If the Edwards story broke earlier, wouldn't Hillary be the nominee?

[xLIBREx]

It would seem to me that if the Edwards story broke earlier, before the primaries, Hillary would have won Iowa and would have been the nominee and not Obama.

[Elrathin]

Why? Obama didn't have the affair. And if I remember correctly, Edwards didn't endorse Obama until after Obama was said to be the nominee.

[DamnYankee]

Obama would have been the nominee regardless.

The kook fringe, and Howard Dean, a Clinton hater, is in firm control of the leftist party.

[preservanation]

Why? Obama didn't have the affair. And if I remember correctly, Edwards didn't endorse Obama until after Obama was said to be the nominee.Because Edwards and Clinton split a lot of the same vote.
With Edwards out she stood to gain his pledged delegates.

[Elrathin]

Because Edwards and Clinton split a lot of the same vote.
With Edwards out she stood to gain his pledged delegates.

Actually they didn't. when Edwards dropped out, he had very little compared to Hillary and Obama. Many people I talked to thought Edwards was going to endorse Hillary, so I imagine that Obama would have won it sooner.

Of course we will never know, but that is just my thoughts on it.

[suedanim]

This is yet another Foxnews led gossip thread. in Current Events, no less. How many topics do we need on John Edwards.. private citizen??

Of all the events going on in the world...why are Republicans obsessed with this...especially since they show no concerned about their own pedophiles and closet gays having sex in public bathrooms? I guess they don't care about their perverts and criminals as long as they vote the party line.

So much for moral values and personal responsibility. But, we always knew that was lip service, propaganda to get elected on. You never really meant that shit.

...sigh...

[xLIBREx]

This is yet another Foxnews led gossip thread. in Current Events, no less. How many topics do we need on John Edwards.. private citizen??

Of all the events going on in the world...why are Republicans obsessed with this...especially since they show no concerned about their own pedophiles and closet gays having sex in public bathrooms? I guess they don't care about their perverts and criminals as long as they vote the party line.

So much for moral values and personal responsibility. But, we always knew that was lip service, propaganda to get elected on. You never really meant that shit.

...sigh...

It's an honest question which you seem unwilling to ponder for whatever reason. If Obama loses, you will certainly think about it in hindsight.

Then you go on to rant about pedophiles and republicans which both have nothing to do with this thread?

[AlanC]

This is yet another Foxnews led gossip thread. in Current Events, no less. How many topics do we need on John Edwards.. private citizen??

Of all the events going on in the world...why are Republicans obsessed with this...especially since they show no concerned about their own pedophiles and closet gays having sex in public bathrooms? I guess they don't care about their perverts and criminals as long as they vote the party line.

So much for moral values and personal responsibility. But, we always knew that was lip service, propaganda to get elected on. You never really meant that shit.

...sigh...

Fox News? It would seem you have again jumped to the wrong conclusion. It was driven by comments made by Howard Wolfson of Clinton's campaign and I saw the story here at ABC News.

Link to ABC News Story (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1)

Not FOX News, and not Republicans.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your assumptions.

[Leslie]

Wolfson: (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1)

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates -- not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state -- changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Obama won 37.6 per cent of the vote. Edwards won 29.7 per cent and Clinton won 29.5 per cent, according to results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party.

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "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."



There's more speculation at the Link (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1)

[xLIBREx]

Fox News? It would seem you have again jumped to the wrong conclusion. It was driven by comments made by Howard Wolfson of Clinton's campaign and I saw the story here at ABC News.

Link to ABC News Story (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1)

Not FOX News, and not Republicans.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your assumptions.

You pulled the cord on the gallows a bit soon! I was hoping to let out a bit more rope first!

I asked the question because I honestly think Hillary would have beaten McCain and I honestly believe Obama won't.

[DamnYankee]

I asked the question because I honestly think Hillary would have beaten McCain and I honestly believe Obama won't.

You might be right.

[preservanation]

Originally Posted by xLIBREx
I asked the question because I honestly think Hillary would have beaten McCain and I honestly believe Obama won't.

You might be right.
I think your both right on.
IMO, she would be ahead by 15 points right now.

For the reason Leslie introduced The Republicans should have come up with a real candidate.

[xLIBREx]

You might be right.

I have been looking at the evidence of how many Democratic members of Congress are heavily invested in the military industrial complex and I think they simply have no interest in ending this war for their own personal gain while pretending to be the "anti-war party."

