Skip to main content

I've already called out Howard Wolfson for his unsupported claim that secrecy over Edwards' affair cost Hillary the nomination. According to Wolfson, Clinton was the second choice of Edwards supporters, so had the news come out earlier, the combined might of the Edwards-Clinton coalition would've crushed Obama like a bug. Or something like that.

I've been looking at a lot of primary polling, and the evidence simply isn't there to support Wolfson's claims. In fact, the numbers suggest quite the opposite. Take Colorado's primary polling, for example. There wasn't much -- just one pre-primary poll -- but it's from the well-regarded Mason-Dixon folks:

Mason-Dixon for the Denver Post. 1/21-23. Likely voters. MoE 4%

Obama 34
Clinton 32
Edwards 17

Actual results:

Obama 66.6
Clinton 32.3
Uncommitted 1

So check it out, Clinton got exactly what the poll predicted she'd get. Obama? He got all of his supporters, all of Edwards' supporters, and most of the undecided. And this was a caucus, like Iowa, so the same general dynamics apply  (only the most committed supporters participate, few low-information voters, etc).

What about a southern state, where Edwards' white support was supposed to go to Clinton? For example, Georgia:

Rasmussen. 1/22. Likely voters. MOE 4% (last non-partisan poll taken by anyone with Edwards in the mix)

Obama 41
Clinton 33
Edwards 13

Actual results:

Obama 66.4
Clinton 31.1
Edwards 1.7

Clinton kept her level of support steady, Obama vacuumed up Edwards supporters and the undecided. And while this may look like cherry-picking polls, it's actually quite a pronounced phenomenon in states where enough polling was conducted with Edwards in the mix (you'd be surprised how few states were heavily polled early on, with the assumption that all would be over after Iowa and NH).

One more, Missouri:

Rasmussen. 1/31. Likely voters. MOE 4% (last poll taken by anyone with Edwards in the mix)

Clinton 47
Obama 38
Edwards 11

Actual results:

Obama 49.3
Clinton 47.1
Edwards 1.7

Again, do the math. It's pretty stark, huh? I think the body of evidence continues to build that Wolfson, quite frankly, was full of shit.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:00 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I second that (15+ / 0-)

      NFW I was going to vote for her.

      I was for Edwards, but when the debates started, and after I read Audacity of Hope, my mind was made up.  Obama has what Edwards promised, and more!

      •  It doesn't matter if Wolfson is full of shit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YoyogiBear, pickandshovel

        His purpose was obviously to harm Obama. He probably, with the aid of the echo chamber MSM, did that. He, and those like him, have no concern for truth, no interest in what is good for THIS country. Like Wolfowitz, Wolfson is a bad foreign influence on American politics.

        Don't you think we would be better off shipping such influences offshore and keeping our jobs here?

    •  I went from GORE to Edwards to OBAMA... (24+ / 0-)

      I bypassed HRC altogether... she was NEVER an option.  If Edwards had dropped out earlier I would have moved to OBAMA sooner than I did.  

      Wolfson is blowing smoke up his own backside on this one.

      The CONSTITUTION is MY Flag pin

      by KnotIookin on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:14:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I made the same trip you did (12+ / 0-)

        but back then, I had bought the "Hillary is inevitable" line.  SO glad to be wrong about that!  I was seriously depressed about it.

        "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

        by Pandoras Box on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:17:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not in Cedar Falls Anyway (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, mattman

        My brother & Sister-in-Law Caucused in Cedar Falls.  He told me that the Edwards supporters managed to bleed off 7 Hillary supporters to make the minimum cut-off for a delegate by threatening to defect en masse from Edwards and join the Obama line.

        It is not perfect proof -- but it is telling that they threatened the Hillary supporters and not the Obama supporters.

      •  Dear Howard--It's the Corporate Lobbyists Stupid! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oslo, KnotIookin, YoyogiBear, Dustee

        Same here. Gore...then Edwards...then Obama.

        First Gore, because dammit he's Al Gore! I would love to see him actually get to serve as President one day, though I am quite happy to have him serve in his current position, defacto President of the Global Environment, for as long as he wants it.

        Then Edwards, because I appreciated his unabashedly populist message, emphasis on healthcare, trade and eradication of poverty, but especially his positions on campaign financing and rejection of corporate lobbyists.

        When Edwards dropped out, it wasn't even close for me...with his emphasis on public financing and great fundraising success via the Internet, the only choice was clearly Obama.

        BTW If Hillary had won the primary, I would have supported and voted for her, but not enthusiastically. While I am supposedly in her "demographic" she was, at best, my 5-6th choice. (I have many reasons for being unenthusiastic about Hillary, not least of which is that when we do get a female President, I would like one who has unequivocally achieved it on her own merits, not because she's "entitled" to it as the wife of an ex President. While we are quickly devolving into a Latin American-style oligarchy, I don't think that we should elect our Presidents in that same way...)

    •  me too (6+ / 0-)

      Clinton was always near the bottom of my list.

      But the Clinton campaign never did let math get in the way of a good meme.  Why would Wolfson start now that he is employed to shill for rethugs at Faux News?

    •  Same here, I never ever considered Hillary! (6+ / 0-)

      The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

      by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:27:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never A Chance I'd Have Voted For Her (6+ / 0-)

        Ever. Not after Kyl/Lieberman. NFW.  I'd have voted for Mike Gravel happily before her.

        It was Edwards, then anyone else BUT not her.

        I'm an antiwar voter FIRST and always.

        And when the hell are they gonna quit whining, anyhow.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:49:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm an anti-war voter first also. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, oslo, Lilly, Matt Z

          In fact, it is the ONLY issue on which I would do a write-in or vote Third Party rather than vote for the Democrat.  However, I am still confused as to why so many anti-war voters and progressives supported Edwards as their first choice considering his wretched voting record when he was in the Senate.  He talked a good game during the campaign, but when his votes were on the line, he didn't play it that way.  This being said, an aside:  the media and blogger "angst" regarding his affair is deplorable.  There is something rotten in the USA and it is neither Elizabeth nor John Edwards.

          •  Simple And Happy To Answer (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blueiz, YoyogiBear

            that:  Edwards struck me as absolutely sincere in his regret for his AUMF vote.  Hillary, otoh, killed any chance I'd have believed her even if she "apologized", which she did not, and her vote for the Kyl/Lieberman which would have made it clear she was lying.

            Then her "obliterate Iran" remark totally creeped me out.  Totally.

            Plus, remember her smug remark about if it was important to anyone that she apologize for her stupid vote, they should pick another candidate.  This was very early on when she was in the lead in the polls by about 30%.

            I said then, okay, and I did.

            Plus, after "sniper fire" I would not have believed anything she said anyway.

            Hope that helps.

            You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

            by mattman on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:25:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Should I feel special because I was for Obama all (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, sillycilla, Dustee

      the way?

      Just kidding...let's just say I am relieved it worked out the way it did.

      •  If not for Edwards, Obama would have carried NH (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaveV, Grindstone, YoyogiBear

        and the whole thing would have ended right there. Hillary was shedding crocodile tears about losing and being out the race then.  Edwards saved her.

        •  Interesting Point (0+ / 0-)

          Any idea how Edwards did, percentage-wise? Wolfson, like so many Clintonites, lost his credibility a long time ago, IMHO. An opening shot of Campaign 2012, perhaps?

          Anybody else wondering if Edwards waited to see if he was being vetted as a possible VP before coming clean (sort of) about his affair? Amazingly, he seems to me to be putting out talking points that signal he still considers himself a viable future presidential contender.

    •  My choices: (5+ / 0-)
      1. Edwards
      1. Obama
      1. Clinton

      I'm glad I didn't get my first choice. The corporate media did Edwards in. I bet they wish that they didn't.

      John McCain - I've Fallen And I Can't Get Up!

      by kitebro on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:30:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They must be kicking themselves (8+ / 0-)

        MSM didn’t want Edwards so they didn’t cover him, now I’m sure they wish they had.

      •  My Choices (0+ / 0-)
        1. ABH
        1. ABHorBiden
        1. ABHBorEdwards

        So, yeah, Obama by default :-) though I would've supported Dodd if I'd thought he had a chance.

        I'm not one of those people that agreed with all that "Look at all these great candidates we Dems have this time!" blather. Our nominee is a neophyte that talks a good game. Which is better than the lying triangulator, the DINO-Citibank, and the complete phoney...and miles better than what the Rethugs threw up there...but I was never all that thrilled.

        Honestly, I wanted Feingold :-).

        Remember: if it's close, they'll steal it.

        by ChurchofBruce on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So what? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      akr nyc, mattman, Pam from Calif

      Who gives a shit about would have beens...We have real problems...shut up about this nonsense

    •  I took this avid Edwards supporter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, Pam from Calif, Matt Z
      about 30 seconds after I learned her withdrew to email a friend of mine and ask how to hook up with the Obama campaign. I'd pretty much made up my mind by then he was my clear second choice. I'd eliminated Hillary the previous summer for two reasons: her dissembling on trade and job loss and my sense that the insular clique around her wanted to undo the 50-state grassroots strategy which has literally flipped the political fortunes of Ohio and transformed everything on the ground here. I thought back to the 90s, how the party rotted from underneath the head so that when the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy targeted Bill Clinton, there was no one to stand with him and fight back. I didn't want to go back there.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14:

      by anastasia p on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:55:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay. We seen the "refuting" bit a couple times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, LaughingPlanet

    now on front page and rec list.

    Are we done yet?

    "But as post-apocalypse splendor goes, I've done wonders with the place." -- Riley, BTVS

    by prodigal on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:02:32 AM PDT

  •  Howard Wolfson (15+ / 0-)

    is all about Howard Wolfson.  I hope that nobody hires that selfish asshole in the next cycle.  If they do, they'll quickly discover that nothing is ever Howard Wolfson's fault.  NOTHING!

    •  I'm not in the slightest bit concerned (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Lilly, Tailspinterry, catly

      about the next cycle.  That sounds as though elections are like washing machines or 24 hour news cycles. We have 80 days left, why keep wasting time and energy in re-hashing the would'as, the should,as, the could,as interminabley.

      Edwards made a mistake, whether he was criminally wrong in running for president knowing the nature of today's media and celebrity paparrazi would inevitably reveal all; whether Elizabeth Edwards was complicit therefore forfeiting her status as American heroine and martyr; whether Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Patty Davis Solis et al were incompetent, vindicative, chauvinistic, misogynistic etc.  Whether Hillary Clinton was a bad manager unfit for the job, whether Bill clinton is/was the bad boy sex fiend desperate for power and access to the Oval Office, and all the other idiotic theories that are filling the blogs and airwaves in these boring old dog days of August.  What does it matter. They are all either fired, soon to be dead, not the nominee etc.

      Obama is and will be officially named the nominee for the democratic party as the next President of the united States in 80 days.  Start telling people why they SHOULD vote for him, not caterwauling about what might have been and who is to blame.  If we don't elect him, we are to blame.

      None of it matters.  The only thing that matter is that the election is loomimg.  We all need to vote Democratic, we don't need to love each other, wre don't even have to live together.  All we need to remember is that this ntion, we the people, the world, cannot survive another Republican administration at this point in global positioning.

      It is obvious Russia is going to try and pluck the feathers of the eagle. Having McCain in the White House means inevitable WAR, somewhere anywhere, probably Iran, as Russia is iran's sponsor and they have the OIL.

      There is no guarantee that Obama can either keep the peace, or bring prosperity.  There is absolutely every guarantee that McCain cannot.

      Choose and just find something else to bitch about for 80 more days.

      •  Excellent point (0+ / 0-)

        Obama is and will be officially named the nominee for the democratic party as the next President of the united States in 80 days.  Start telling people why they SHOULD vote for him, not caterwauling about what might have been and who is to blame.  If we don't elect him, we are to blame

        The whiners like Wolfson may obsess about the past but we've got to stay sharp and focused on the here and now.  It's counter-productive to continuously pour salt in the wounds of Hillary fans.  We've got to encourage  Hillary supporters and undecideds to join our bandwagon in support of Obama. Kos is not doing that by laughing at Wolfson's farce but on a daily basis there is far too much stick in the eye stuff about Hillary spread about DK.  We're a lot more likely to gain the support of her supporters for Obama by treating them respectfully. I know there are some of them don't deserve that but that's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

        •  That wasn't very clearly written (0+ / 0-)

          What I was trying to say is that Kos is only pointing out Wolkson's revisionist farce and is not attacking Hillary fans. But I do see attacks and nasty jokes about Hillary and Hillary supporters a lot in comments around DK. That is probably not the wisest way to gain their votes for Obama.  

