Iraq. She went on to lose the primary for the same reason, in addition to the negative tone she adopted after Iowa. (The attacks worked initially, but ultimately made her look bitter and petty; watch the same pattern unfold with McCain.)

Posted by: iowa-caucus-goer | August 11, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

There are other scenarios whereby Hillary wins without an Obama sex scandal -- that was just an example to prove it was possible -- Obama could have been killed, too, right? Look, I'm admitting that the public data do not bolster the notion that Clinton would have won -- Wolfson said he has private, i.e. "internal" polling to the contrary and the public data is all based on the assumption that Edwards was still in the race -- you have to admit that the entire dynamics of the contest would have been different without Edwards, right? So, as I've stated repeatedly now, it all depends on how and when Edwards had dropped out. What kind of traction would Hillary have been able to gain with those voters? Would Obama have been tarnished by the revelations? Etc. That's the "hypothetical" part of this thread.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

jake D and anonymous Why dont you two crawl under a rock and stay there, I am glad that people realize what you two really stand for

Posted by: joe | August 11, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Technically niether won and we still don't have a nominee. If delegates had any honor and voted the way the people voted Hillary would have be ahead. Due to pac money and personal greed. Many delegates took the money and turned there backs on the very people that voted them in. When we get to the convention and they have to put their job on the line who do you think they are going to vote for. If they vote for Obama they lose thier job in the next election.
I know O-bots have a hard time understanding party rules but the delegates are to show the will of the voters. If that was the case it is plain and simple. Hillary will win. Just like Karl Rove said she is the most qualified person to run in our life time. I realize some of you have not been around long enough to gain any real wisdom. Just take a good look at these two people. One has a life time of doing good works for the people (Hillary). One has a record of doing what best for himself. One was involved in church, girl scouts, and community activities. The other was getting drunk and taking drugs. One has a life time of accomplishments. The other has a record of taking credit for the work of others. Enough said. We have only one choice Hillary. Mr. Obama is an insult to the integrity of our party. Just my humble opinion.

Posted by: MR. J | August 11, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

iowa-caucus-goer:

Do you think that Barack Obama would have been the clear winner from the beginning of the caucus if John Edwards and Michelle Obama had admitted to an affair two weeks earlier? That's what this thread is about. We already know what actually happened with the MSM covering up the Edwards allegations.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Joe:

Are you a different "joe" than the one who posted at 2:51 PM?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The answer to this ridiculous hypothetical question is completely irrelevant. A better question is: what are they hoping to gain from this inane discussion? Are they hoping to somehow steal the nomination at the convention? I think it would be political suicide and put them in Lieberman territory as traitors to their party if they tried to pull a fast one. But where do they think all this garbage is going to lead? First Bill whines to ABC that he isn't a racist, as if the Obama camp somehow implied that he was, then they want their delegates recognized at the convention, then they use the occasion of Edwards' infidelity to ask idiotic and misleading hypotheticals. What's their end game? That's the more important question.

Posted by: Gerard | August 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I will second the posts, above, pointing out that Iowa (and New Hampshire) should not be accorded this kind of power every four years -- both parties should get together an randomly select different States to go first every four years -- how's that for a compromise?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Jake D thats me, I know you are an asinine old man, I am a Viet Nam vet and as an old citizen i am ashamed to be part of your generation. Give it up , its time to have some young blood in our government

Posted by: joe | August 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Gerard:

Isn't obvious that Hillary Clinton still hopes to gain the nomination? By pointing out that she would have won Iowa if Edwards had dropped out, she's reminding everyone that she's still "Ready to Lead" if Obama implodes (I'm hoping that happens at Saddleback, to be honest with you). I also agree with you that she can no longer win the White House with the massive African-American voter defections that would probably take place too. There are SOME scenarios whereby she could still win most of that vote.

But, if you are claiming that the Obama camp never implied that Bill Clinton was a racist, that's a hypothetical even I can't grasp ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous -- oooh, you suggest there's something eerie and spooky and underhanded going on with Obama. Hmmmm, I'll bet you were first in line to vote for Bush & Co. in 2000 and 2004. Where were you when we needed someone turning every stone to uncover the plot to start a war where the need for one was non-existent. Where were you when Monica Goodling was prowling the internet to stock the Justice Department with evangelical sheepsters. Until people stop being idiots in this country, all we're going to get is more of the same. McSame, that is.

Posted by: Named and Counted | August 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

joe:

I'm a Korean war vet, so you're not part of my generation at all. Go back to your pot-smoking ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

By the way I am an Iowa caucus goer also and Hillary won most of the rural counties. If the delegates were split per hundred people instead of larger areas getting a larger perportion of delegates. Hillary would have won. She won my county in a landslide. It's time to do away with the caucus system all together. It only gives the most unethical candidate the advantage. I'm tired of watching people leave before they get to voice their opinion because of overly aggressive young people telling them who to vote for. One person one vote in the privacy of a booth periiod.

Posted by: Mr. J | August 11, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

So the Obamabots don't know the rules and can't follow them.

Thats funny, the Clinton campaign thought California was winner take all. Terry McCaullife practically wrote the rules. And Harold Ickes. They voted to strip Michigan and Florida of all their delegates. But once it was potentially in their favor, they wanted them back.