I'm personally very anti-Iraq War, so when people paint me as a partisan I just have to laugh at the irony of the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, until people can step back from their partisan dogma and realize it really is "us vs them" (the people vs the government) instead of "us vs us" in our divided and conquered society, all of our rights will continue to erode.

[xLIBREx]

I think your both right on.
IMO, she would be ahead by 15 points right now.

For the reason Leslie introduced

Exactly! McCain is simply Bush III, yet he is in a statistical dead heat right now? That's insane! The Democrats should have been able to put up practically anyone and had a 15 point lead. Instead they decide to put up a guy with a whopping 160 days of Senatorial service. I've been scratching my head at this choice since Obama became the presumptive nominee.

Hillary would have a 15 point lead right now because there wouldn't have been any hysteria which would have faded. She would have been able to continue to build while Obama is simply fighting to maintain his ground right now.

I think come November, a lot of Democrats are going to be in a state of shock once again and they will have no one to blame but their own party's leadership. This should have been a cake walk for the Dems, instead they are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. It has to make you wonder if it isn't intentional.

[preservanation]

Excellent observation, xLIBREx, especially this Hillary would have a 15 point lead right now because there wouldn't have been any hysteria which would have faded. She would have been able to continue to build while Obama is simply fighting to maintain his ground at this point.
It's like a stock which has a meteoric rise, it also has a farther way to fall.
Whereas a steady time-tested one which has a strong and broad base, has a much higher "floor".
The DNC really rolled the dice on Obama.

[xLIBREx]

Excellent observation, xLIBREx, especially this
It's like a stock which has a meteoric rise, it also has a farther way to fall.
Whereas a steady time-tested one which has a strong and broad base, has a much higher "floor".
The DNC really rolled the dice on Obama.

The thing is, as much as I dislike the Democratic party leadership, I can't believe they are so stupid they could not foresee this. So I am left wondering what the real reasoning was? It will be interesting to see if any other information comes to light over the next couple of months.

[BoogyMan]

This is yet another Foxnews led gossip thread. in Current Events, no less. How many topics do we need on John Edwards.. private citizen??

Of all the events going on in the world...why are Republicans obsessed with this...especially since they show no concerned about their own pedophiles and closet gays having sex in public bathrooms? I guess they don't care about their perverts and criminals as long as they vote the party line.

So much for moral values and personal responsibility. But, we always knew that was lip service, propaganda to get elected on. You never really meant that shit.

...sigh...

Seems to me that ABC News really ISN'T Fox News Sue. :madlaugh:


Source: Link (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1)

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

...Read More... (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1)

Howard Wolfson certainly thinks this would be the case.

[Buck Laser]

You pulled the cord on the gallows a bit soon! I was hoping to let out a bit more rope first!

I asked the question because I honestly think Hillary would have beaten McCain and I honestly believe Obama won't.

What you totally misunderestimate is that most of us democrats would gladly support anyone who won the nomination. Edwards's mistakes are totally irrelevant to the situation today, kept alive pretty much by the desperate hopes of some last-ditch republicans who seem to think that negativity is the only way to go.

Some Clinton supporters are still a bit pissed about her not getting the nomination, but for the most part they, like Hillary herself realize that we need a democratic president and congress in order to begin digging out of the almost insuperable mess republican administrations over the last thirty years have left us in.

McCain's growing "Bushization" is turning off more and more voters as they realize that his election will simply further the blunders and bull-headedness we've known for the last 7 1/2 years.

[NIOSA]

It would seem to me that if the Edwards story broke earlier, before the primaries, Hillary would have won Iowa and would have been the nominee and not Obama.

I imagine that Hillary is asking that same question....course she's probaly more agitated that the story isn't about Obama. She can still hope though for some sort of "story" to come out on Obama.

[xLIBREx]

What you totally misunderestimate is that most of us democrats would gladly support anyone who won the nomination. Edwards's mistakes are totally irrelevant to the situation today, kept alive pretty much by the desperate hopes of some last-ditch republicans who seem to think that negativity is the only way to go.

That simply isn't the case and it's showing in Obama's fading poll numbers. A large part of the Democratic party was disenfranchised by the Obama nomination being shoved down their throats and the reality is, McCain differs so little he is a viable alternative to anyone not completely under the Obama spell.

Some Clinton supporters are still a bit pissed about her not getting the nomination, but for the most part they, like Hillary herself realize that we need a democratic president and congress in order to begin digging out of the almost insuperable mess republican administrations over the last thirty years have left us in.