          •  Senator Clinton's comment on the Edwards (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            matter was actually perfectly appropriate and compassionate.  I would say that Wolfson is not doing the Senator any favors in this scenario.  He should have kept his mouth shut or pointed out that a man's personal indescretions should not disqualify his professional contributions - I mean one would hope that Wolfson would have the wisdom to say that about Bill Clinton's past indiscretions right?  You'd think that Wolfson would realize that many people blame Bill's Monica scandal at least in part for Gore's loss.  You'd think that this high priced political operative would be able to see that he's opened up a can of worms for his employers.  To me, Wolfson's statement is just another example of the many ill-conceived statements made by Senator Clinton's campaign team members which contributed greatly to her loss.

            •  I don't disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              at all with your comment but I think we're 2 ships passing in the night here.  I've never been a Hillary supporter so have no personal feelings at stake but what I was attempting to say is that it's important to encourage the large numbers of Hillary supporters who aren't Pumas to join us in the Obama tent. To encourage (and not alienate) those that are tuned into the blogs it just seems sensible to cut back on the frequent Hillary slams that seem to pop up in comments everywhere on DK.

              •  I agree with you. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I was trying to distinguish between Clinton's response and Wolfson's which many people seem to have a problem with doing.  I think Wolfson's goal here is two-fold: One to try to cover his own poor performance and two to promote his candidate over Edwards at least if not also Obama.  One would hope that at least a few Clinton supporters would see how dammaging this kind of silliness is to Senator Clinton herself as well as to the party in general.  I tend to think that she understands the bigger picture here than Wolfson does and doesn't deserve to be beaten up for his foolish remark.

  •  Wolfson and Penn were full of shit (8+ / 0-)

    And will never work again for a Democratic candidate.

    Pragmatic progressivism is the future.

    by Pragmaticus on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:03:17 AM PDT

  •  sounds like we need instant run off voting, (5+ / 0-)

    think Howard Wolfson would be keen on that?

  •  Stop spoiling the narrative!!! (12+ / 0-)

    Think of the narrative!  Those pesky facts don't mean anything.

    Move along, nothing to see here.  

    Sorry, I needed a catharsis.  

    Of To We. Proof of Obama's 'plagiarism'. Can we trust a person who blatantly absconds with prepositions and pronouns?

    by nsfbr on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:04:50 AM PDT

  •  But you're forgetting.... (11+ / 0-)

    ...that Edwards' affair was Obama's fault. I have this information from several PUMA and noquarter types. Apparently, Obama forced Edwards to have that affair. Now you can't say that wouldn't have tipped the whole thing in Hillary's direction.

    (Seriously, some of these Hillary hanger-ons need to let it go...)

  •  you're a meanie (9+ / 0-)

    going after wolfson with facts an' number an' shit.

    math's hard. you're going to break someone's brain.

    Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. -Mark Twain

    by homo neurotic on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:05:34 AM PDT

  •  You could have saved yourself the trouble. (6+ / 0-)

    Nice post, and great polling evidence, but the world is/was aware Wolfson was/is full of shit well before you posted this.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4130+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

    by Miss Blue on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:05:35 AM PDT

  •  We really dodged a bullet (13+ / 0-)

    with the Clintons. I suggest everyone go and read Josh Green's article about their campaign in The Atlantic. You get a sense of how poorly they would have run a general election campaign.

    (I'm sure this has been linked to numerous times already. But it's worth the time.)

    •  I disagree with this (4+ / 0-)

      I have no problem with Hillary or Bill.

      I do have a major problem with Penn.  And from the sound of things, Hillary is the one person who kept her campaign from really going into the gutter.

      Hill's only mistake, in my mind, was hiring Penn in the first place.  

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4130+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

      by Miss Blue on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:07:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A point made during the primary, too. (10+ / 0-)

        Hillary made some rather poor executive decisions to allow her campaign to be run the way it was, by the people that ran it.  Penn wasn't the only disgrace, or the only mistake.

        It has to start somewhere. It has to start some time. What better place than here? What better time than now?

        by Black Leather Rain on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:09:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hiring Penn.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bethcf4p, Matt Z, LearningCurve

        ...may not have been her only mistake, but it was certainly the biggest. Wasn't it Penn who thought that the Dem primary in California was winner-take-all?

      •  I've never understood this reasoning (7+ / 0-)

        The Clintons hired Penn because they trusted his market research and liked his flattery/willingness to compensate instead of pushing them to correct their own problems.

        Penn's politics are atrocious, but he comes off as at least competent in The Atlantic piece.

        Hillary herself seems in over her head and indecisive, which led her staff to fight with itself and the resulting confused campaign.  (Worst moment: Bill has to step in to approve the 3am ad, since nobody else would either approve/kill it.)

        Manny goes to Hollywood :(

        by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He also comes off as arrogant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran, Matt Z

          and vile. I notice the article often points out all of the people he was at odds with including Icke and Wolfson and Patti.

          It's an excellent article and it really gives you an idea of just how confused by Obama's campaign some of Clinton's people really were. Also very at odds with each other as to how to neutralize his impact.

          Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

          by Pager on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:45:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Definitely (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pager, Matt Z

            Only Hillary and Bill are ever really sold on Penn, and then it's mostly Bill.  The fact that Penn: pro and con becomes the main issue and not how to deal with Obama speaks to the level of confusion caused by Hillary never really articulating why she's there.

            Bill doesn't seem to have any of the ambivalence: he just wants to win and isn't overly concerned about being the modern liberal in the race.  Everybody else is disturbed by the toxic mix of racial undertones and anti-intellectual overtones in classical working-class populism, but they don't seem to articulate how to position Hillary elsewhere in the political spectrum.  Hillary never really makes a decision, and the result is losing and 25M or so in debt.

            Manny goes to Hollywood :(

            by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:59:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't read the article - just Penn's memos (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and I think he sounds like as much of an idiot as I imagined him to be.  He seemed obsessed with turning his historic woman presidential candidate into a macho man.  There was indeed a certain level of sexism that came from the outside of the campaign, but the sexism that really did her in came from within - from Penn.  

          If she had not been so convinced of his "talent" she might have been smart enough to see that Penn's strategies reinforced negative stereotypes of professional women rather than having any effect on breaking her out of those categories.  

          The conclusion I came to was that Penn would have been much happier if his female candidate had been a male - which pretty much undermined the spirit of this historic woman presidential candidate's entire campaign.

          •  This is the crux of everything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            In the memos and article Penn pro and con became the major issue because aside from him and Bill, the rest of the campaign didn't like that market position for Hillary, leading to a confused effort.

            I find it fascinating because while Penn's memos are douchebaggy politics, they also contain the only positions that really worked for her, sketched out far in advance.  So there is this fundamental confusion at the very top about why they are there at all and what the right appeal to the voters is.

            Nobody else ever stepped up with a positioning that gave Hillary a better chance, they went broke, and by March 1st, it was basically too late to come back.

            Manny goes to Hollywood :(

            by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I think Penn's positions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              effectively cornered her - to such a degree that when she tried to adjust by becoming more human - she came across as being calculating rather than more real.  Based on what I know of her - much of which pre-dates the nomination contest - what we saw of her in April after Penn's influence was diminished was more like what she really is like - a much more complex, interesting and compassionate person than that stupid tough guy act she played at Penn's behest.  

              Her problem was that she did not understand that authenticity was going to be a key component for a candidate's success in this race more than any other she had participated in before.  Which is fair enough given the lack of political participation we have seen in the last few decades.  Her other problem was that she took Penn's fairly negative view of women to heart and trusted that he understood what about her turned off white male voters.  My father being one of the white males who has long loathed her and her husband - I would say that the tougher she got the more he had reason to dislike her.  My dad - a democrat - had a lot less negative stuff to say about her later in the campaign when she started actually talking about policy he cared about and stopped playing the tough guy act.  

              For my part, her act not only pissed me off because of her war vote, but also reduced my confidence in her ability to take the reigns - her need to act suggested a level of insecurity that I perceived to be as something that could be exploited and that didn't give me confidence in her abilities.  It reminded me of LBJ's conundrum with Vietnam - he explained sometime after he was out of office and before he died that his own feelings of inadequacy in international relations led him to rely heavily on McNamara and other so-called "experts" rather than on his own instincts to end the war.  I felt that Senator Clinton could succumb to the same kind of mind set - I get the feeling she already did where it came to Penn's advice.

              My only hope is that Obama's reliance on "experts" will be more carefully considered.  All leaders can fall into this kind of trap unfortunately.

      •  Hiring Penn in the first place was a fairly large (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theran, GN1927, Matt Z

        mistake.  Considering her massive mistake in voting for and supporting the war in Iraq for years, I don't know why anyone believes she would have made a good President.

    •  I think Wolfson's claims (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      were timed in part to suck the air out of this article.
      Just giving the media something else to talk about besides the hellaciously run Clinton Campaign.

      To those who place blame with staff, the article shows HRC to be indecisive and not in control of her campaign.  The candidate was a factor in the failure.

      OT but of interest:  IMO McCain's web ad that says "chicks dig Obama" is a sly way to peg him to Edwards and imply promiscuity.

      •  That Dirty Old Man Better NOT Go There (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        cuz the only ones who really "dig" him are gravediggers.

        Not to mention his sordid abandonment of his first, crippled wife and kids for his current one.

        What a fucking pig.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:05:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not sure how (15+ / 0-)

    because the media hasn't told me yet, but I suspect that this is more good news for John McCain.

    No matter your preference: McBush, McIIIrd, McLame, McCentury, McWar or McCan't, it's all the McSame to me.

    by asm121 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:05:52 AM PDT

  •  Look at dailykos' former Edwards supporters ... (8+ / 0-)

    almost all went to Obama rather than Clinton, if I recall the website voting that was done at the time.  

  •  Many Edwards supporters (7+ / 0-)

    were all about change.  It was hard to see the candidate of "experience" to be a candidate of change.  

    Wolfson may assume that soem older union/working class voters were uncomfortable with Obama for whatever reasons (and one can speculate) and would then have supported Clinton.  But with Edwards not in, why would not hae Biden or Dodd obtained those voters?  

    It's unknowable, but what date there is seem not to support Wolfson's speculation.  Besides, Woldfson, Penn, et all would still be running Clinton's campaign into the ground.  As the leaked campaign memos show, this was a very dysfunctional campaign.  

    Wolfson should look in a mirror if he wants reasons.  

    "The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08

    by TomP on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:06:25 AM PDT

  •  I, for one, didn't need a body of evidence (9+ / 0-)

    to see the Wolfson was full of shit.

    Just watching him on the tee-vee was enough.

  •  Wolfson is bitter (11+ / 0-)

    Any issue that involves sex is not good for Hillary.  Jesus Howard.  Wake up.

    "For the love of god learn to think on your own" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:06:56 AM PDT

  •  Of course he was full of shit... (9+ / 0-)

    He took a job at Fox, after all.

  •  I doubt Wolfson has been to a Caucus in Iowa (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, wishingwell, mcfly, Greasy Grant

    and I have...several times as a Precinct Captain.

    Real World versus Fantasy Fox Pundit Land is truly different.

    He is an idiotic whining shill at this point.

  •  He is stirring the pot for a purpose (7+ / 0-)

    and that is to create the threat of problems at the convention.  Clintonistas still trying to strongarm the VP slot, it seems.

    I wish the PUMAs would let it go, and that Clintonites would stop encouraging them.

    What a pain.  

  •  c'mon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    did you really have to do all that work to know he's full of shit?

  •  Who is this "Hillary" kos keeps mentioning? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    prodigal, Ronald Singleterry

    And why should I care about her?

    Oh, and what's a "primary"? Isn't that something done 6-8 months before an election?

    We are 80-something days from the election now?

    I'm jus sayin....

  •  Wolfson is an asshole (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, Matt Z, Ronald Singleterry

    And these Hillary people (sometimes including Hillary herself) are starting to get on my shit list radar again.  I wonder what they are actually hoping to accomplish.  Are they under some delusion that if they can take Obama down this year that she can win in 2012?  Do they honestly feel like that's worth putting our nation through another 4 years of Republican leadership at one of the most crucial crossroads in our history?  Are Hillary's personal ambitions and pardon the term, 'testicular fortitude' enough to derail the party; or will Hillary Clinton just emerge from an overwhelming Obama victory looking like a has-been?  Time will tell.