I think both Clinton and Obama are fine public servants, but Obama won. Hillary had the inside track, but she lost it. All of these hypotheticals are useless.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

jake D you are an idiot since you are so old,it makes you even more stupid that what you are, Make sure you wear your depend when you go golfing, I never smoked pot when I was in Viet Nam or my life time

Posted by: joe | August 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

From reading many of these posts it seems clear to me that the Clinton supporters are still hoping for a last-second miracle. That would only guarantee a McSame win because the party would then be hopelessly divided. What a shame that the democrats are going to implode in a year when the presidential election should have been a lay-up. How entitled do you have to be to sabotage your party's nominee simply because he had the gall to beat you in a hard fought primary campaign? As for all the whiners saying they'll vote for McSame instead, you were never democrats to begin with. Because voting for McSame is not only stupid, it's irresponsible and dangerous.

Posted by: Gerard | August 11, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the input, Mr. J.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,
Bill Clinton intentionally tried to make Obama another Jesse Jackson to diminish his win in South Carolina. It didn't necessarily make him a racist, but there was no doubt he was using race to invalidate Obama's candidacy. Pointing that out doesn't mean you're calling the man a racist.

Posted by: Gerard | August 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Gerard:

As I said, there are SOME possible scenarios whereby she could still win the White House. BTW: here's at least one Obama surrogate implying that Bill Clinton is a racist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNdIrnwyfE

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Our posts crossed in the 'Net. I'm not saying that anyone in the Obama camp explicitly called the man a racist. They certainly implied it though.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

YOU said: "First Bill whines to ABC that he isn't a racist, as if the Obama camp somehow implied that he was ..."

I could find more examples, if you want.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

queenie's followers are born asslickers. they would crawl thousands of miles for the chance to get one whiff of her big butt and call it the highlight of their existence. bunch of asslicking hags

Posted by: dick cabesa | August 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The campaign’s confidence may turn out to be justified but two weeks prior to the national convention there are more than a few worrisome signs for Obama. Here are seven:

1. Race. “The idea that Obama was going to win in a blowout was always preposterous,” says former Nebraska senator and onetime presidential hopeful Bob Kerrey, an Obama backer. “A big piece of this, of course, is whether white people are going to support a black guy… If [Obama] is a tall, skinny white guy named Paul Jones it's a different story.”

Obama is running nearly neck-and-neck with McCain among white voters in most polls, a major cause for optimism considering that John Kerry and Al Gore lost the white vote by 17 and 12 points respectively. Among whites, he does well with women, the affluent and college grads but fares poorly among low-income earners and Catholics - key swing groups that handed Hillary Clinton stunning blowouts in West Virginia and Kentucky.

How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows - and that’s the problem.

A huge challenge for Obama, insiders say, is simply determining how much skin color will matter in November. Race is nearly impossible to poll - no one ever says “I’m a racist” - and no campaign wants it revealed they are even asking questions on the issue.

“It’s the uncertainty that kills me - we know it’s going to be factor, but how big a factor?” asks a Democratic operative with ties to the Obama camp. “How do you even measure such a thing?

Adding to the jitters: GOP surrogates like New York Rep. Pete King have vowed to make Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright a enterpiece during the homestretch.

2. Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped. His chances of ending the Democrats 44-year losing streak in the commonwealth are pretty good - thanks to the explosive growth of the liberal D.C. suburbs, and a 147,000 spike in voter registration sure to benefit Democrats. But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50 and that the state is far from a lock-solid hedge if he loses Ohio and Florida.

3. Michigan’s in play for McCain. In the year of the downturn, the hard-hit upper Midwest should be prime Obama country. Instead it’s a potential minefield. Obama is still ahead by two to five points here - similar to margins of victory enjoyed by Gore and Kerry in the last two presidential contests- but McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney. Simmering tensions between predominantly-black Detroit and its white suburbs could hurt Obama. And McCain’s surrogates were handed a gift in the jailing of Obama supporter Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit’s mayor.

“Watch Michigan -- the Democrats think they've got it but they don't,” says Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown, a longtime Michigan observer. “Obama should be killing [McCain] there, but there's a lot more racial tension in Michigan than in other states.”

Obama also hasn’t pulled away in other Democrat-friendly neighboring states, watching leads in Wisconsin and Minnesota erode over the last month.

4. Bad times could be good for McCain. If anger helps Democrats, fear advantages Republicans. A growing number of Democratic strategists worry that some swing state voters may opt for McCain if the economy veers from merely awful to downright terrifying. The typical political calculus - that bad economic times will deliver the White House to Democrats - may not hold if people start viewing the downturn as, essentially, a national security crisis that can’t be entrusted to a novice. And that was McCain’s underlying message in his Paris Hilton ad: Bank failures, soaring gas prices and plummeting house values are forms of economic terrorism and he’s an all-purpose anti-terror warrior.

“John McCain is a known quantity,” says Bob Kerrey, who thinks Obama will ultimately prevail. “You don't look at John and say, ‘Who the heck is he?’ he's a veteran, he's a guy who got pretty banged up in Vietnam. He can deal with crisis. There's some uncertainty about Senator Obama.”

The good news for Obama, of course, is that McCain - who infamously admitted he “never understood” economics - is loathed by unions, was somnambulant at the dawn of the housing meltdown and still gropes for a coherent economic policy that doesn’t include the words “offshore drilling.” But he doesn’t have to win the argument, just reinforce doubts about Obama with wavering swing state voters. The Illinois senator still enjoys a major edge on the economic issues, but his 20-point June lead on the who-can-best-fix-the-economy question slipped to a 17-point edge in July, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Obama wins on the economy,” said Guy Cecil, Hillary Clinton’s field director during the primaries. “But it will be interesting to see if McCain’s able to close the economic gap.”