You can say that all you want, but the evidence doesn't bear that out in reality.

McCain's growing "Bushization" is turning off more and more voters as they realize that his election will simply further the blunders and bull-headedness we've known for the last 7 1/2 years.

I think there is no growing "Bushization" with McCain. Everyone knows he is Bush III, there is no denying that. That's why this election should have been a cakewalk for the Dems. Again, if what you were saying were true, the gap in the polls would be growing and not shrinking and in fact, no gap exists at all at this point and there is still 3 months to go.

My question to you is, if Obama loses are you simply not going to question the decisions made by the Democratic leadership at all? Are you just going to blame Fox News and the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy?"

[Easy90]

Right now, Obama should be 15 or so points AHEAD of McCain in the polls, if the level of love for him and hate for Republicans were what the sycophant media, Hollywood (redundant) and past history of Democrat polling were accurate. Instead, he's anywhere from two points down to one point ahead...and fading. He is in big trouble, and the DNC KNOWS it. I look for an attempt at a Clinton coup-de'etat at the convention....Here again, the Dems are screwed as any attempt to get rid of Obama as the nominee will alienate their 98% Black voting block.

Plus...I believe a large number of the racist whites who normally vote Democrat either won't vote, or will actually vote for someone other than Obama. Doesn't look good for the libs.

[xLIBREx]

Right now, Obama should be 15 or so points AHEAD of McCain in the polls, if the level of love for him and hate for Republicans were what the sycophant media, Hollywood (redundant) and past history of Democrat polling were accurate. Instead, he's anywhere from two points down to one point ahead...and fading. He is in big trouble, and the DNC KNOWS it. I look for an attempt at a Clinton coup-de'etat at the convention....Here again, the Dems are screwed as any attempt to get rid of Obama as the nominee will alienate their 98% Black voting block.

Plus...I believe a large number of the racist whites who normally vote Democrat either won't vote, or will actually vote for someone other than Obama. Doesn't look good for the libs.

Great post. So let me ask you to speculate. I personally don't think the Democratic leadership is stupid enough that they couldn't have foreseen this. So the only other possibility is that this was the plan from the beginning. My question is, why? I have seriously been scratching my head trying to figure this out? I posted some of my theories before, but I am interested to hear what other people are theorizing.

:ponder:

[Easy90]

Great post. So let me ask you to speculate. I personally don't think the Democratic leadership is stupid enough that they couldn't have foreseen this. So the only other possibility is that this was the plan from the beginning. My question is, why? I have seriously been scratching my head trying to figure this out? I posted some of my theories before, but I am interested to hear what other people are theorizing.

:ponder:

Oh, they're stupid enough. You have to remember who the political leaders in the Democratic party are. Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durban..people like that are total nitwits.

Hillary Clinton LOST the nomination...Obama didn't win it. She's very abrasive, and when she gets out there and campaigns....the gag factor (except amongst some hostile women, and some other weird Hillary blocs...) is so high that people look around for an alternative to vote for. But against McCain...she would stand a better chance than Obama I think.

Obama's negatives are very high for different reasons than Hillary's, and she is a MUCH better politician than he is. First: although he's a good script reader, he's obviously an empty suit...doesn't have a clue about anything he speaks about. Second: He has a lot of baggage with his nebulous life history. I mean...who the hell is he really? You can't really ask, it seems...because if you do..you're a "racist." Third: His wife is simply a militant Black racist...just like his minister. (A guy who makes Louis Farikhan look like a reasonable person.) People are getting tired of that crap...and though they try to limit her exposure...and she's now being groomed with this goofy "Jacky Kennedy" makeover....still, if she gets loose from the handlers and gets press any time it's not hyper-controlled and scripted....people are totally turned off.

[NIOSA]

Right now, Obama should be 15 or so points AHEAD of McCain in the polls, if the level of love for him and hate for Republicans were what the sycophant media, Hollywood (redundant) and past history of Democrat polling were accurate. Instead, he's anywhere from two points down to one point ahead...and fading. He is in big trouble, and the DNC KNOWS it. I look for an attempt at a Clinton coup-de'etat at the convention....Here again, the Dems are screwed as any attempt to get rid of Obama as the nominee will alienate their 98% Black voting block.

Plus...I believe a large number of the racist whites who normally vote Democrat either won't vote, or will actually vote for someone other than Obama. Doesn't look good for the libs.

Wow, great post, good insight.