    •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

      Do they honestly feel like that's worth putting our nation through another 4 years of Republican leadership at one of the most crucial crossroads in our history?

      Yes.  Careerism is a disease

      "For the love of god learn to think on your own" Me

      by givemhellHarryR on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:15:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  According to PUMAs calling CSPAN (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      and a ton of them do.....Yes. They say they will vote for McCain and in 4 years, Hillary will be President. They are delusional and destructive.

      The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

      by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:36:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  granted, some of these callers probably (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        were never going to vote for a Democrat in November anyway, some may be Republicans and some DINOS, and some just want Hillary and no one else.

        The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

        by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:37:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The real reason (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary failed!

      Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to "do the job from Day One." In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.

      Couldn't stand her myself.

      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."T.J.

      by smkngman on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The best case for Wolfson (I'll try) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, bten

    Would be this: if Edwards is out of the race sooner, then it's really up to Obama alone to challenge Clinton from the left and to prevent her from obtaining all the key union endorsements in Iowa.  A race without Edwards may have different dynamics on health care (Do mandates still become an issue?  She announced her plan in mid-September), among other issues.

    •  Hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

      this is kind of a stretch, but at least plausible.  Then again, w/o Edwards maybe Hillary skips IA or maybe she follows Penn's advice and attacks Obama before he has any momentum to help him withstand racial attacks.

      (I think the second is what Wolfson was thinking of, actually.)

      Really, though, Hillary was going to find a way to lose, if the memos in the Atlantic article are at all a reflection of her management ability.

      Manny goes to Hollywood :(

      by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She was a lousy manager. No question. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theran, Patricia Taylor, wishingwell

        And that surprised me.  What also surprised me was their failure to tap into the small-dollar donor base that was out there for them throughout 2007 -- had they harvested and reharvested those folks, they'd have had the resources to compete on 2/5 across the board with or without Edwards, and that, too, could have been determinative.  

        Without Edwards, Clinton has to compete in Iowa because there was no reason to assume ex ante that Obama could win there.  And she may directly take him on in experience v. rhetoric sooner.

        •  Are you sure? (0+ / 0-)

          Edwards was never a serious contender, but he was a ``name'' and an Iowa specialist of sorts.  With only Obama in, maybe the candidates don't agree to skip MI, and Hillary gets to compete with better institutional support.

          Either way, I guess, Edwards out changes the discourse in some way---there is no guarantee that a JE pregnant mistress blow-up doesn't create a vortex that sucks in Bill---but the management and money situation wouldn't have been touched.

          In particular, you can bust any size bankroll if you don't carefully track spending, which Clinton didn't do until she went broke after Iowa and NH.

          Manny goes to Hollywood :(

          by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:50:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, he was a serious contender in IA. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            That's a very good question: if Edwards doesn't stay in the race long enough to opt out of Michigan, does Obama compete there?  If he does and loses, does he still romp in South Carolina a week-and-a-half later?

            Thing is, Obama always budgeted well, Clinton didn't.  So he's still be able to focus on his strengths on 2/5 and beyond.

            •  That's a great question (0+ / 0-)

              Penn's memos don't really show much awareness of the potential for blowout losses in districts with many African-American voters should Obama gain traction in the early, white states.  I don't really think any of Clinton's people gave the issue much thought.

              If there is a post-hoc argument for Hillary to fire two-handed with Penn's ideas before IA, that would be it: she's assuming a certain level of African-American support, but to do this it's essential to discredit Obama early.

              Manny goes to Hollywood :(

              by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Once African Americans saw that Obama could win, this shifted from 50-50 to 90-10.  But Clinton in 2007 couldn't go with the dirty "he's not American"/Wright stuff; it would have to be the more general rhetoric v. experience stuff, hit harder.

                Because in a field without Edwards, Obama's similar lack of experience is more glaring.

                •  I think it was always a lost cause for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

                  But then again, I was predicting Obama to win in the early Fall, so I am biased.

                  Obama has always been underrated as a tactical politician.  It's clear his campaign has been ready for these attacks all along and that he knows how to effectively counter.

                  Where Penn/Clinton totally whiffed strategically was not understanding that it was---in retrospect--- essential for her to run up big margins in the early states and come out with a lot of money and momentum.  Otherwise a protracted delegate slog featuring blowout losses in the AA community was pretty much a lock.

                  There's a lack of urgency in the early memos.  It's like Penn figured out where to position Hillary in the political market, but dramatically overestimated the size of that niche.  None of his internal enemies, who nominally were taking care of executing the campaign figured it out either.

                  Manny goes to Hollywood :(

                  by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hmm. I'd adjust that a little (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Any victory in both IA and NH by Clinton would have ended the race.  But without that, they needed to understand the delegate math and not lose 18-3 in Idaho, etc.  Because if she has a draw, delegate-wise, on 2/5, then Obama can still go on that run for the rest of February and it won't matter, because then the OH/TX/PA wins really do change the numerical outcome.

  •  More evidence lies in (3+ / 0-)

    our own heads. Most people here were for Edwards and clearly our nexxt choice would not have been Clinton even if we did not particularly dislike her as many did. I know I was for Edwards and my second choice was Obama and I find it hard to imagine the mindset that would be for Edwards first and Clinton second.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:09:02 AM PDT

  •  Actually, I don't need a "body of evidence" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ronald Singleterry

    that Wolfson was full of shit. I always took that on faith!

    "The opposite of one profound another profound truth." William Sloane Coffin

    by god doc on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM PDT

  •  Out here in Seattle - I Knew NO Edwards (6+ / 0-)

    supporters who preferred hillary over barack.

    of course, birds of feather flock together?

    AND, I'm NOT in any way shape or form saying that I know, or I talk to, or I hang out with a real crossection of anything.

    IF someone had the slightest fucking clue about the messages of Edwards, Barack, and Hillary, I don't see how this claim has a shred of credibility - or, to be more direct, it is typical DLC fucking lies.

    IF you're talking about voters persuaded by the last pretty picture or slick slogan ... Edwards to Clinton voters ... whatever.


    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM PDT

  •  Enough already (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George, Allogenes, Ronald Singleterry

    we're starting to look pretty defensive; at this point more rebuttals just make us look defensive, and give Wolfson too much face. Let's have done with it and move on.

    Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.

    by gracchus on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:09:56 AM PDT

  •  Edwards also was going for white working class (0+ / 0-)

    that proved to be Hillary's base in the primaries. Iowa unions a lot of which went for Edwards would probably have gone to Clinton. The organization for HIllary in iowa would have been much stronger and I think she probably would have done better and may have won. Same thing in South carolina really where the race probably would have been much closer.

    Sorry I have to run to the Senate floor to abolish torture.

    by bten on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:10:03 AM PDT

    •  I doubt that seriously (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The only thing close in Iowa was for second place..Obama did very well in Iowa. So I have my doubts that Hillary could have won Iowa without Edwards.

      The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

      by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:39:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The polls are clear (0+ / 0-)

        Obama would have won IA had it been approached exactly the same way except for w/o JE.  Wolfson is really thinking that the whole campaign would have been done differently from the start.

        Manny goes to Hollywood :(

        by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:21:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Newsflash! (3+ / 0-)

    The primaries are over.  Could we not rehash what coulda-shoulda-woulda happened if such and such happened.

    We've got an election to win, and I want to be part of that.

  •  Maybe this was why they lost? Too many of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, Allogenes

    them didn't know how to play the game, or look at the evidence?

    Nate (poblano) also has a really deep post on this as well, that centers on her loss of A-A votes.  Take a look at it, here:

  •  Wolfson and Penn's little contest (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Allogenes, Matt Z, pierre790

    to see who can spew more bullshit in less time.

    I wavered between Obama and Edwards, although there was a point last fall where Hillary, temporarily free of Howard Wolfson's dreadful script, was tempting.  I was, frankly, kind of pissed that Edwards and Obama both decided to toss their hats into the ring at the same time because I was convinced it would dilute progressives' strength in the party.  Had Edwards' behavior been reported on instead of swept under the rug by the MSM, the "anti-Clinton" would have been clear from an early stage and Obama would have clinched the nomination a lot sooner.  

    Hillary became vulnerable to her loss the moment she veered away from her fresh, exciting campaigning of last August and September back to the line of crap Wolfson and Penn wanted.  

    In the event, Wolfson and Penn were made to look better than they are by Edwards' continued presence in the race.  But then we already knew they were total ingrates.

  •  Exactly. As the known commodity, (0+ / 0-)

    she pretty started at her ceiling of support. If anything, that ceiling dropped the more the candidates campaigned in a state.

    With the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. -Hank Hill

    by sanglug on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:11:09 AM PDT

  •  This IS important -- (5+ / 0-)

    So long as Clintonistas continue to push for her to be on the ticket. Apart from an obvious preference for Obama among Edwards supporters, the polling data cited show what I've been howling about all along: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE H R CLINTON.

    Every time I hear the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" line, I have to wince. The operative word there is CEILING, as in 18 million is probably all the committed Clinton folks in the country.

    Why drive away the other 280 million voters by putting her on the ticket?

  •  Oh, and by the way . . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patricia Taylor, Allogenes, Matt Z

    . . . . . Wolfson and Penn ought to be the LAST people Hillary pays off.  She should retire her own personal debt before those two get one red cent.  They made her look bad and they harmed the Democratic Party.

  •  So where do we see McCain's timeline? (0+ / 0-)

    Time to put the offense on the field.

  •  Hillary lost the nomination (11+ / 0-)

    because she chose to surround herself with scum like Wolfson, Penn, and McAuliffe. We are judged by the company we keep, and Hillary kept the worst company there was to be found in the Democratic party. Every time one of these assholes appears on TV we are reminded of the real reason Hillary lost.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:13:07 AM PDT

    •  Hillary lost cuz Obama was more compelling! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theran, Matt Z

      apart from the fact that no one knows her real stand on anything because all she was good at was negative attacks on Obama, and little with regard to any consistency in what she was running to do other than be president because Clinton succeeded  the 1st Bush and a 2nd Clinton should succeed the 2nd Bush! I'm just through with the Clinton's and their bullshit. The youtube video last week showed she is still not gotten with the idea that its not about her!

      McCain't give a damn and won't even try!

      by karanja on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Come on... (4+ / 0-)

    We all know those Edwards voters are uneducated poor white people. Uneducated poor white people vote for Clinton over Obama because they're racist. No matter what the numbers say... or something.

    By the way, nice projection of racism by Wolfson.

  •  Thanks, but we didn't need polls to tell us (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that Wolfson was full of shit.

  •  I thought it was Clinton supporters who needed to (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Ratiocinator, Allogenes
    Hidden by:

    get over it.

    Obama supporters win like Republicans win: gracelessly.

    I admit it was disheartening watching fellow Democrats beat the hell out of the Clintons, two Democrats who have been very strong for the party, in their zeal to anoint Obama.  How sad to watch Bill Clinton having to state publicly that he is not a racist!

    How sad this past week to listen to and read Democrats and left wingers sanctimoniously chastizing John Edwards, playing right into Republican hands, instead of having the you-know-whats to say "Butt out of people's marriages and sex lives for once and for all!  Exploiting a man's personal weakness gave us George W. Bush. Was it worth it?"

    How sad to watch liberals and Democrats joining the Talibangelicals!

    •  And how does this post of yours (7+ / 0-)

      demonstrate grace?

      •  How is it not? (0+ / 0-)

        Please point to one thing that isn't a fact in my post.

        Bill Clinton did have to declare himself not a racist.

        Democrats and left-leaning columnists have been writing all week bashing Edwards over his affair.

        Gracelessness is calling Hillary Clinton "delusional" and suggesting a net be put underneath her when she speaks at the convention, or calling Howard Wolfson an "idiot" rather than simply stating why one disagrees with his assessment.

        I've not called anyone an "idiot" or crazy.  

        Do you really not think it's is sad that Bill Clinton of all people has had do defend himself on the issue of race?  Or that it is sad that Democrats have turned on John Edwards over a private matter?

        You confuse ugly facts with gracelessness. They are two different things.

        •  I think it's sad watching you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          write the same things over and over today.  We get your point.  We can do better.  I've got more positive things to do today, so this will be my last reply to you.  Take care.

          •  Still no addressing the substance. (0+ / 0-)

            Just sanctimony.  Sad.

            Yes, I'd prefer to elect a president on substance, not snark.  I guess we differ there.

            •  I'll adress the 'substance' (0+ / 0-)

              The Clintons were only nominally good for the democratic party. They gave us DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Iraq War, NAFTA... I could go on.