5. Where have you gone, Ross Perot? Bill Clinton, the lone two-term Democratic president since FDR, wouldn’t have been elected if independent Ross Perot hadn’t siphoned 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states.

6. The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what - but the Deocrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. (Add Al Gore if you’re counting the popular vote.)

7. Americans may want divided government. Some Democratic operatives think a possible landslide for their party in congressional races could backfire on Obama.

“Fairly or not, folks think he’s pretty liberal and nobody wants a pair of Pelosi’s running things,” says a New York-based Democratic consultant.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/11/politics/politico/main4336774.shtml

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back, dick cabesa.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Mr J-
As another Iowan, maybe you should understand how caucuses work better. In my hometown (one where a sister and a brother attended), they could give out 8 delegates), and 80 people attended. 2 of my best friends live in Davenport, over 600 people attended (Obama had over 70% of the people there), and they could give out only 8 delegates. All mathematicians who have looked into this have said that if it was straight cote, Obama could of doubled his margin of victory.

As for who won most of the "rural counties", well, it was pretty much a 3 way split - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2008

Facts don't lie

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

YAWN! My nemesis is at it again. Boring!

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Mr. J:

Those "facts" are all based on the assumption (which we are dismissing for the purposes of this thread) that Edwards was still in the Iowa race.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Never assume... you know because of the ASS thing

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey there, JakeD's shadow -- maybe you can settle this dispute that Gerald and I are having -- did the Obama camp imply (in public at least) that Bill Clinton was racist?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Yor welcome Jake. I want to thank every one that served in the military. Some have forgotten how to show respect. Some don't realize as you age if you don't let things make your bitter you acutally become wiser. What we need right now is someone wise enough to run this country not on the job training. It just takes some people longer to out grow of their rebelious years. The ignorant never do. This race has nothing to do with Bill or John, it's about who's most qualified to try and clean up the mess Mr. Bush has created. You can't have a good debate with people that have a closed mind. I wonder if any of them has done any research of their own onMr. Obama.

Posted by: Mr. J | August 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Or, not ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Here's hoping for McCain and Romney 2008. Moron and Mormon...I bet the evangelicals will come out in droves for this winning combo.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone watch the Edwards interview on Nightline, Friday? I thought it left many unanswered questions. He was shown the (blurry) Enquirer picture: "I don't know if that picture is me," Edwards said. "It could well be. It looks like me. I don't know who that baby is. I have no idea what the picture is." When pressed by Woodruff, Edwards continued: "I mean, do you know how many pictures have been taken of me holding children in the last three years? I mean, it happens all the time."

It happens "all the time" at 3AM in Biverly Hills hotel homes?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

BTW: I am an evangelical Christian, and I would have no problem voting for McCain-Romney.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton who? Bill "Bubba" Clinton is finished. The heart bypass actually messed up his mind. It was Bubba who approved the 3 am ad. Mark Penn, Bubba' lacky, pushed that Obama was not American (wait until tomorrow when all the memos are published). So, did he play the race card? Absolutely. According to the Clintons, people like Harold and Kumar, that is people like me are not American, despite what our passports say. And since McCain is using the same playbook, he too is playing the race card.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Once again, from your own post -

For anyone else who didn't read the first sentence of the thread:

"Would Hillary Clinton have won Iowa if John Edwards had been forced out of the race?"

Now you are going into the racist game. Thats fine and all, but at least be intellectually consistent. Don't complain about others, and then start doing it yourself.

As for the facts, you are correct. That is how it broke out with Edwards in the race. And the fact was that the candidate who was widely viewed as the second preference by Edwards supporters was Obama. Now, using those facts, and adding the fact that pretty much all 3 candidates split the rural vote, it is most logical answer to say that Obama would of won more of the Edwards counties than Clinton.

Yes, we are all assuming on this thread... but at least some here are using logic based in facts.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Gay marriage in Romney's Massachusetts.
Universal Health Care in Romney's Massachusetts.
You'll be the lone evangelical supporting McCain Romney. Remember, according to Romney's faith, the New Testament is not the only book relevant to Jesus. The Book of Mormons outweighs the bible. And evangelicals want Romney a heart beat away from the Presidency?!! I think not. Especially because McCain only has a few heart beats remaining.


Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm using facts too -- you even admitted that Hillary would have won Iowa if Edwards having an affair with Michelle Obama was a "fact" revealed before the vote -- also, I'm not "complaining" about anyone going off-topic. Gerald has the absolute right to not answer the "ridiculous hypothetical question" he thinks is completely irrelevant. He even has the absolute right to pretend that no one implied Bill Clinton was a racist. More power to him.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Enough is enough. The primaries are over mainstream media (MSM), and Hillary lost.

The MSM keeps pushing these old and irrelevant stories and opinions only to be out-scooped by the likes of the National Inquirer and Drudge Report.

We get MSM. The 2008 Democratic primary battle will go down in history as one the best political ratings boosters in the history of the MSM. Digging into stories about Hillary Campaign emails from 6 months ago will not change the fact that Hillary lost.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Compared to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, MITT Romney is a Saint ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Stop re-posting large chunks of text from other website reporting on presidential politics JakeD...No one is reading stuff from gainfully employed political pundits looking to stay gainfully employed.

