Former Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told ABC News Monday that he believes John Edwards’ decisions may have cost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination. His premise: had John Edwards dropped out of the Presidential race in October, 2007, when allegations of his affair with campaign aide Rielle Hunter first surfaced, it is likely Hillary would have won Iowa and ultimately become the nominee.
HERE ARE THE NUMBERS, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND....
BARACK OBAMA 37.58%
JOHN EDWARDS 29.75%
HILLARY 29.47%
Obviously, we will never know; however, it can be inferred that a vote for Edwards was a vote for white males everywhere. Wouldn't vote for a black man or a woman of any race. Couldn't possibly be for the Edwards platform, which was weak, or his character, which you now know was even weaker (although my blogging clearly defined him as a slimy little $400 haircut getting, vain weasel).
One point in Obama's favor is that there was a strong anti-Clinton sentiment running through Iowa, as over two-thirds of the electorate voted, in essence, against her (not to completely discredit the effects of Obama's oratory skills, however, he purposely made his platform identical to Clinton's, and thus, all things being equal, you might as well vote for Mr. Peace and Hope). Obviously, they wanted to make a clear cut statement against the political insider, which was Hillary. And thus, the Obama phenomenon was born.
Could Obama have lost Iowa and New Hampshire, then mounted the same charge? I say no. Not a chance. He would have absolutely no momentum, and the nation would have assumed a black man could not, or at least would not be elected for our highest office in the land.
So for all intents and purposes, John Edwards was 2008's Ralph Traitor. And now we have to settle on two complete idiots as they choke and gaffe their way to their respective conventions.
No comments:
Post a Comment