              And Bill Clinton DID have to make his mea culpa -- though I, for one, after his shenanigans, am inclined to believe he IS somewhat racist and a whole lot cynical.

              •  And Obama flipped... (0+ / 0-)

                on FISA, NAFTA, public finance, off-shore drilling, faith based initiatives...I'm sure I forgot a few things. Oh and we ain't leaving Iraq in 16 months either. A year and 4 months? Get f'cking real.

                Doesn't signal good beginnings...

                As for this...

                And Bill Clinton DID have to make his mea culpa -- though I, for one, after his shenanigans, am inclined to believe he IS somewhat racist and a whole lot cynical.

                how was he "somewhat" racist?

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  No doubt, though... (0+ / 0-)

            that you are reveling in the inane and meaningless insults thrown at Wolfson and Clinton. That is not sad to you. Probably even entertaining.

            THAT is what is sad.

        •  "Bill Clinton of all people" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Ask Ricky Ray Rector about Clinton's sensitivity to race.

        •  Though I agree with you regarding Edwards, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          and have been supporting him since this broke, even though I never supported him as a candidate (it was his war vote, among others, you know), it is difficult to defend Bill Clinton's racially-divisive remarks.  It comes down to semantics whether or not using racially-divisive tactics is racism, but it is certainly not admirable.  As for Senator Clinton being "delusional", what do you call a candidate who refuses to admit she lost after she had?  Do you not remember her "victory" speech in the bunker after Obama had clinched his nomination?  She only reneged on that after some of her supporters pressured her to do so.  And is it not somewhat delusional to come into a primary signing on to all of its rules and then to reject them as it becomes clear they are not working to your advantage?  

    •  Binna, and In November you are voting for? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RedStateDem, GN1927, trashablanca

      As that is what really counts now.

      The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

      by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:43:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no choice (0+ / 0-)

        but to vote for Obama.

        McCain is intolerable.

        But that is irrelevant to this discussion.  How Bushlike, though, to call Clinton  and her supporters morons and sore losers and bitter (change?) but then gleefully accept that all that matters is that they vote for Obama.

        Seems to me, therefore, it is we Clinton supporters who are the ones putting the party and country ahead of our personal disappointment and it's Obama supporters who can't and continue to bash her and all things Clinton despite Obama's win.

        Graceless, as I mentioned above. Reminds me of the Bush 2000 win. Remember how gross Republicans were after that "win" too?


        •  The few diehard Clinton supporters (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaveV, kacemo

          that are making all the noise are "putting the party and country ahead of our personal disappointments"?  Exactly how?

        •  As I read your comments on here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I find it interesting to notice that everything seems to be irrelevant except the fact that you feel the Clintons, Clinton staff and Clinton supporters were treated poorly by Obama supporters.

          We understand your opinion. Exactly what is it that you want to debate? I'm not being a smart-ass here, I honestly want to know. What is it that you want from Obama supporters, and by extension from Obama himself? Again, no snark or disrespect intended at all, I'm curious to know...

          Listen to me: Psychos do NOT explode when sunlight hits them! I don't give a f*ck HOW crazy they are! - George Clooney, From Dusk til Dawn.

          by Madam Blu in Peoria on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You write amazingly like slouise. (0+ / 0-)

      Have you been here before?

  •  Devastating....once it boiled down to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo, sherlyle, Matt Z, beltane

    Clinton and another candidate, Clinton's team knew it was in trouble. That is why they tried to keep everyone in the game as long as possible. Now Wolfson wants it the other way? If Edwards had dropped out before Iowa, Obama's lead would have been even greater, possibly leading to an Obama victory in NH, which would have sunk Clinton.

  •  Irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

    It really doesn't matter what the 2nd choice of Edwards voters was, since odds are that there would have been a 3rd candidate  who received significant IA votes.  

    The history of IA caucuses has been to produce a top tier of 3 candidates (Kerry-Edwards-Dean, Gephardt-Simon-Dukakis, etc.).  The only times when the victor wasn't in the 30s were Gore-Bradley (only 2 candidates ran), Harkin (obvious reasons), and Carter-Kennedy (only 2 candidates).  

    My guess is that Biden would have emerged as the 3rd candidate with 20% or so.  

  •  I was an Edwards supporter... (5+ / 0-)

    ...and contributor and I would have gone for Obama. And by the way, I still think Edwards would make a great attorney general.

  •  good try Wolfson -n/t- (0+ / 0-)

    We have to win. We have no other choice. -Barack

    by Artchess on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:17:36 AM PDT

  •  Not My First or My Second or My Third. . . (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfgb, wishingwell, sherlyle, Allogenes


    Why is it always about the Clintons?  They lost.  Period.

    Senator Obama was my first choice since, like, 2003, and Senator Edwards was my second choice and Governor Richards was my third.  

    I would probably vote for any of the others before I'd vote for another Clinton.

    Is this Clinton's way for running again?  Sheeesh!  GO AWAY, Senator Clinton!

  •  Edwards was my first choice early in the (5+ / 0-)

    primary race.  Obama was my second choice and Hillary was third.  Edwards was my early favorite because of his stances on the war and corporatism.

    Obama was my second choice because of his stances on the war and other progressive issues.

    Hillary was my third choice because I disagreed with her stance on the war and agreed with her stance on progressive issues, including health care, for which her position was slightly more favorable to me than Obama's.

    For me, the war was the number one issue, and it still is.  A return to Constitutional government, economics/energy, progressive issues and tax shifting to middle and low wage earners are my top issues, and Obama is much better able to handle these than McCain.

    I might add, that we cannot return to Constitutional government until we resolve the Iraq war.

    It is time to renounce fear and go out and kick some Republican Ass

    by Ohiodem1 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:18:03 AM PDT

  •  Wolfson is an idiot, they never look @ details (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Ronald Singleterry

    that's why Clinton lost.  Nobody on the inside circle of decision makers even bothered to think about the caucuses, which is where Obama took the lead.  Nobody on the inside worried about the rules, which is hard to believe because if someone was detailed-oriented they would have know that the rules favored the caucuses.

    It was entirely Mark Penn's fault.  He didn't even know the primary rules, for each state and the seven territories that elect the Democratic nominee.

    80 percent of success is just showing up - Woody Allen.

    by Churchill on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:18:59 AM PDT

  •  right on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm not sure how one can seriously suggest that Edwards supporters preferred Clinton over Obama.  We wanted something different than had come before, we had some specific reservations about what happened in the 1990s, and we had some specific reservations about who was giving Clinton money and how her campaign was operating.  I think it's pretty clear that Edwards dropping out was the difference in states like Missouri.  By Super Tuesday, I'd say the question was, do you vote for Obama, do you vote in the GOP primary (a Huckabee nomination would have been quite interesting!), or do you basically not vote by voting for Edwards anyway.

    And I would echo other comments about instant run-off voting.  One should be able to express an order of preference, not just a top choice.  But of course, that might disturb the establishment and allow somebody like Kucinich to do well...

  •  Facts, Hercule....Facts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...what does this data tell you?.....Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur....IDIOT!!!!

  •  I'm much more easily convinced (and more annoyed) (0+ / 0-)

    that Edwards squeezed out anyone else from making the final 3.

    I admired his message, but not his candidacy. I can't be the only one unwilling to take him seriously after not really contributing anything to the ticket in 2004. But his ability to raise money based on a populist message I half believe but also half thought was just as contrved as his "electable moderate" schtick in 2004 kept him in the final 3 this time despite having no real chance of winning. As a result, none of the "third tier" candidates had a ghost of a chance of catching enough momentum to stay in the race. I think we came out OK anyway, but I think the dialogue suffered in a year when competence is a big issue relative to the lame duck. I have no inkling that Edwards would have been a more competent president than Ew, just a better spoken one who speaks of the things I believe in.

    It is not that Hillary would have won. It is that someone - Biden, dodd, Richardson - could have had something of a shot. It bothers me as a believe in democracy taht money separated March from January for those guys. Edwards was part of the problem here.

    Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

    by textus on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:21:06 AM PDT

  •  Wolfson probably cost Hillary more votes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oslo, The Ghost of Leo McGarry

    I found Wolfson really, really creepy and off-putting.  He tended to wear one of those tan coats with a brown leather collar that I suppose was intended to make him look all working class.  Except that damn thing was brand new and appeared to be cleaned and pressed.  Authentic?  not so much.  Then there was the issue of him looking like he lived on a diet of human blood.  Hey, I don't mean to diss another in regard to their culinary choices, but sometimes he looked as though he was pretty due for a snack.  Not easy to look at.

    But whatever.  I think this whole thing is a fairly transparent attempt to make the claim that whatever the problem, it was not his candidate, and for sure and for certain, by Gad it was not the genius Mr. Wolfson, who is, incidentally, available to run your campaign for you.  Into the ground.

    •  Wolfson's act wore thin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He acted like Hillary was beyond error or even being questioned and this was a real turnoff.

      Hillary would have done better hiring Max Headroom to speak for her instead of that clown.

      •  So did her volunteers. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        They would call, ask who I was voting for, and then tell me I was a traitor to my sex, a traitor to my generation, and a traitor to my party.
        Didn't take too many of those to make me so angry with that candidate I would have voted for any other name on the list before hers.
        Democrats (at least the ones I know in Iowa) do not react well to being told they "must" do any damn thing.  That inevitability thing, and then the strongarming, backfired big time.  

        •  Sher, same exact thing happened to me (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle, Matt Z

          I was insulted by Clinton volunteers who came to my door and called me on the phone, over and over again.

          The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

          by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:46:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry to hear that, wishingwell. (3+ / 0-)

            Maybe Repubs react well to being herded, but Dems as a rule do not.  Still don't know whose idea this was, but it was a really, really, bad one.  
            Disturbing to see that same instinct at work (MAKE them do it, force your worldview on all, regardless of facts) in common between R's and some of Clinton's supporters.  

  •  Doesn't Wolfson... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Floande

    ...draw a Fixed News paycheck now?

    Then what do you expect him to say?

    You think Murdock hired Wolfson to be a Keith Olbermann clone?

    No, Murdock hired Wolfson to be an Alan Colmes  clone.

    And I would say Wolfson (like Colmes) is gladly jumping through all the hoops Ring Master Murdock has set up for him.

    "The thought of [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine."-Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican.

    by wyvern on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:22:39 AM PDT

  •  As far as cable progams go, truth doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It should be obvious that the facts are irrelevant to the producers of the cable programs such as Hardball. This was the lead story last night, and all that is required is that the proponents of the story are willing to appear. Then there is grist for the usual hangers-on to show up and spout their views one way or the other, more or less unencumbered by the facts, and with plenty of time to replay old news clips.

    These programs are no different from the pure entertainment side of the programming. There is an insatiable need for content to fill air time, and people like Wolfson know how to generate the content given the short shelf-life of some topic like this one.

  •  Wolfson's second choice is obvious (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patricia Taylor, wishingwell, asm121

    Since he can't have Hillary, he has gone with Sour Grapes.

    "I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem

    by tomjones on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:23:44 AM PDT

  •  Might be an interesting tactic... (0+ / 0-) force Edwards' political redemption at the expense of John McCain.

    Obama picks Edwards, right starts howling about affair, subject of John McCain's utter contempt toward women finally surfaces. Viola!


  •  The comments (0+ / 0-)

    by Wolfson are only to cover his backside. Self interest pure and simple. He and his candidate lost and now, a convenient justification pops up. I'm glad the numbers you site put the final nail in his ridiculous argument.

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell

    by Babsnc on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:24:34 AM PDT

  •  thanks for putting some evidence to this (0+ / 0-)

    I knew when I heard Wolfson open his big trap that bullshit was flying out.  I remembered the primary discussions that showed most of Edwards' supporters swinging to Obama when he dropped out.. just didn't have the figures to put to it...

    Like many of the other lies that are being perpetuated by Clinton "democrats" and the national news media, these can be easily disproven by someone paying attention and doing a little research.  Unfortunately these are 2 things that most of the voting populace staunchly refuse to do.

    I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!

    by MarkinNC on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:24:52 AM PDT

  •  Clinton's people are just pissed..... (5+ / 0-)

    Cause the scandal didn't come out earlier and were double smacked when Edwards came out and endorsed Obama.

    I still think this woman is delusional and the party should have a net ready when she gives her speech at the convention.

    •  There you go (0+ / 0-)

      Does that Obama party unity include calling Hillary Clinton delusional?  Bill Clinton a racist?

      But it's Obamans who want change and to improve the discourse and want Clinton voters and want to end negative and divisive politics...