Reporters should be asking McCain tough questions on this Georgia-Russia conflict. Does McCain believe America should send military aid to Georgia?!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Junkie:

The primary race is NOT over until someone officially accepts the nomination in Denver -- anything can happen between now and then -- why do you think he's only referred to as the "presumptive" nominee?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I find many of these comments to be very interesting. I think it is safe to assume -- if Edwards' lies had been exposed -- the outcome would have been different. Obama may have still won, but we will never know because the MSM failed us. It is also interesting that Edwards bowed out at a very opportune time for Obama -- my impression is there is a lot more to this story -- who knew, when did they know ... and why did they keep it quiet? Who paid the mistress off and what did Edwards know? And if anyone believes the baby isn't his ... what a joke. What was he doing in a hotel room in July 2008 for five hours in the middle of the night? And funny, Elizabeth didn't know about the visit. There is a lot of story left to discover out there ...

Posted by: Aksarben in Georgia | August 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the advice, Obama-Junkie, but no thanks. Obviously -- just to prove you wrong -- I am reading stuff from gainfully employed political pundits (including Jon Cohen).

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is a latter day saint ;)

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Aksarben in Georgia:

Good questions; maybe Rick Warren can ask Obama and McCain this Saturday when they first knew about John cheating on Elizabeth Edwards?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD...we all know you are a lover of Romney. If McCain chooses Romney, Obama's campaign will have a slew of past videos and comments from both candidates during the Republican primaries to end the "good feelings" these two men apparently show.

If McCain chooses Romney, he better be prepared to "eat crow" and play second fiddle as the conservative media downplays McCain and embraces their "conservative hero" Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Just to differetiate myself, I am now Linda Marie. I wrote the comment about all Oil monopolies, not to change the subject, but to try to focus on issues, rather than the sad reason for why Edwards' scandal has forced him out of being concidered for the VP post. I am not the other Linda. It is interesting to speculate about the what-ifs. That is why we join these blogs! I enjoy reading comments. But what if the Clintons had not been in office for 8 years? We would not have enjoyed the prosperity of a balanced budget. Or the lower interest rates, or the great diplomatic relations.
Regarding Iowa without Edwards: I think Edward's votes in Iowa would have gone to Obama. Frankly, I like Edwards better than Obama, McCain and Clinton!

Posted by: Linda Marie | August 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

You complain about the Obama campaign using the race card, but yet you write his middle name in capital letters... WHY? Why do you not use Romney's middle name? Or his real first name? Its WILLARD if you are wondering. It looks like you have problems with people who are different than you. Do you?

And the question if Hillary would have won if the "fact" that Michelle Obama and John Edwards having an affair is a ridiculous hypothetical question!!! So why did you press me to answer it if?

You are voting Republican. I remember your posts even last year. All you are doing is trying to stir the pot between Clinton loyalists and the rest of the Democratic party who are ready to stop the 8 years of ignorance and incompetence that has been White House since Jan 20, 2001.

You have not used facts. You have used hypotheticals.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least I am not a "lover" of Romney like Obama is a "lover" of Larry Sinclair.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I apologize. I accidently wrote in your name under my name when I was trying to write you back.
For that I apologize.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1973 ed., p. 346 - "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in a form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man."

Yup evangelicals... come on down. Romney is your "man"

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

God the Father has a wife, through whom he procreates spirit children.
"Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother" (Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed., p. 516)

Yup evangelicals.... come on down. Romney is your "man"

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD:

I'm not wondering -- MITT is Romney's middle name -- I don't have any problems with people who are different than me. For instance, I would have no problem voting for a pro-life Muslim.

This whole thread is about a hypothetical question. As always, you are under no obligation to answer. Have a nice life.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD...the same goes for McCain, i.e. "presumptive nominee". Old Man McCain needs to be somewhere on vacation resting and napping because once Obama gets back refreshed and revitalized McCain's age and health is really go to standout.

The MSM should be investigating McCain's health. How many and what kind of medications is he on? When was the last psych exam McCain took?

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Junkie:

As soon as you answer the questions I've already asked you on this thread, I will be more than delighted to answer your most recent questions.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

So why do you put Obama's middle name in Captial letters, but other politicians?

Also, are you a one issue voter? Would you ever vote for a pro-choice candidate?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Voting for a pro-life muslim... you would be the only evangelical in America who would. I would submit that you are not a true evangelical . In fact, you have strayed from the faith. You too, sir, have a nice life. May you never experience name calling, hatred, and have had violence threatened upon you because you have no pigment in your skin.


Posted by: JakeD's shadow | August 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I give McCain two to three more weeks of constant campaigning and fundraising before he burns out (i.e. constant misreading of teleprompters, many more gaffes, and he may fall offstage somewhere, remember Dole).

Once McCain makes that statement that I know he wants to which is "America should give military aid to Georgia", McCain's polling numbers are going to fall like a rock.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD's shadow:

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

Yup evangelicals ... come on down. Obama is your "man" too.

Fake JakeD (vahawk again?):

I am trying to teach little-known facts when I capitalize words. For instance, MITT is Romney's middle name. Abortion is, without a doubt, the single most important domestic issue -- none other has killed over 50 million Americans -- that's not the only thing I vote on. I'm sure I've voted for "pro-choice" candidates (for non-partisan officesm for instance).

