I would have to agree with Howard Wolfson on this matter.
"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Howard Wolfson, who was the combative communications director for Clinton's doomed campaign, told ABCNews.com.
She would have come in first after Edwards would have damaged his campaign to the very core if he were caught having an affair while his loving wife had terminal cancer. The funny part is the media was in the tank for Edwards. That fact must really be rubbing the Clintonites raw.
The media kept it all quiet and let the National Enquirer break the story instead. So of course Edwards would lie about not having the affair if a tabloid was making the claim. If it was the New York Times it would have been totally different story. Edwards would have had to go into damage control mode and probably would have dropped out of the race soon after the allegations came to light.
Clinton would have then swept Iowa. Obama would probably have hung around for a while but would have dropped out when it was "inevitable" that Clinton had it wrapped up. There is no way that Obama could have rattled off 11 strait victories if he didn't win in Iowa first.
2 comments:
Please.
If Hillary had taken a strong stand against the war WHEN IT MATTERED, she would have swept the nomination.
Anything that happened after that is her own fault. She had the opportunity to take a moral stand, and didn't. Obama beat her on that issue alone.
The Senate voted 77 to 23 to authorize the use of force. In that number were quite a few Democrats. This included Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Schumer, Feinstein and others.
So since all of them voted "wrong" on Oct. 11, 2002 then they need to be thrown under the bus? I guess changing ones mind on an issue is not permitted in the Democratic Party no matter what happens afterward.
Post a Comment