      •  It's true though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This has nothing to do with Obama at all.Hillary is still bitter and angry after she thought she had the nomination locked up.

        All you have to do is look at what she has said over the past couple of months.

        •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

          She's been pretty gracious and has been out there stumping for Obama.  Meanwhile, the change agents who want to end divisive politics continue to bash her despite Obama's winning the nomination.

          Good grief.

    •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

      four recommendations for a post calling Hillary Clinton delusional and calling for a net to catch her from people who no doubt want change and party unity.

      This is why it's hard for some of us to take Obama seriously: his own supporters don't.

    •  delusional is accurate, I thought undermining (0+ / 0-)

      the Democratic candidate and our chances in November was reserved for Joe Liarberman! clearly, the Clintons couldn't allow even that loser his stage, they are trying to knock him off, along with Obama!

      McCain't give a damn and won't even try!

      by karanja on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:57:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excuses. excuses... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Judgment at Nuremberg

    Well, of course he's full of shit. Otherwise, how would he have gotten his new gig with Fox News.

    Pathetic. He and Mark Penn and others will forever blame everybody for her loss - except themselves.

  •  Good on you, kos... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Wolfson's "if a frog had wings" gambit is a sad, personal one, said out of frustration at the only gig this has-been could get for the rest of the year: Faux News Democrat Pundit. Airing his dirty laundry and impossible "if, then" scenarios reminds me of Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront":

    You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley.

    Only instead of Hillary (prehaps justifiably) laying the blame at Wolfson feet, he's off to find a new patsy, namely John Edwards. He's down right now, so he won't fight back at such insane and unprovable charges...and Wolfson sets himself up for his next gig, which will presumably be a Democrat with an IQ of seven who will forgive his past failures based soley on his Bart Simpson-esque "I didn't do it" mea culpa...

    What an asshat...but that's how you survive in Washington...blame someone else for your shortcomings and pray the media echo chamber buys into it...

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

    by Aqualad08 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:28:39 AM PDT

    •  So, Wolfson's remarks are met with (0+ / 0-)

      personal insults and attempts to discredit him.

      How is this change?

      •  Is he working for Faux News now? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Just wondering.

        The most successful war seldom pays for its losses. - Thomas Jefferson

        by Judgment at Nuremberg on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:31:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep... (0+ / 0-)

          Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

          by Aqualad08 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:36:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  what does that have to do with (0+ / 0-)

          my post?

          Can Obamans EVER actually address the substance of an issue?  Seems not. It's all about PERSONALLY attacking an individual.  He's on FOX News. It MUST be nefarious (explain Juan Williams, then!).


          •  Juan Williams is a Republican hack (0+ / 0-)

            which explains his place on Fox News.  And if you want substance, Obama did NOT support the war in Iraq, he prefers negotiation over obliteration, he does not praise lobbyists, he was not married to a President who lost control of Congress for his Party and who deregulated everything he could put pen to, he knows how to run a competent campaign by playing by the rules, he has an even temperament and is not drawn to melodrama which are desirable qualities in a President, he is young and energetic and will present a new American face to the world.

      •  When did I claim I personally was looking... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaveV, sherlyle

        ...for change?

        Gravity is a bitch sometimes, but whether I like it or not, I must abide by its laws.

        Do you personally think commending Wolfson on his "honesty" is the path to altering the landscape, or could it be that pointing out bullshit when you see it is a more productive method?

        Obama calling McCain's Olympic ad a lie, that's change. No fancy dancing, just calling it what it is.

        Wolfson is a fool who managed to lose a sure-thing with Hillary's campaign...just calling them like I see them...for him to invent, out of thin air, a retcon history as to why he screwed up so badly is the act of a coward...

        Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

        by Aqualad08 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:35:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Even here on the Daily Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, sherlyle, asm121

    In the fall Obama was not the favorite in our polls, Edwards was.

    As Edwards faded out, Obama picked up steam here. Clinton may have picked a few Edwards supporters, but the number movement suggests most went to Obama. It happened to me too(once an Edwards supporter).

    The most successful war seldom pays for its losses. - Thomas Jefferson

    by Judgment at Nuremberg on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:30:33 AM PDT

  •  Wolfson is not full of shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A lot of it came out of his mouth, his keyboard, and other places not worth mentioning.

    So he can't be full of it anymore, unless he can manufacture a replacement for all the shit he spewed out.

    OK, I guess he's probably still full of it.


    "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore

    by racerx on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:31:26 AM PDT

  •  Primary wasn't so long ago... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...that we learned (via hillary) that Caucuses...don't count.

    So I don't know how they'd argue they'd win Iowa when it....didn't count.

    or some such blather.

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:32:21 AM PDT

  •  Kos no more please (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akr nyc

    this is useless...who gives a shit what Wolfson has to say...let's move forward!! Please stop the pandering. We are losing this country and you give a shit about "if a Frog had a glass ass"?


  •  Kos: when you say that Wolfson, is full of shit (0+ / 0-)

    you are really being unfair to SHIT.

    Wolfson is full of himself which is much much too much worst then shit.

  •  Wolfson full of shit? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There's some news for you OMG.  The guy has been so full of shit for so long I have grown to expect this kind of alternate reality crap.  What f-ing planet is the guy on.  

    What politician would EVER hire this guy again... and the dumbass Penn.  They both should be put out to pasture.

  •  why waste time? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Clinton campaign is long since over.

    Let the sore losers howl all they want to; had the had a better grip of reality to begin with they would have run a better campaign.

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:34:32 AM PDT

  •  I can't believe you devoted space to this, Kos. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akr nyc, Binna

    A.  It doesn't matter.
    B.  Exit Polls weren't very accurate in the primary.  I don't think you can base your argument entirely on that.
    C.  If you look at the regions and demographics that Edwards appealed to, they overlapped with Clinton.  Had Edwards not been in the race, Hillary would've focused on her populist theme earlier and that would've made a real difference in Iowa and South Carolina.  She would've built up larger majorities in the rural counties of Iowa and that would have made that race very close.
    D.  Edwards folks admitted after New Hampshire that the voters they were targeting for a strong second place finish ended up voting for Clinton.
    E.  After Edwards dropped out, his voters went to Clinton.  Clinton dominated rural districts in part because working class white Democrats switched from Edwards to her.  

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:35:59 AM PDT

  •  if hillary coverage=alcohol media never be sober (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry I have to run to the Senate floor to abolish torture.

    by bten on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:36:10 AM PDT

  •  I like how direct and to the point this was Kos. (0+ / 0-)

    I think the body of evidence continues to build that Wolfson, quite frankly, was full of shit.

    Makes me smile after listening this morning to some morons who support Clinton and are now vowing to vote for McCain!

    •  Wasn't it Obama (0+ / 0-)

      who said that he'd get Hillary voters but he didn't think she'd get his?

      And how is it that you think people you call morons would want to vote for Obama if his camp is calling them morons?

      And how is calling people morons change?

      •  You have to wonder really (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, pileta

        how a Clinton supporter could possibley vote for McCain.  I am not saying anyone is a moron but really... it does make me wonder.  

        There are so many actual real policy and realy world issues (esp. the Supreme Court)differences where I can't possibly imagine how ANYONE who was thinking rationally could make the leap from Hillary to to McCain.  Really... I don't get it.

        •  It doesn't make me wonder at all. (0+ / 0-)

          Teh American electorate is, by and large, not too bright.  We got this band of criminals and fools, didn't we?  Brought to us by our fellow geniuses.

          For years the Democrats have been saying that, in order to win, we have to get back some of that workingclass, white southern male vote.

          Clinton did it, and she was bashed for it.

          But those are the people who would vote for McCain over Obama.  You are stuck on the rationality of it, and that is the problem with the Obama movement. They are insisting on rational thinking.  Bad, stupid move with this electorate.

      •  Boo hoo. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RedStateDem, pileta

        If, after these past seven plus years, you're even thinking of voting for McCain, then maybe DailyKos is not the place for you.

        •  Where do I say (0+ / 0-)

          I'm thinking about voting for McCain?

          Really, read what people say, not into what they say.

          And if you read through this thread, you will actually see me respond to someone who asked me for whom I will be voting by saying Obama.

          Your black-and-white thinking is getting in the way.  I think Obama is a bad choice for Democrats, so you assume I'm thinking about voting for McCain???


          Not good.

        •  And by the way (0+ / 0-)

          ARe you saying that Kos will only welcome like-minded people?

          Hmmm...and I thought it was democrats and liberals who were all for dissent and differences of opinions.

          Oh well. So much for change.  Perhaps Kos should employ a Loyalty Oath type of thing?

      •  How about Bill Clinton saying that Obama (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theran, RedStateDem

        was constitutionally qualified to be President and nothing more. What does that say about Bill promoting party unity and getting behind the Democratic nominee for President?

        The one thing we know about the McCain that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama

        by wishingwell on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, perhaps I should have not called them (0+ / 0-)

        'moron's; my apologies. But you have to admit that is hard to comprehend how someone would vote for McCain instead.
        I guess it made me upset to hear 'Democrats' state that Obama is the worst thing that has happend to the Democratic party...

  •  Another reason this is dumb (0+ / 0-)

    How is the news media and Iowa voters discussing a major politician having an affair and the surrounding scandal help Hillary Clinton  ? Wouldn't that have reminded everybody of what was wrong with the Clinton years ? Wouldn't that have completely thrown her off message-wise ? She was trying to focus on the good things of her husband's Presidency and this would have reminded everybody of their liabilities.

    Plus if the media started treating affair stories as legitimate news, I am pretty sure we would have had more Purdum-style stories about Bill and that ain't good either.

    So regardless of the numbers, not only she would not have had Edwards' voters but I would bet she would have lost some her own.

  •  If anything Edwards and Obama split the anti- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Clinton vote.  For all the hype and infrastructure Hillary had she never had mo in Iowa.  Of course, if Edwards was not around would Obama's strategy vis a vis New Hampshire have been different and could that have resulted in a New Hampshire win for Barack?  Inquiring minds want to speculate.

  •  This is like saying... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if the Swift Boat Liars hadn't been around, Kerry would have won.

    So what? Maybe.  Doesn't mean the correct choice was made. It clearly wasn't.

  •  Cut the knees out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't think it's coincidence that you have the following happening within the past couple weeks:

    Bill Clinton questions whether "anyone is ever ready to be president"

    Hillary Clinton thinks it would be good to have a floor vote for the nomination.

    Wolfson says that HRC woulda won if it weren't for Edwards.

    Mark Penn says today that the celeb ads are quite effective.

    Someone mysteriously links a bunch of campaign memos, talking about Obama's negatives.

    HRC will play the good soldier, running to Nevada to give a speech, praising Obama, giving the keynote; but make no mistake, the strategy is to hinder Obama as much as possible to keep her alive for 2012.

  •  Wolfson simply can't accept (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that his candidate was a certified loser destined to lose.  And that was his job - to represent this loser nationally.  Anyone still guessing why Wolfson went on board Fox?

  •  Amazing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akr nyc

    Just about every comment here is nothing more than a personal attack on an individual rather than criticism or support of the substance of his claim.

    I thought Obama was going to bring change.  Nope. It's still about attacking individuals, even fellow Democrats, apparently!


  •  "Wolfson, quite frankly, was full of shit." (0+ / 0-)

    Priceless !

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

  •  Howard is trying to save his own rep (0+ / 0-)

    Entering this cycle, the Clintons and their extended political family had a name as the perfect political operatives. With that status came influence, consulting fees and public appearences. After this cycle they are now known for running one of the worst political campaigns in memory. Is it any wonder that they are throwing out these ridiculous arguements trying to salvage that past reputation (and without regard for the Party). Also, if Edwards was such a roadblock to their victory path; why didn't they sit down with him  pre-Iowa and say something to the effect that the polls show you can't do it, so jump on board and get a cabinet spot, vp etc... Add that mistake to the list of many made by the Clintons in '08.

  •  I knew Wolfson was full of shit. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Every single Edwards supporter I knew (or caucused with) went to the Obama camp.  

    According to Wolfson, Clinton was the second choice of Edwards supporters

    Nobody -- zero -- had any interest in Clinton, and most have a distinct dislike for her.  She was definitely not the second choice of anyone I knew, and I did not see any such support in any of the polls I read.

    Why does anyone continue to give a rat's ass what Wolfson or any of those other morans think?  They have been wrong about so many things ...