[NIOSA]

Great post. So let me ask you to speculate. I personally don't think the Democratic leadership is stupid enough that they couldn't have foreseen this. So the only other possibility is that this was the plan from the beginning. My question is, why? I have seriously been scratching my head trying to figure this out? I posted some of my theories before, but I am interested to hear what other people are theorizing.

:ponder:

With a DNC chairman like they have you don't think they're stupid enough? Come on Libre, we all know that "Eeeeeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaa Deans" elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. Pelosi & Reid aren't much better.
I believe that the Clintons have & are working against Obama. Wolfson today pretty well nailed my suspicion with his comment about Hillary would've won had the Edwards saga been made public before the Iowa caucus. Wolfson doesn't blow his nose without Hillarys permission. They all believe that if McCain does win he'll be a one termer & then Hillary would step in "to save the world" & run in '12.
Not that i believe that McCain would be a good POTUS, but good luck to the Clintons & their underhanded plan.
"Operation chaos" at the Dem convention, please.

[xLIBREx]

Oh, they're stupid enough. You have to remember who the political leaders in the Democratic party are. Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durban..people like that are total nitwits.

Hillary Clinton LOST the nomination...Obama didn't win it. She's very abrasive, and when she gets out there and campaigns....the gag factor (except amongst some hostile women, and some other weird Hillary blocs...) is so high that people look around for an alternative to vote for. But against McCain...she would stand a better chance than Obama I think.

Obama's negatives are very high for different reasons than Hillary's, and she is a MUCH better politician than he is. First: although he's a good script reader, he's obviously an empty suit...doesn't have a clue about anything he speaks about. Second: He has a lot of baggage with his nebulous life history. I mean...who the hell is he really? You can't really ask, it seems...because if you do..you're a "racist." Third: His wife is simply a militant Black racist...just like his minister. (A guy who makes Louis Farikhan look like a reasonable person.) People are getting tired of that crap...and though they try to limit her exposure...and she's now being groomed with this goofy "Jacky Kennedy" makeover....still, if she gets loose from the handlers and gets press any time it's not hyper-controlled and scripted....people are totally turned off.

I think stupidity is a possibility, but I think it's hard to ignore the evidence that Democrats are actually more heavily invested in defense related stocks, by a wide margin, vs Republicans.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/03/america/NA-GEN-US-Congress-Defense-Investments.php

So while stupidity isn't really immoral, selling out your own constituency for personal financial gain most certainly is. In fact, it's evil.

At the same time it will allow the Democrats to claim America is simply racist and that's why Obama lost ergo that's why you have to keep voting for Democrats to fight the right wing injustice. It's a win win for Democratic power and financial self-interest.

[Easy90]

"At the same time it will allow the Democrats to claim America is simply racist and that's why Obama lost ergo that's why you have to keep voting for Democrats to fight the right wing injustice. It's a win win for Democratic power and financial self-interest."

If the Dems try to blame an Obama loss on racism...then logic would have to dictate it is the Dems who are the racists...since this election is about their "Black Messiah" against a bitter old coot who is a "clone of W." (their campaign theme) ..and there are more Dems registered to vote...(and so many of them vote more than once, or from the grave)...the only excuse they have for not winning is...their own people didn't support the Black guy.

You're going to see the race card played in the next couple of months like it's never been played before...and I don't think it's going to win.

[xLIBREx]

"At the same time it will allow the Democrats to claim America is simply racist and that's why Obama lost ergo that's why you have to keep voting for Democrats to fight the right wing injustice. It's a win win for Democratic power and financial self-interest."

If the Dems try to blame an Obama loss on racism...then logic would have to dictate it is the Dems who are the racists...since this election is about their "Black Messiah" against a bitter old coot who is a "clone of W." (their campaign theme) ..and there are more Dems registered to vote...(and so many of them vote more than once, or from the grave)...the only excuse they have for not winning is...their own people didn't support the Black guy.

You're going to see the race card played in the next couple of months like it's never been played before...and I don't think it's going to win.

I was by no means claiming the Democrats were right in making that claim, only that they wouldn't hesitate to make the racism claim to serve their own purposes. In fact, all the evidence clearly points to the fact that the Democrats are the most racist party of all.