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD...What question? The only question (which is demonstrated by a question mark) was about the term "presumptive nominee".

Obama plans to give his acceptance speech at the 75,000 seat Denver stadium, which sold out in 24 hours!

I bet Ron Paul will have more people attending his event than McCain's acceptance speech.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | August 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Junkie:

The United States is ALREADY backing Georgia -- check with the State Dept. if you don't believe me -- as for your "concern" about McCain's constant campaigning, he's run for President longer than your guy has (and he's not the one on vacation this week either ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

P.S. in addition to the "presumptive nominee" question -- which you still haven't answered -- you didn't answer my first question (also with a QUESTION MARK) at 12:29 PM:

"What if the affair had come out before the primaries but AFTER Obama and he publically hugged each other on stage?"

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

So what are you teaching with using Obama's middle name? He goes by Barrack, his first name. Mitt, goes by his middle name. Why do you not write it as WILLARD Mitt Romney? What are you saying with his middle name?

As for that piece of legislation, he had problems with the Constitutionality of it. I do want my legislator voting against a bill if they find it unconstitutional (even if I supported what the bill is trying to do).

I would disagree on the abortion issue. As a Catholic, I like to look at the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus doesn't mention aboirtion once there. He doesn't mention it anywhere. You are free to your opinion, and we will have to agree to disagree.

One thing though, you also have to look at how they define an abortion. Some surveys count certain miscarriages as abortions due to the medical steps taken. My mother (and I am one of 14, so yes, very pro-life mother), discovered that she would have been found to have had 2 abortions because of this. So how does your 50 million define an abortion?

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

I'm glad you asked -- for instance, did you know that Obama's middle name means "handsome" in Arabic -- that's just one little-known fact. As for Romney, I am pointing out his middle name is "MITT" (also a little-know, fact, given that people like you still ask "Why do you not use Romney's middle name?").

As for the abortion stats, I am using this:

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php?scope=U.S.%20specific

I am not counting natural miscarriages. I'm counting where a doctor performs the procedure and tears apart fully-formed human beings before sucking their brains out. If you think that Jesus condones that, I guess you haven't been listening to the Vatican lately. I think Jesus also said something about "love one another" ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

looks like queenie beanie and the smearheads are going to serve up some doo doocicles, that's a buttsausage sando courtesy of queenie's smearpanties

Posted by: dick cabesa | August 11, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

JakeD -

First of all, you did not give any teaching point about Obama's middle name. You just wrote:

Compared to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, MITT Romney is a Saint ; )

That was your post... in its entirety. What are you teaching here using Obama's middle name in capital letters?

As for the abortion, I looked at the website. They do not say how they define abortion. You have to look at it carefully. A lot of firms will count miscarriages if they use certain medical procedures afterwards as an abortion.

I should also ask, are you for candidates that are against birth control?

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Then should you also use Mitt's first name?

Do you use McCain's middle name?

And if you use Obama's middle name frequently (as you seem to imply in your post - want people to stop asking if you use other people's middle name), why do you still capitalize it?

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The point is, we will never know what the outcome would have been, so now we get to have another 4 years of "what if"

I am not voting, this is just too much of a mess already and I can't trust "any" information that I have

I thought that the government interfered too much, now I have to find out "the PRESS IS COMPLICIT IN THE INFLUENCING OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION"? At my age, is there anything left of the country I was born to?

Posted by: lndlouis | August 11, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I do use John SIDNEY McCain's middle name too. And, yes, that was my post, in its entirety. I used the "teaching moment" (you, asking about it) to inform you -- and those who don't post -- about that and MITT's middle name. Lastly, I am for candidates who are against birth control for unmarried couples.

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The press has always been complicit. Look at the history of the US. The newspapers always took sides.

As for the breaking of the Edwards story, I do not believe that it was a plan by the press to not cover. Its resources. First of all, Edwards was not a member of the big 2 on the Democratic side, and there were more potential candidates on the Republican side. You also had a former President as a spouse, and the first black man/woman to be serious contenders. Then you also have the economy going to shambles and two war fronts.

Add all of that to the fact that newspapers are losing money (where most investigative journalism is done), they could not afford to spend money on a story on a second tier candidate which has only one uncollaborated informant, been denied by both parties involved, and reported by the National Enquirer. If they did, they would have also reported on the alleged sexual relationship between Bush and Condee Rice.

Posted by: Indlouis | August 11, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I knew that Mitt went by his middle name. As a former teacher, I could tell you that it would be more effective if you would have used Mitt's first name, too.

Also, what does it do to point out his middle name? What does that tell us about what type of President he would be?

So should we start typing "John McCain HAD MULTIPLE AFFAIRS ON HIS FIRST WIFE, GOT HIS MARRIAGE LICENSE BEFORE HE WAS DIVORCED, AND WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF KEATING 5 SCANDAL"?

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Isn't that kind of like saying, if Hillary had been born with testicles?

Posted by: Agile womanly | August 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

I never said that Obama's middle name tells us anything about what type of President he would be -- anymore than Romney's middle name does -- as I pointed out already it makes for teaching moments and even I would vote for a pro-life Muslim. You are also free to point out whatever you'd like to point out about McCain.

P.S. if you knew that Romney's middle name was MITT, and you knew that I used said middle name, why did you ask me "Why do you not use Romney's middle name?"