    There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't. (-5.25, -4.97)

    by JBL55 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:57:14 AM PDT

  •  New Hampshire (0+ / 0-)

    Plus, how well would Clinton have done in New Hampshire had she been vocal, before January 8th, about her "support" for Florida and Michigan to move up their primaries?

  •  edwards to clinton (0+ / 0-)

    I liked Edwards anti-corporatism a lot. Initially I was for Barack  after it became obvious that Edwards lacked appeal.
    Then I realized that policy wise Barack and Hillary were national policy centrists with one conspicious exception... universal health care.So I dropped Obama and went with Clinton
    Enter me an Edwards voter switched to Clinton. I never looked back.

    •  I supported Edwards (0+ / 0-)

      until I LISTENED to the New Hampshire debate (between Edwards, Obama and Clinton) on the radio, versus watching it on TV.

      Listening was a much different and clearer experience, and it was so obvious to me that Clinton was the most competent and substantive of the candidates. It was then I switched from Edwards to her.

      Obama has always hidden behind what appears to be heavy rhetoric (it actually isn't).  It worries me.

      •  thank you for your concern (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theran, blueness

        You've really made an entrance in this discussion.

        •  Injecting reality (0+ / 0-)

          into discussions about Obama is a futile and risky endeavor.  They don't want their bubble burst.

          I'm not impressed with the guy. And without the stars in one's eyes, you see the weaknesses much more clearly, and believe me, they are there. shouting and insulting people down won't make them go away.

          •  No one's shouting you down. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theran, DaveV, blueness, MA Voter

            You've just chosen a curious time to join us -- you know, like, about six months after such discussions were relevant.

            •  REally (0+ / 0-)

              Of course, this is gobbledy-gook, and I never said anything about me personally being shouted down, although I can give you some pretty good examples of the do-gooders who want change responding to criticism of Obama by me with things like telling me I should kill myself and asking if I vomit when I look in the mirror.  There's also this self-righteous, "I hope you have a happy life" thing today.

              No, I'm sorry, but the left blogosphere was and is brutal to Clinton supporters, ironic coming from Obama supporters who claim to want change and are so inspired to a new and higher form of politic, a less divisive one.

              Clinton supporters were (and I suspect are) routinely banned from left-wing blogs, regardless of whether they were civil, if not critical, or not.  There were no real rules. If blog principals or moderators simply didn't like harsh criticism of Obama, you were out.  I even read that KOS principals were laughing about Clinton supporters having been run off the blog.

              I defended critics of Clinton's on blogs, feeling they had every right to their opinion, even attacks, so long as they were vulgar or threatening.  

              Id' have thought it'd be the Obamans defending people's rights to speak, responding respectfully in an attempt to change the tone. But that has not been my experience at all.  I found Obama supporters to be as intolerant and as vicious toward critics as Republicans. Still do.

              You either believe what you claim to across the board and you act it out or you don't. the left Blogosphere has some soul searching to do, but it won't.  
              we're still in an era of "because I can."

              •  no one was "routinely banned" from anything. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theran, DaveV, blueness, MA Voter

                Of course, that's an awfully curious claim of historical knowledge from someone who "just" got here.

                Clinton supporters chose to leave sites like this one because they weren't interested in defending their candidate's flaws.  No one forced them out.

              •  clearly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Since you made this statement:

                Id' have thought it'd be the Obamans defending people's rights to speak, responding respectfully in an attempt to change the tone. But that has not been my experience at all.  I found Obama supporters to be as intolerant and as vicious toward critics as Republicans. Still do

                Your not interested in electing Senator Obama. With that in mind, why are you here at all?

                Ability is what you're capable of doing..motivation determines what you do...attitude determines how well you do it.

                by MA Voter on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I see (0+ / 0-)

              So I'm the only one commenting here. All these other posts on this thread are my imagination. Or somehow they are relevant but mine are not.

              indeed, a thread about what would have happened had the Edwards affair come out during the primary is relevant enough for Kos himself to write on, but my commenting on the Obama candidacy is irrelevant.

              All those here calling Clinton every name in the book: relevant.

              You also I guess believe that there should be no discussion about the 2000 Election or 2004.  How about going in to Iraq?  No?  It's done. Can't go backward.  Can't rue that decision.  

              Puh-leeze.  This country didn't get over the SC handing Bush the presidency, and we won't for a long time.

              I'll rue the Democratic decision if I like, thank you.

          •  Here is the reality: Obama won (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, MA Voter

            Obama is the nominee.

            John McCain is the opponent now for Dems who want to win.

            This discussion is of academic interest, and should be mined for insight into how certain lines McCain picked up from Hillary will move through the voting public, but beyond that there is no current relevance.

            The primary war ended in early June and isn't coming back for a 2nd season.

            Manny goes to Hollywood :(

            by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your post (0+ / 0-)

              has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote or the topic of this thread.

              Bush won too.  woo hoo.

              I will still lament that win, though, and will for a long time, if it's alright with you.  

              This response, "Obama won. Tough toenails" is quite nasty and evidence that Obama cannot in fact inspire change or unity.

        •  An entrance that may have been made before. (0+ / 0-)

          Binna's posts seem rather familiar (slouise?) and don't fit the mold of a new user (172k) who just started posting today.

  •  What Wolfson's Doing (0+ / 0-)

    with his false supposition is very destructive.

    Senator Clinton should make a public statement on it.

    Coupled with the release of the internal memos from the Clinton campaign, it looks like sour grapes, which is bad for both Obama and the Clintons.

    Now is not the time for bottom feeding on sour grapes.  The American people are sick of this kind of politics.  I know I am.

    •  It's not a false supposition (0+ / 0-)

      It's a personal belief of his.  There is no way to prove this one way or the other.

      Take it for what it is.  Obamans can't even tolerate hypothetical detractions from Obama!

      •  Iowa Voters' Second Choice Is/Was Proven (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in the exit polls that asked "Who is your second choice."

        Obama was the answer, when most Edwards voters answered.

        Internal polls also showed that. (See Illissius' comment below.)

        •  Irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

          This is about a claim over what might have happened had the Edwards affair come out during the primary. There is absolutely no way to draw any conclusions about it.  It is a factor that simply was not in play at the time, and to draw conclusions based on what did happen and try to ascribe that to a hypothetical is misguided and fallacious.

          •  HILLARY IS INEVITABLE (0+ / 0-)

            The inevitability of Hillary is the same in any frame of reference, much like the speed of light in the theory of relativity.  Even after Obama wins in Nov., Hillary will still be the favorite to become the next president.

            Manny goes to Hollywood :(

            by theran on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, it is not (0+ / 0-)


      If anything, he's making himself appear to be a sore loser.

      You give him too much credit.

  •  The whole point in discussing this is to (0+ / 0-)

    dredge up the Clinton vs. Obama psychodrama.   To that end, no matter how ludicrous his point, we've all fallen into his trap.

  •  interesting problem (0+ / 0-)

    "The evidence isn't there to support Wolfson's claims": such a delicate way to put it. The biggest verbal challenge of this primary season was how to repeatedly call out the innuendos, inaccuracies, insults, inconsistencies, double-speak, absurdities, and falsehoods coming from the Clinton campaign without jumping up and down while turning blue in the face, and screaming LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! Poor Hillary deserved so much better than to be surrounded and advised by such scum, but ultimately it was her choice to let these idiotic trolls into her campaign. Lets hope she's learned a lesson.

  •  Hillary still unable to control her "campaign" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Normally I would say this, combined with Penn's most recent idiotic comments on McCain ads, is a vast conspiracy on the Clinton's part to tear down the Obama phenomenon, but in truth I think it's just more of the same. Hillary's inability to manage her campaign (thus proving her unworthy of an executive-level position) has extended to the post-campaign time period.


    by chuckwh on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:06:06 AM PDT

  •  A complete fucking mess (0+ / 0-)

    The elephant in the room is that there is no party unity.

    I personally believe we need Obama, but this Hillary Clinton & supporters scorched earth shit is turning off a lot of Independents.

    She laid out the McCain strategy by mocking his ability to draw crowds, saying he was shallow, unelectable, all while colluding with Scaife and the right-wing networks.

    Fixed News is running "leaked email" stories ad nauseum. When the Edwards affair is covered they only use pictures of him with Obama or speaking in front of a sign that reads "Change" as if there is no additional footage of the guy.

    I have to admit it takes real skill to fuck up an opportunity to get into the White House in a year like this like many "progressives" seem to be doing. A bunch of children not ready for the big leagues.

    Do I hope I'm wrong? Yes.
    Is it likely? No.

    No matter who's in the White House I'm going to be fine, but then this election isn't just about me...or you.

    "Never was so little asked of so many by so few"--Stephen Colbert

    by EMorgan on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM PDT

  •  Got Mass? (0+ / 0-)

    Just curious, what were the number for Massachusetts?

    Because I voted for Clinton after Edwards dropped out before the Massachusetts primary.

    "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

    by MikeTheLiberal on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM PDT

  •  In the recently released Clinton campaign memos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patricia Taylor

    there's one internal poll from early 2007 which shows that when the three way race, C42-O26-E18 is narrowed to 2 way, it becomes C48-O39 -- in other words, Obama picks up over 2/3 of Edwards supporters.

    "'Politics' is made up of two words. 'Poli,' which is Greek for 'many,' and 'tics,' which are bloodsucking insects." --Gore Vidal

    by Illissius on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:10:15 AM PDT

  •  I was active in the EENR diaries. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, Patricia Taylor, soms

    Most EENR writers and commenters had Obama as their second choice.  Edwards was my 1st choice; Obama my 2nd choice.

    Wolfson, the PUMA crowd all need to realize that Barack Obama is the Democratic Nominee.

    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

    by Pam from Calif on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

  •  Wolfson is showing us why Hillary failed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it's because of this type of delusional thinking within her campaign.

  •  Well, there's always second-guessing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    after the primaries are done.   But only Democrats can't keep their mouths shut about it.  

    You'll notice that Romney/Huckabee/Guiilani staffers and supporters aren't trashing McCain on the air, or threatening to raise a ruckus at the GOP convention unless  get they get their "catharsis".    

    Much as we hate them for all the nasty negative campaigning, the GOP learned the party unity lesson decades ago.  Result: they win elections.  

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Frederick Douglass, 1857)

    by dotalbon on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:32:51 AM PDT

    •  the GOP wins (0+ / 0-)

      because they know how to appeal to the Stupids and bamboozle them into voting for them.  The Clintons do as well, but were trashed for it by the self-righteous Obamans.

      Oh, and called racist.

      •  Unfortuntely, Senator Clintons' supporters' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MA Voter

        inability to let go of her candidacy gives ammunition to those who believe (mistakenly) that women are not capable of being President because they are too emotional, because they do not understand how to play by the rules, and because they are less able than men to cope with a loss.  Is this what they want to project?

        •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

          Now THAT is sexism!

          Imagine if Obama had lost and those who felt Dems made the wrong choice and said so were told it was evidence that black people really are intellectually inferior and incapable of being president.

          Egads.  Can you imagine the response????

  •  We dodged TWO bullets (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards, of course, and especially HRC.  Anyone who would surround herself with sleaze like Wolfson and Penn is no democrat.  

    I am close to believing that the Clintons are actually GOP agents on a mission to destroy the democratic party from within, to sabotage all progressive movements in this country and act as a pressure release valve for public discontent over right wing policy.  CT?  Yes.  Evidence?  All circumstantial.  But I really would like to know why it is that the Clinton's waited their entire political lives to unsheath their longest knives for the most promising progressive leader since RFK.  All through the 90s, the Clintons never displayed the same zeal to destroy their GOP opponents as they did when trying to destroy Obama.  Why?  

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:35:22 AM PDT

    •  O fcourse you are! (0+ / 0-)


      I admit to being amused by Obamans sounding like Republicans when it comes to the Clintons. The hatred is amazing.

      So much for change.  Seems Obamans believe the way to win is in fact to hate and demonize the opponent.

      So much for change.  

      Remember when Democrats liked the Clintons and were outraged at the GOP's endless attempts to bring them down?

      how's it feel to empathize with Republicans then?

      Ironic, huh?

      •  "The hatred is amazing." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, lgcap, MA Voter

        Yes, it is amazing.

        It originates from the Clintons' own behavior.  They have no principles.  Debating them on issues is futile, because they simply take their opponent's positions as their own.  They claim the high road while trafficking in amounts of sleaze that would make Rove proud.  

        I spent a lot of time in the 90s defending the Clintons, which by the end of Clinton's second term, meant I was defending the indefensable.  It was only after they supported the Iraq war that I started to wake up and feel like I'd be conned.  Then HRC's campaign woke me for good.  She lacks the salesmanship Bill used so well to convince us that triangulation and watered-down GOP policies are actually progressive.