[brien]

[QUOTE=NIOSA;238044]With a DNC chairman like they have you don't think they're stupid enough? Come on Libre, we all know that "Eeeeeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaa Deans" elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. Pelosi & Reid aren't much better.
I believe that the Clintons have & are working against Obama. Wolfson today pretty well nailed my suspicion with his comment about Hillary would've won had the Edwards saga been made public before the Iowa caucus. Wolfson doesn't blow his nose without Hillarys permission. QUOTE]


It is my understanding that Clinton still owes Wolfson 5 million for his campaign services....

[xLIBREx]

[QUOTE=NIOSA;238044]With a DNC chairman like they have you don't think they're stupid enough? Come on Libre, we all know that "Eeeeeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaa Deans" elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. Pelosi & Reid aren't much better.
I believe that the Clintons have & are working against Obama. Wolfson today pretty well nailed my suspicion with his comment about Hillary would've won had the Edwards saga been made public before the Iowa caucus. Wolfson doesn't blow his nose without Hillarys permission. QUOTE]


It is my understanding that Clinton still owes Wolfson 5 million for his campaign services....

Yes, I think it's very possible that Hillary would also work against Obama hoping to get another chance at running in '12 if McCain were to win. Still, it would have to be very covert for her to have any chance in '12 of actually securing the nomination no less winning.

[lily]

What you totally misunderestimate is that most of us democrats would gladly support anyone who won the nomination. Edwards's mistakes are totally irrelevant to the situation today, kept alive pretty much by the desperate hopes of some last-ditch republicans who seem to think that negativity is the only way to go.




No......I wouldn't vote for Clinton if she won the nomination. This woman is like Jason and Freddy......first she hints that she is going to call for a roll call at the convention and now this sprouts up. Weird is the only word I can think of.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All this talk about Obama not being far enough out in the polls is fear talking.....he beat the candidate that the Republicans want to run........the one they knew McCain could beat, if not on the issues, then on the skeletons in the Clinton's closet.........


~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brien

It is my understanding that Clinton still owes Wolfson 5 million for his campaign services....

BINGO!

[Interrested]

This is yet another Foxnews led gossip thread. in Current Events, no less. How many topics do we need on John Edwards.. private citizen??

Of all the events going on in the world...why are Republicans obsessed with this...especially since they show no concerned about their own pedophiles and closet gays having sex in public bathrooms? I guess they don't care about their perverts and criminals as long as they vote the party line.

So much for moral values and personal responsibility. But, we always knew that was lip service, propaganda to get elected on. You never really meant that shit.

...sigh...

I'd prefer to see pedophiles behind bars regardless of their political associations.

[Stoner]

There are many that believe if Edwards had not been in the running Hillary may have indeed won Iowa.

Obviously we'll never know the answer to that but it's an interesting scenario.

In the end it doesn't matter who runs for the libbies. We're about to make this 24 out of 32 years in holding the WH.

[xLIBREx]

In the end it doesn't matter who runs for the libbies. We're about to make this 24 out of 32 years in holding the WH.

Carter and Clinton = 12 years

[Stoner]

Carter and Clinton = 12 years

1980 - 2008 = 28 years.

Soooooooooooooo, that means we've had the WH 20 out of 28 years. When we win this year it's going to be 24 out of 32 years.

Yes, my original post was correct. If you need me to break down the math further for you just raise your hand.

[xLIBREx]

1980 - 2008 = 28 years.

Soooooooooooooo, that means we've had the WH 20 out of 28 years. When we win this year it's going to be 24 out of 32 years.

Yes, my original post was correct. If you need me to break down the math further for you just raise your hand.

You're right. Must be time for me to go to bed.

[NIOSA]

[QUOTE=NIOSA;238044]With a DNC chairman like they have you don't think they're stupid enough? Come on Libre, we all know that "Eeeeeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaa Deans" elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. Pelosi & Reid aren't much better.
I believe that the Clintons have & are working against Obama. Wolfson today pretty well nailed my suspicion with his comment about Hillary would've won had the Edwards saga been made public before the Iowa caucus. Wolfson doesn't blow his nose without Hillarys permission. QUOTE]


It is my understanding that Clinton still owes Wolfson 5 million for his campaign services....

Ok, &.... ?

[NIOSA]

[quote=brien;238088]

Yes, I think it's very possible that Hillary would also work against Obama hoping to get another chance at running in '12 if McCain were to win. Still, it would have to be very covert for her to have any chance in '12 of actually securing the nomination no less winning.

Covert is the Clintons game Libre. I mean, they had to be covert to the nth degree to ever have won the presidency.
I put nothing past her & believe that she was the real brains behind Billzeebubba, she was without a doubt the driver.