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Junkie:

You still around? Any answers to my previous questions.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, as you have noticed, sometimes I mistype (I think I have used your name on accident 3 times). But how is it a teaching moment? And again, why do you not use Mitt's first name? I do not see how Obama's middle name goes to a teaching moment? I am very curious on this and would like to hear your reasoning.
Thanks.

P.S. I also mistyped Indlouis in my other last post. I was replying to Indlouis, and put in their name as mine. Simple mistake.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

It amazes what non issues find its way into the headlines...it is no wonder why the opinion about news media in general is somewhere between bottom of the septic tank and the top.

Posted by: Herman F Gardner | August 11, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

vahawk:

The "teaching moment" is when someone asks about it (as you did) I can explain little-known facts, as I have.

Everyone else:

It looks like the The Trail" posts are finally back up and running.

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

What are you teaching? It makes no sense.

This is how I see it, and I can guarantee you that many, many others do to:

I am not saying this is why you are doing it, but it is a tactic that people who have problems with Muslims and Obama use.

I think you can agree to the fact that religious bigots who dislike Obama do stress the "Hussein" middle name. And, as an unintended consequence, some people might view you as being religiously bigoted, too.

Can you see how that could be plausible for a person to view your usage that way?

Please notice, I am not calling you a bigot. I am actually doing the opposite, but stating how others might mistakingly view that way. If you are offended, I do apoligize.

Posted by: vahawk | August 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

No need to apologize. For the last time, I am teaching little-known facts. As for "plausibility" anything's possible. But, I post here too much to be worried about offending anyone. And, just as you did, if there's ever any question, I am happy to answer (as long as you answer my questions in a civil manner : )

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will never be president. That is a fact that she and her supporters need to accept. She would never have won Iowa. She didn't even want to or think she had to campaign in Iowa. Iowans took that attitude to heart. Democrats will never nominate her. Republicans despise her. She has way to many negatives. So no matter how much you may adore her, it isn't happening folks.

Posted by: Lynne | August 11, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Lynne:

So, even if John McCain assassinated Obama on live TV this Saturday, the Democrats would not nominate Hillary Clinton? Are you SURE about that?

Posted by: JakeD | August 11, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Wolfson's comments are not only inaccurate; they go a long way to proving that even trained seals bleat when harpooned.

Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | August 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't know whether or not Hillary would have won had Edwards been outed by the press but I do believe that Bill Clinton would not have won his first Presidential election had the press not helped him hide his own "mistakes" as they are now euphemistically called and we would never have had a presidential run from Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

One of the interesting aspects of the scandals are the wives of the Bill Clinton and John Edwards types. They are so craven that their desire to remain in the power circles trumps any self respect. Hilary was humiliated so many times by Bill, yet she didn't dump him lest she lose her shot at power. The American's in their wisdom dumped her. After all, who wants a "Doormat in Chief" rather than president with some character and dignity?

Posted by: wiseman4 | August 12, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

I GUEST WOFLSEN MUST HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS. HIS PSYCHIC POWERS SHOULDA TOLD HIM THAT HILLARY WAS GOING TO LOSE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COME-ON EVERYBODY KNOWS HILLARY DID`NT HAVE 18MILLIONS VOTERS.WE ALL KNOW ALMOST HALF OF THEM VOTERS WERE REPUBLICANS VOTEING AS DEMOCRATS TO PUSH HILLARY OVER SO SHE CAN LOSE AGAINST MCCAIN BECAUSE JOHN MCCAIN KNOWS HE WAS SCARE TO FACE OBAMA BECAUSE HE KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS PUSHING FOR CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY AN MCCAIN KNOWS HILLARY IS MORE THE SAME. AMERICA THE NEWS MEDIA ALREADY KNOWS WHO WON THIS THATS WAY THEY SAY ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT OBAMA EVEN WHEN IT`S POSITIVE. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT ALL THE NEGATIVETY IN DARK DAYS OBAMA HAD TO FACE AN STILL STOOD IT ALL DIDNT FALL LIKE THEY THOUHGT. SEE THEM PUMA PAC WACKO`S WE ALREADY KNOW YOUR SCHIMES I CANT SEE HOW PEOPLE DIDNT CATCH ON IO THAT GROUP THATS THAT SO CALL ALMOST HALF OF HILLARY REPUBLICANS PUSHER THATS CAUSEING CONFLICS AMONGS THE DEMOCRATS SO MCCAIN CAN WIN AN HILLARY RUN AND 2012 AND LOSE AGAINST MCCAIN SO HE COULD STAY IN OFFICE FOR 8YRS. WE ALREADY KNOW ENOUGH OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS SUPPORTS OBAMA DEMOCRATS YALL BETTER WAKE UP. THIS IS ONE OF CARL ROVE SCHEMS. PEOPLE THINK ABOUT IT IF HILLARY HAD 18MILLION LOYAL VOTERS HERE DEBT WOULD OF BEEN PAID. PUT THE PUZZLE TOGATHER PEOPLE.