        Now I realize why the Clintons were so polarizing, and why the right hated them so much.  It wasn't because of Clinton's policies - which were often exactly what the GOP wanted.  I was conned by Bill, hopefully I won't fall for such a con again.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you seem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MA Voter


        John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

        by taylormattd on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:36:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary lost her voters.. period (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No one owns votes. You act like a bigoted creep, you lose votes

  •  same here (0+ / 0-)

    i hope that the presidential candidates will gonna do something about the huge taxes that we are paying because recently i saw a video in pollclash and two of the known candidates talked about their plan on how to solve the said issue.. you can see the video in

  •  Poor excuses (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean, demoKatz, EMorgan

    The efforts by many of HRC's supporters to delegitimize Obama's candidacy sickens me.  I find it embarrassing that Obama continues to cowtow to the Clinton "Machine" while the Clinton's continue to insult our nominee.

    •  Oh boo hoo (0+ / 0-)

      She's been out stumping for him despite a hard loss.

      Seems to me it's obama supporters who can't stop bashing her. No doubt that's different, though.

      Your post is one of narcissism.  This notion that everyone must fall at the feet of Obama is disturbing.

      •  Generally, this is what parties do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MA Voter

        This notion that everyone must fall at the feet of Obama is disturbing.

        This is what political parties do:  rally behind the nominee.  Those that do not typically lose.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:28:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wolfson and Mark Penn (0+ / 0-)

    Says it all why Clinton lost. Bad choices.

  •  we didn't need more evidence Wolfson was full (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of it, however, what is emerging is clear evidence of a Reagan circa 1976/Kennedy c 1980 strategy on the part of our dear "Democratic 1st family" the Clintons! It will of course backfire, sending Mrs Clinton even further into obscurity. It is interesting to note that she kept relatively quiet for the duration of the potential VP vetting period, but as it has become clear she isn't it,  she seems to have began her 2012 campaign in earnest!

    McCain't give a damn and won't even try!

    by karanja on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM PDT

  •  Edwards cost Hillary the nomination (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigBensBeermaster driving the primary toward the left with such velocity that it woke up the grassroots progressives, broke the Hillary inevitability, and forced both Obama and Hillary to also campaign to the left.  Obama was simply a better orator than Hillary (and possibly better than Edwards as well), and her dirty campaign tricks turned of the Edwards progressives, so as the Edwards fizzled, they moved into the Obama camp.

    Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

    by Subversive on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:58:53 AM PDT

  •  Aren't caucuses undemocratic anyway? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I mean, why are we focused on Iowa when it disenfranchises Hillary's hard-working-white-American-blue-collar-living-certain-parts-of-West-Virginia-and Kentuckydid-I-mention-American-women-over-50-and-white?-sniper-fire-dodging  Base?

    Oh wait, Obama won more primaries too?

    The Clinton Era is over.  Lets bury this ridiculous BS.

  •  I find it ironic, even amusing that (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards is getting more press now than when he was running. Earlier in the year, even end of last, you had to search the paper for mention of John Edwards or his ideas. the press was so enamored with the Obama/Hillary narrative. Edwards couldn't buy coverage, and when he got it, it was mostly negative.
    But let him get caught in a sexual scandal and OMG, it's 24/7 front page above the fold.
    Our values are so screwed up. I don't care if Edwards had an affair. That's between him and Elizabeth. His ideas of ending poverty and getting universal heath care for all
    Americans are worth far more space in the paper.

    "In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    by MA Liberal on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:11:23 AM PDT

    •  It was Clinton's affair (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal

      That gave us the Bush Administration.

      You'd think we'd have figured out that, not only are private personal transgression irrelevant to someone's ability to do a job, delving into them at the expense of serious issues can lead to disaster.

      I'm actually tempted to make having cheated on one's wife a requirement to be president.  I'm not too fond of the saints who allegedly (snark) never have!

      •  It was also Clinton's Reaganesque policies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MA Voter

        and triangulation that gave us the Bush administration.  We both agree that we can attribute Bush's win to Clinton.

        •  No. (0+ / 0-)

          It was the Republicans and their BS family values crap that gave Bush the presidency.

          Clinton did pretty good things for this country. There is something about the psyche of this country that we go through these cycles of Republicans getting into power and nearly destroying the country, then putting Democrats in to clean up the mess, and once the mess is cleaned up, Americans going for Republicans and their BS about taxes, having forgotten that Republicans are very bad for the majority in this country and that Democrats might not be exciting but they are measured.

          Slow and steady does win, but Americans want fast and flashy.

          It makes no sense whatsoever that this race is as close as it is in the wake of the damage the Bush Admin. has done.  Yet Bush won due to an affair that wasn't even Gore's.

          I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with an electorate like that, you've got to really do some acting to become president, which is another reason the whole Obama as authentic guy thing never flew with me.

        •  I ascribe Bush's win to Americans (0+ / 0-)

          being really, really dumb.

          I don't attribute it to Clinton at all.  Americans routinely look gift horses in the mouth and focus on stupid stuff.

          Why else has Obama had to start saying he's for drilling?  He has no choice.

          And it's Obama who is supposedly about ending partisanship. How does one do that without compromising with the other side?

          Obamans want it both ways.  It doesn't work that way.

  •  I live in NH and voted for Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    If he weren't on the ballot, I definitely would've sided with Obama.

    For the record, my first choice (Feingold) decided not to run.  And my second choice (Dodd) didn't make it out of Iowa alive.

    I'm not a Hillary hater, I think she and Bill have done alot that is commendable.  And I certainly would've supported her against whatever Republican ran against her.  But she's way too pro-corporate for me.  And the Clintons have happily signed on to too many Republican  sponsored bandwagons for my liking:  NAFTA, Drug War, welfare reform, etc.

    I liked Edwards' populist message, even if he didn't have the voting record to back it up (like Feingold does).  But he was talking it up on the campaign trail, which was very politically risky.  It was a message that really needed to be brought into the public debate, even though his message was almost entirely ignored in the MSM.  So, I rewarded him with my vote.

    I'm not particularly enamored of Obama, I haven't decided if there's more sizzle than steak there.  But he's the new guy, and I think its a good thing to get on a different track.  The Old Way isn't working, just like it didn't work on the campaign trail for Hillary.  Its broken.

    I'm already against the next war.

    by deoll on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM PDT

    •  the old way is what worked (0+ / 0-)

      The Rovian ploy of taking an asset (the Clintons' relationship with the black community) and turning it into a liability (calling them racist and race baiters).

      I'd say that worked.

  •  shorter Wolfson: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    I'm already against the next war.

    by deoll on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:23:23 AM PDT

  •  I think he is wrong and you are one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    really knows what direction this thing would have taken as the dynamics would have changed a bit.  

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:30:45 AM PDT

  •  Please make them exit the political STAGE-NOW! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Please send Howie et all to the corner-cry babies!

  •  And if the NFL played on a 99 yard field (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the Titans would have won super-bowl XXXIV.

    Love that "power of the purse!" It looks so nice up there on the mantle (and not the table) next to the "subpoena power."

    by Sacramento Dem on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM PDT

  •  Need to vent ... so .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I just had an "enlightening" conversation in a Cafe here in SoCal (Los Angeles) with a Hillary supporter, and yes, this is someone who is gonna vote for Obama, no problem ... not the topic of the debate, nor was it even a question ...

    but, what really shocks me is whenever I encounter someone who actually says that the fact that Hillary lied and tried to steal the election by counting Michigan and Florida is A-OKAY,

    and the fact that she ran a terrible campaign is no reflection on her ability to run a government,

    and the fact that Obama attended a church with this "controversial" reverend makes Obama as dishonest, lying, cheating, stealing as Hillary,

    and the fact that Hillary has "experience" yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON CAN POINT TO EXACTLY WHAT EXPERIENCE SHE HAS OTHER THAN IN THE SACK WITH GOOD OLE' BILL, but then, so do a lot of chicks, so does that mean that they are qualified to lead this gov?

    ahhh, should I go on?

    I said to him that I felt that Obama was "pure of intent" and he said that Obama was not because of the "controversial" reverend .... (not that Obama is perfect, but that his intent is honorable,) ...

    now this is compared to Hillary who demonstrated a blatant willingness to CHEAT LIE STEAL the election,

    but, to this brainwashed dimwitted idiot, these two equate to the same thing, ....

    ... one, involves a willful self-serving act ...
    ... one, involves attending a church where someone ranted about abuses ... (a rant that was taken completely out of context,)

    and this guy believes these two are identical in spirit and nature,

    what a fucking blind fucking idiot,

    and here I thought this guy was an intelligent perceptive fellow,

    okay, so what really gets me is the complete and utter ignorance and blatant willingness to ignore Hillary's attempt to steal the election by counting those votes that SHE VOTED TO NOT COUNT,  

    so, this guy thinks it is a-okay because, you know, "the Republicans do it, and that's just politics,"

    can you guys see how fucking jaded our population has become that they actually fucking believe this bullshit,

    and Hillary believes this,

    and her campaign supporters believe this fucking bullshit,

    okay, end of rant, ... back to work ...

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 11:30:57 AM PDT

    •  There's a sisterhood among scorned women and it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      defies logic.

      •  This was a conversation with a guy .... (0+ / 0-)

        a married man,

        (with his wife sitting there beside him, not sure her true position, she seemed to want to agree with him, though,)

        ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

        by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sexism. (0+ / 0-)

        Now let's rephrase it and say the same thing only in terms of race.

        Imagine if Obama had lost a close race and supporters of his expressed frustration over how he'd been treated, even sadness over his losing, and someone wrote, "There's a brotherhood among uppity blacks, and it defies logic."

        Pretty gross stuff, huh?  But somehow it's different to refer to women as "scorned" or "bitter."

        I guess you're another Obaman who thought Democrats were bitter and scorned and were sore losers when they expressed anger and worry and despair over Gore and Kerry losing too, huh?  Were you chanting "Sore/Loserman" then along with Republicans and telling us to get over that too?

        •  ahh, I think "lilly" is a woman ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MA Voter

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do too (0+ / 0-)

            What does that have to do with it?

            Plenty of women are sexist.

            You wouldn't think commenting on "uppity blacks" and deciding they are too emotional or uppity or whatever to be president if they express disappointment would be offensive???

            I do.

            •  Binna, what is your point? (0+ / 0-)

              You may think you are being clear, but you are not.

              First, a reference to "uppity blacks" is of a completely different nature and spirit than to refer to a woman's bitterness (or having been scorned), which is merely an observation of what may be true.

              An observation about a woman, or a certain particular group of women, as BITTER, is not an insult, if accurate, it is merely a statement/ observation of what may be a fact. And, the suggestion that a solidarity of bitterness is a possible justification for someone's irrational blind forgiveness of Hillary's blatant and complete utter lack of integrity, honor, honesty, and respect ... may, in fact, be true, though the person I was speaking with was a male, which is what was a bit shocking, since I might expect a female solidarity (irrespective of the bitterness, which may or may not be the driving force.)

              Now, maybe bitterness was the true cause of Hillary's despicable deplorable lack of moral fiber, maybe not, but Hillary's lack of integrity was the topic of my thread, not her possible bitterness, ...

              But, then, on the other hand, to merely make reference to blacks and to label them as "uppity" is, in fact, an insult because it has no basis in any real possible objective fact, other than, as we all know, a direct reference/implication that the black person is a second class citizen ... which is obviously a reference to the blight of slavery in our country.

              ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

              by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 03:38:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I have to admit (1+ / 3-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      blueness, Bronx59, lgcap

      it was amusing watching the obama camp go the Republican route and fight to NOT count votes.

      And declare that counting votes was stealing an election, again a la Republicans.

      Next time your vote is disenfranchised, think you'll be singing the same tune?

      •  Binna, you cannot be serious ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927, MA Voter

        ... It was Hillary's folks who were all too happy to disenfranchise those voters when they felt it served them, but then they wanted to count them when they were loosing ....

        There is not a single thing about the Obama that smells like the stench of the republicans, yet, the foul stench of Hillary's campaign just reeked of the Republicans, only worse, because they tried to make believe they were something else.

        ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

        by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:35:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because you say so (0+ / 0-)

          It was the Obama camp that sent out lawyers to fight to NOT have those votes counted. That is simply a fact. Obama wanted votes to not count.

          You don't give an example of Clintons fighting to keep votes from counting. You merely say so.

