How's that old phrase go? "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle."
Seems that the former Hillary Clinton campaign guru, Howard Wolfson, is indulging in a bit of the same kind of meaningless speculation.
He told ABC News today that if John Edwards' affair had been exposed in 2007, Hillary would be the Democratic nominee today. "I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Wolfson said. Wolfson, now an analyst with Fox News [Doesn't that just about say it all?], whined: "Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people... Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us."
More after the jump....
I'm not going to comment on the many ways such an assertion could be very far afield as this seems truly to be one of those "only if" indulgences so common to Clinton's campaign where everyone else was to blame for her not getting the nomination.
Howard, you may be correct about the Edwards thing and it might also be correct that Hillary would be the nominee if:
- Her unchecked spending of record amounts of campaign funds hadn't made the fiduciary proclivities of drunken sailors appear moderate.
- You hadn't planned a campaign that only lasted til Super Tuesday and knew how to count delegates in caucus states.
- She had not bought into her own hype that she was the "inevitable" nominee.
- You hadn't so arrogantly dismissed the challenge of the skinny, black guy from Illinois.
See, Howard, we can play this game for a long time and you know what? The result is still the same: Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
I'm all for party unity, but aren't we kinda getting tired of kowtowing to assuage the alleged sensitivities or hurt feelings of one Clinton or another? She lost. Get. Over. It.
Crossposted at the Progressive Puppy.