Posted by: KEESA | August 12, 2008 5:42 AM | Report abuse

I GUEST WOFLSEN MUST HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS. HIS PSYCHIC POWERS SHOULDA TOLD HIM THAT HILLARY WAS GOING TO LOSE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COME-ON EVERYBODY KNOWS HILLARY DID`NT HAVE 18MILLIONS VOTERS.WE ALL KNOW ALMOST HALF OF THEM VOTERS WERE REPUBLICANS VOTEING AS DEMOCRATS TO PUSH HILLARY OVER SO SHE CAN LOSE AGAINST MCCAIN BECAUSE JOHN MCCAIN KNOWS HE WAS SCARE TO FACE OBAMA BECAUSE HE KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS PUSHING FOR CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY AN MCCAIN KNOWS HILLARY IS MORE THE SAME. AMERICA THE NEWS MEDIA ALREADY KNOWS WHO WON THIS THATS WAY THEY SAY ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT OBAMA EVEN WHEN IT`S POSITIVE. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT ALL THE NEGATIVETY IN DARK DAYS OBAMA HAD TO FACE AN STILL STOOD IT ALL DIDNT FALL LIKE THEY THOUHGT. SEE THEM PUMA PAC WACKO`S WE ALREADY KNOW YOUR SCHIMES I CANT SEE HOW PEOPLE DIDNT CATCH ON IO THAT GROUP THATS THAT SO CALL ALMOST HALF OF HILLARY REPUBLICANS PUSHER THATS CAUSEING CONFLICS AMONGS THE DEMOCRATS SO MCCAIN CAN WIN AN HILLARY RUN AND 2012 AND LOSE AGAINST MCCAIN SO HE COULD STAY IN OFFICE FOR 8YRS. WE ALREADY KNOW ENOUGH OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS SUPPORTS OBAMA DEMOCRATS YALL BETTER WAKE UP. THIS IS ONE OF CARL ROVE SCHEMS. PEOPLE THINK ABOUT IT IF HILLARY HAD 18MILLION LOYAL VOTERS HERE DEBT WOULD OF BEEN PAID. PUT THE PUZZLE TOGATHER PEOPLE.

Posted by: KEESA | August 12, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

The people from the Clinton campaign need to move on. Wolfson and / or Penn screwed up and they now need to get a life.

Hilary should have fired them all early in the campaign.

Posted by: aklein1404 | August 12, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

As an Independent, I must say that Obama has inspired me with his natural intelligence and discernment. However, I am prolife, and am troubled that the Democrats - be it Obama or Hillary - would use our tax dollars to expand the abortion holocaust in third world countries, and that the human family as we know it will disappear if, under their watch, same-sex marriage is legalised in the USA.

I would trust that Obama is sufficiently intelligent to do what is right if he would take an indepth look at the truth about abortion. As for the Clintons - they had their opportunity and used the presidential veto to legalise partial birth abortions (the killing of babies in the birthing process) when congress had voted overwhelmingly against this bill.

Hence the Clintons could never get my vote. NEVER. Obama is still being weighed and I hope for America's sake, that he will not be found wanting.

For Hillary and her supporters to still be grasping for a Clinton nomination is downright selfish and self-serving, showing themselves to be 'spoil sports'. Hillary lost all credibility when she decided to lie to make herself seem bigger than she really was and went on a wild spending spree that ate away the $140 million war chest that was donated to her campaign.


Posted by: Maria | August 12, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

This is my nagging question: Why did the Enquirer begin their investigation? What sparked the enquiry?

Posted by: Lydia, Durham | August 12, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

A butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and Hillary Clinton loses a nomination in America

Posted by: Brian | August 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the ugly truth revealed...

from JakeD: "Please see my post to Obama-Junkie. Maybe all of your friends said voting for a black man was their "second choice" but it's a very different thing actually pulling that lever."

You see, it isn't about issues and it isn't about gender and it isn't even about Clinton. It is all about racism. JakeD is a racist; from his own mouth, pure and simple.

All of the subterfuge, spin and obfuscation in the world doesn't change the fact that some people simply can't fathom a negro in the White House unless they are wearing white gloves and serving dinner.

And I don't mean a "black man" or an "African American". The use of these terms already admits of a humanness that these bigots refuse to acknowledge. No, to JakeD and his ilk, blacks are animals...and certainly not Americans or even human. This is the last vestige of truly vile elitism from a dark past and there is no longer any place for it in our society.

Fortunately, the strength and number of the racist contingent is far smaller than their screeching voices would indicate. If you read back through these comments you will find that it is mainly JakeD and few others who continue in their tirade of misinformation and smear against Obama...the next President of the United States.

HOPE IS HERE...CHANGE IS COMING!

Posted by: Josh Hussein | August 12, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Josh Hussein:

I am not "a racist" for simply pointing out that the fact that some people lie to polsters when asked about voting for African-Americans -- whether they are all "racist" or not is beyond my purview and irrelvant to my the point -- BTW: do you believe the Gallup organization as a whole is "racist" for objectively noting the so-called Bradley Effect? Just so you know, for me personally, I have no problem voting for a pro-life African-American like Alan Keyes ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 12, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I didn't bother reading the list above of things "Obama won't release" because the first thing on the list is so dumb. Obama has released his birth certificate. It's been inspected and a copy of it is even on line. Most of the rest of that list is hogwash. McCain won't be showing off his college papers because he flunked most of them. This list reads like something no other candidate has ever been asked for and most human beings don't have or bother keeping. This is an intrusive list that goes beyond anything reasonable and one has to wonder just what it is about Obama that makes you think he should have or reveal such things as his mother's marriage license. I've never seen my mother's marriage license and giving you his client list would be against the law. You've got a serious problem buddy.