          And no, it's Obamans who went Republican.  They sounded exactly like Republicans did toward the Clintons in the 1990s. Still do.

          I don't hear Obama having to insist he is not sexist. I do hear Bill Clinton having to insist he's not racist.  Obamans created that, and it's very sad and disgusting.  That's what Rove did: take an asset and turn it into a liability.

          •  Please write a diary and fully air your views. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I,for one, would relish the opportunity to see your doubts and/or grievances distilled and discussed in a thoughtful debate.

          •  Binna ... you only make yourself out to be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            a joke by your repeating of that KNOWN misrepresentation of the facts ... taken out of context ....

            Everyone knows, and even you yourself know, that Hillary did not give shit about those votes until it suited her political aspirations.

            Obama's laywers were simply insisting that the original vote to exclude those votes be honored, since this was the only fair thing to do since his name was NOT EVEN ON THE FUCKING BALLOT in Michigan.

            This argument is a joke. Do you think the people are stupid and ignorant of the truth.

            Worse then that ...

            Binna, you are not actually gonna try to sell that bullshit argument here, on dKos, the most well informed political blog group in the world. You are only revealing to this community your ignorant one-sided bias.

            You really must be a naive fool to try that in this place ... to peddle this garbage ... here ... You must be a newbee, cause on here, we crucified that MEME .... sell it somewhere else ... we aint buyin!

            Your argument is a joke and Hillary was a joke.

            ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

            by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  right (0+ / 0-)

              Isn't that what I said?  Obamans, like Repubs, think the clintons are jokes and bad people.


              And Bush's attorneys also had legal arguments to not count votes in 2000, and they won, as you will recall.
              so you must have been in agreement.

              I was for a revote, btw.  Obama camp didn't want that either.

              So now I'm a naive fool.

              Change?  Hmmmm...

              And I have never denied that Clinton wanted the votes to count when it was clear they'd help her. Of course she would.  It's Obamans who are denying that Obama didn't want votes to count when he knew it'd HURT him!

              Double standards!

              Sorry, but I'm for counting votes, regardless of the outcome.  Seems you share the Republican belief that votes should NOT be counted under certain circumstances, namely when it will hurt their guy.

              Obama camp didn't want the voters of Michigan and Florida to count.  That is the bottom line.

              •  Again, that is a myopic view with the ... (0+ / 0-)

                .... facts taken out of context and misconstrued ...

                Hillary wanted the votes to count in a state where OBAMA WAS NOT ON THE FREAKIN' BALLOT!!!

                And that is what you are selling.

                Listen, every intelligent person in this coutnry knows that it was Hillary whose actions are liken to Republicans.

                And it is laughable that you are actually trying to equate Obama to the Republicans actions wherein the very vote itself was suspect ... these two incidents are about as similar as WW2 is to a street fight in Harlem. ... Except of course, the only similarity is that Hillary wanted to cheat the voters out of their first choice, which we all know was Obama. You Hillary Cult followers really are bitter sore loosers.

                Please, your argument holds no water, and is insulting in the extreme ... you insult Obama, you insult Obama supporters, and you insult my intelligence with this empty argument, you must think me and the readers of this blog are ignorant ... we aint!

                A recount might have been acceptable, but what Hillary wanted was for the Michigan votes to JUST COUNT ENTIRELY FOR HER.

                Please, this is a joke.

                Post a diary of this so that the rest of the dKOS community can rip this childish banter apart.

                You obviously are a clueless newbee and have no idea of the caliber of folks here on this blog.

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  She wanted a revote (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama wouldn't go along with that either.

                  She had the sense to keep her name on the ballot. He took his off.

                  Why should she be punished?

                  Again, the bottom line is, more people voted for her. I am for counting votes.  It's not that difficult.  

                  You agree with Republicans that sometimes votes should not be counted.  Why not just admit it?  

                  If Obama had agreed to a revote, it'd be a lot easier to argue that he is not about disenfranchising voters for political purposes, but he didn't, and there is a reason he didn't: because he knew he'd lose Michigan and probably Florida.

                  So while you're shrieking at me about Clinton wanting votes to count because it'd help her (gasp!  See how you did NOT want votes to count because it'd help her?), you're okay with Obama NOT wanting votes to count because it'd hurt him.

                  Really, your double standards are disturbing.  You think Obama did'nt want a revote or the votes to count on PRINCIPLE????


            •  I remember when (0+ / 0-)

              it was Hillaryites who were so angry.

              Obamans are the angriest winners I"ve seen since...well, since Republicans!

              Btw, I can get through a post w/o calling people naive fools and other names.  Seems you can't.  You'd think it'd be the other way around, that it'd be the ones who want change and to end divisive and negative attack politics who'd refrain.

              Oh well.

              •  I simply speak the truth. (0+ / 0-)

                It is a naive action to assume that people do not know the truth.

                It is foolish to try to sell a KNOWN LIE to someone.

                It is only a naive fool who tries this in this community, wherein the truth has been exposed about 10,000 times.

                I am bitter, yes, that Hillary would try such a dishonorable act in broad daylight and blatantly assume that she could get away with it simply because her name is Clinton and she was the former first lady ... ahhh, can anyone say TRAVELGATE!

                Give it up, Binna, you aint gonna find any allies (for lies) in here.

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hillaryites, like yourself, are still angry and (0+ / 0-)

                bitter, and you do a poor job of masking it in some insulting banter.

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

                  I repeat: I can get through a post without calling you foolish or naive or bitter or whatever.

                  In fact, I can get through a post w/o even making it about you!  

                  In other words, I practice the politics Obama speaks of more than do you. Pretty amazing, huh?

                  Let's try this one more time:

                  Obama didn't want votes to count.  Obama didn't want a revote.  Ergo: Obama wanted to disenfranchise voters because he knew those states would go for Hillary Clinton.  You can't seem to admit that, even as you accuse Hillary Clinton of wanting votes to count for political purposes, which is beyond  bizarre, btw.  

                  the anger at Clinton for wanting votes for her to count is quite telling.

                  So, we have Bush and Obama as two pols who've sent lawyers out to STOP votes from counting.  That IS a fact. You're the one all for facts, right?

                  IT is also a fact that Obama did not want a revote.

                  No revote; didn't want votes to count.

                  bottom line: Obama didn't want two states in play.

                  I wanted a revote no matter if Obama or Clinton won. Why? Because I think voters should decide the nominee and that votes should count.  It is the Obama camp that did not in this case.

                  Fact. Sorry.

                  •  Now... (0+ / 0-)

                    call me bitter again.


                    •  Firstly ... (0+ / 0-)

                      I have admitted (freely) that I am bitter at Hillary for her lies and attempted theft of an election ... for her completely insulting campaign ... she is, I believe, a pathological liar in so many areas that is would be tiresome to repeat what has been extolled about 10,000 times here on dKOS.

                      You claim that Obama did not want a revote, this is not a known fact to me.

                      You claim that Hillary would have won in those states, this is also not a known fact to me.

                      I do not recall Hillary pushing for a re-vote, all that I heard her pushing for was that those votes in Michigan to count 100% for her, when Obama was NOT ON THE BALLOT ... that is insulting to my intelligence in the extreme ... this is insulting to the intelligence of all Americans ... and yes, I take this personally ... and this will never change ... sorry!

                      And this attempted theft is representative of the lack of honor from this lying cheating despicable "lady" that you are pushing with your attempted portrayal of her as being a "voice for the people" ... when we all know that she aint no voice for any people other than her own selfish self serving political aspirations to be the first female president.

                      I suggest that there is bitterness behind your attempt to portray this Hillary "lady" as anything other than she is ... and I further suggest that there is bitterness behind your repeated attempt to portray Obama as being in any remote way akin to the republicans who OUTRIGHT STOLE AN ELECTION ....

                      Whereas, in reality ... anyone with GOOGLE and who can READ knows that Obama had not one single thing to do with the DNC's decision to exclude those votes due to their violation of the DNC's rules.

                      Now, please post a diary about your beliefs and try to sell it to the rest of dKOS so that you can deal with this entire community ... but, I warn you, you will have less luck with them, then with me.

                      Have a nice day.


                      ~ A bitter unforgiving New Yorker who ain't voting for Hillary when her Senate seat comes up again ~

                      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                      by ArthurPoet on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:46:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Bullshit. Sorry. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GN1927, ArthurPoet

                    Because I think voters should decide the nominee and that votes should count.  It is the Obama camp that did not in this case.

                    Fact. Sorry.

                    The electorate did decide the nominee, Democratic voters in primaries and caucuses from coast to coast. It's Obama. He won fair and square... and, I might add, against long odds and having the kitchen sink thrown at him along the way.

                    To argue otherwise is not only vacuous but also pigheaded, disruptive and otherwise unhelpful to what is supposed to be the party's goal: defeating the GOP.

                    John McCain: Getting Terrorists off America's Lawn since 1880

                    by pat208 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:45:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

        Like Bush: hate the truth?  Hide it and attack the messenger.

  •   neither clinton nor obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    because the only guy talking about real economic issues was ralph nader, and regardless of the 2000 election he is the only one besides edwards pointing out the real big issue, which is the class war going on in america. the rest are just paying lip service to the problem.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 11:51:11 AM PDT

  •  If Hillary had... (0+ / 0-)

    hired John Edwards' campaign staff, instead of incompetents like Wolfson and Penn, then maybe she would have won...

  •  Please polls 2nd choices next time (0+ / 0-)

    Every poll should ask for second-choices, so next time (if you run or buy polls), please have the pollster ask for second choice preferences.

    This not only provides a richer sense of the electorate but helps us with analysis of the strongest and broadest candidate at the time. (perhaps that's redundant)

    Dan Johnson-Weinberger, Progressive Public Affairs The opposite of capitulation isn't partisanship.

    by djwinfo on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM PDT

  •  That's: please poll 2nd choices next time n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Dan Johnson-Weinberger, Progressive Public Affairs The opposite of capitulation isn't partisanship.

    by djwinfo on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:26:19 PM PDT

  •  I was an Edwards supporter (0+ / 0-)

    when he dropped out, I became an Obama supporter. I've never looked back. I still think John Edwards would make a positive force somewhere in Barack's cabinet positions. AG? VP?

  •  I love Ted Kennedy, but (0+ / 0-)

    this smells of a replay of 1980, which helped cost us the re-election of Jimmy Carter, and marked the beginning of the era of conservatism.  

    This time it's HRC that will play the spoiler through her surrogates.  And  she'll get away with it.  

    Some have equated her future role as that of the new Ted Kennedy, who, since the 1980 convention remains a darling of the party.

    In the eyes of this one lone democrat, if Obama loses because of the BS antics of her supporters, I will lay the blame squarely on her head - til the day I die.

    If HRC is the leader she claims to be, she will declare "enough!"

    And in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false - about HOPE. Barack Obama

    by thesunshinestateisdark on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM PDT

  •  I had given Edwards $350.. (0+ / 0-)

    and I switched to Obama without much hesitation.  I agree on paper with more of Hillary's STATED views, but her vote on the Iraq war, and her intransigence at admitting it was a mistake were a big problem for me.  In addition, there was Penn and McAuliffe and the usual crowd of Washington insiders that I didn't like from her husband's administration.  That was all it took for me to go immediately to Obama.  Wolfson doesn't know what he's talking about.

  •  No research needed to verify Wolfson sucks (0+ / 0-)

    While your efforts are appreciated, Wolfson has long since proved himself to be subjective and anti-Obama.  

    Along with Ickes, Carville, Begala, Penn and Davis, they can all get out of our faces forever; they all make me puke.

  •  Here's a poll I did on second choices in April 07 (0+ / 0-)

    I must say that after seeing that almost no one chose Hillary as even a second choice,I was not surprised by how things turned out.

    "Today we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships..." FDR, April 1945.

    by respectisthehub on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:45:02 PM PDT

  •  Considering how close HRC came to winning (0+ / 0-)

    enough delegates to secure the nomination....

    Imagine how well she might have trounced Obama is she surrounded herself with competent, intelligent and loayl campaign staff instead of a bunch of onanistic, self absorbed, and loathesome political hacks.

  •  According to MSNBC's Chuck Todd: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "The idea that Clinton's standing would have somehow improved in Iowa without Edwards is just not supported by data or observation."

  •  I supported Edwards before I supported Obama (0+ / 0-)

    and Hillary was my very last choice.

    VOTE McCAIN: I am nothing special and would probably make a terrible president - the Daily Show

    by Julia Rain on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:15:58 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site