Posted by: karela | August 12, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton lost the white female vote in Iowa to Obama. Obama won 27 delegates, Clinton 14 and Edwards 4. Even if Edwards hadn't been there, more than half of his supporters said their second choice was Obama. For the sake of argument let's split them giving 2 to each/So Obama 29 and Clinton 16. There were 12 super delegates in Iowa. Even if Mrs. Clinton got them all, it would still be Obama 29 to Clinton 28. As it happens though Obama had 8 of the supers. So the total was Obama 35 delegates from Iowa and there was just no way that Clinton could have won Iowa whether Edwards was there or not. Obama was offering change and Clinton was offering experience and Iowa wanted change. There were almost 100,000 first time voters at the Iowa caucuses, largely as a result of Obama's grass roots efforts. Obama was hugely organized in Iowa and he did it early. She was out strategized pure and simple and he was offering what the people wanted. And don't forget that Iowa is glaringly white, so she can't blame it on "that". The Clinton campaign has behaved shamefully in that they are still, two months later coming out with this stuff. Somebody ought to teach them what every little kid in sports and scouts learns early----it's nasty to be a poor sport.

Posted by: karela | August 12, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

No one is blaming Edwards of course, we are trashing Hillary again. Edwards put his name in nomination knowing full well he could have blown it for the Dem. Party if he had won, luckily he did not.
If anyone is a loser -its Edwards, not Clinton. I am sick and tired of the Hillary bashing, if you want to bash someone : BASH McCain and the Republican Party, not your own Party. Stupid Democrats are going to blow this election again. If Edwards was not in the running, Hillary could have very well won the nomination in ALL the states that Edwards ran in before and after IOWA,
now stop the Clinton bashing, once and for all.

Posted by: Teris | August 12, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes, JakeD, he is the "presumptive" nominee until the convention but those simply are motions to go through. Is there really any doubt about who will be the nominee once the convention is over? Of course not.

And as for Edwards cheating on his wife - I see it as a big *yawn*. Compared to some of the other recent sex scandals involving interns on Capitol Hill and anonymous gay hookups in public restrooms, a heterosexual (albeit adulterous) affair is hardly news any more. There simply are too many other bigger stories happening. Sure, Edwards will never be President, but he never would have been elected under any circumstances, regardless of the recent news. He's too *unctuous*.

Posted by: Barry in WV | August 13, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

One of the things I distinctly remember Hillary Clinton saying in her 'concession' speech was that she did not want to look back and go over all the 'what ifs' Now that is exactly what her team is doing to shift their own ineptitude to John Edwards affair. Pathetic! And if she proceeds in firing up her supporters (do not mistake that she is the one firing them up with her Greek Tragedy catharsis line) in trying to protest or get her name in nomination at the convention, it will be the end of the Clintons in politics. She will have diminished any future effectiveness she would have as a senator and there will be people lined up to take her out of contention in the NY senate.

Go gracefully out of the Presidential limelight Mrs. Clinton or you will be dragged out of the Senate.

Posted by: Debra | August 13, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

This conspiracy theory just shows how since Hillary is in helping Obama and uniting the Dem Party. Where does she find excuses asking Obama to retire her debt?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Wha? One third of those documents (theses etc) will be readily available to anyone who bothers to look for them. A second third are likely impossible to find (ie parents' marriage certificate from a zillion years ago, tssh right), and the third third, who gives a rats arse?

You're seriously worried about whether Obama's parents were married when he says they were, and that his thesis was on what everyone says it was on?

Get a shrink.

Posted by: Weirdo | August 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

How 'bout the answer is that Obama hasn't submitted those documents because no white man in his position has to, and the standards should be the same for all - we shouldn't have heightened standards of disclosure information for some candidates because the color of their skin, even if that would appease your racist tendencies, Mr. Anonymous.
PS, if you're going to make comments with bigoted and nativist undertones, be a man and use your name, and don't hide behind "anonymous."

Posted by: Aaron G. | August 14, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

In the tiny Republic of Georgia, a president with no military training or experience made executive decisions that resulted in the speedy ruin of his democratic country accompanied by his citizens' incredible suffering.

Yet, millions of Americans are eager to vote to put a similarly untrained and inexperienced person in the same position, i.e. having to face up to former KGB colonel Putin's oil rich Russia and their brutal armies and revamped air force and nuclear missile submarine fleet.

These kinds of voters seem oblivious to the nasty and brutal world outside US borders, a world where if they survive they could wind up working in the fields 18 hours a day on pain of ethnic cleansing.

Posted by: reformthesystem | August 17, 2008 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Could have been? Should have been? Pleeeeze. Hillary FOLKS GET OVER IT!!!! Why don't the 8 million of you contribute at least a dollar to Hillary and help her resolve her debt. I think she will surely appreciate the LOVE from you guys!!! STOP WHINING. IT'S EMABARRASING.

OBAMA '08

Posted by: bongogirl | August 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The answer to the question what would have happened if Edwards had not run is just about as important as the question of whether Obama had a different father would he have won. No one knows because it would be a totally different race. Obama might not have run. What is the difference?

Posted by: Ronnn | August 19, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Why does JakeD seem to be in love with Hillary? Seems strange, his obsession with a white, chubbyl, middleaged woman. Maybe it's because she's white.

Posted by: Luke | August 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company