![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
patgundFormer Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson recently told ABC News that, in his opinion, Sen. Clinton would have won Iowa and gone on to win the nomination if John Edwards' affair had been exposed early on and he had been forced to drop out of the race.
Now according to the Iowa Democratic Party, the vote had been:
Obama - 37.6%
Edwards - 29.7%
Clinton - 29.5%
Wolfson states that "Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama." Wolfson pulls these numbers out of thin air mind you. We don't know - and have no way OF knowing - what the split would have been had Edwards been out of the race. Add to that the fact that when Sen. Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January, Sen. Obama won eleven straight contests in a row.
The problem is that Wolfson hints that the reason Sen. Edwards was IN the race in the first place was as a spoiler for Sen. Clinton, and that the "sexist media" didn't cover the National Enquirer allegations towards Sen. Edwards as part of this bias, stating that he was "mystified about the failure of the national media to pursue the story as it has allegations of other candidates' affairs."
And actually, when confronted with exit poll data that suggested Sen. Clinton was not the second choice of Sen. Edwards supporters, Wolfson backed down, saying:
Now I've said several times that Sen. Clinton deserved a far better campaign than she got. And Wolfson seems to be a good example of this. His "we would have won Iowa and the nomination if it hadn't been for Edwards and the media" excuse is the "Scooby-Doo" defense, "I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!". There was several critical blunders Wolfson, Penn, and others in that campaign made at the start, and they did not serve their candidate well at all.
Needless to say, several PUMA sites have jumped on this like a doberman on a kitten. To them, it's proof of the "sexist media", as well as some holding Elizabeth Edwards up as a martyr, and others showing as much hatred to her as to Sen. Edwards. (Now I in no way support or defend John Edwards on this. But I consider it a private matter between them, and from what Elizabeth Edwards herself says, it's best that way.)
But many PUMAs, (most of which expected Sen. Edwards to endorse Sen. Clinton because of allegations of hatred Elizabeth Edwards had for Michelle Obama during the primaries), are jumping on Sen. Edwards as a result. Larry Johnson at the formerly sane "NoQuarter" did a whole post on Sen. Edwards's supposed negative attacks on Sen. Clinton and claims that "In effect, he was acting as Obama’s running mate. And Obama benefited enormously from having Edwards do some dirty work against Hillary.". Not to mention that if Edwards hadn't run, Johnson claims "there can be little doubt that today the strongest, best qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic nominee".
The comments on this are the usual echo chamber, including at least one demand that PUMA try to get Sen. Edward's delegates, claiming "Edwards gave his endorsement to Obama, but not his delegates. Lets go get em. The delegates I mean", and there's blackmail ("cough up the delegates or we will reveal that the kid is really his!"), or this one:
Trying to figure the logic in that one gives me a headache in my eye. There's a big enough gap that 21 delegates wouldn't make much difference, and Sen. Obama has more pledged delegates than Sen. Clinton, (not to mention the fallacy of the popular vote myth.)
But other PUMAs are on this bandwagon. "Soldier4Hillary" makes the comment that "Senator Clinton would of been the Democratic nominee if John cant keep it in his pants Edwards wasn’t around. It was a set up. Point blank. No one, Senator Edwards included, would believe that he would ever get the nomination. So what was the point? Probably to do the attacking when it came to Senator Clinton and do what Senator Obama could not do."
"Alegre" also pimps the "Clinton would have won if Edwards had dropped out early" line from Wolfson. "Not Your Sweetie" shows her support for the media angle, asking "why the media sat on this - Iowa caucus time ? It was ABC - Anyone But Clinton - so he was protected. Iowa might have gone differently otherwise."
"Anglachel" uses the story to go off on a rant that boils down to "all men are evil, cheating, lying scum":
Comments at "RiverDaughter" also feed the "Edwards was in the race as a spoiler" meme, with "Edwards served a purpose during the primary, he took white votes away from Hillary which helped Obama" There's also a couple of people defending McCain's cheating (and later dumping) of the wife that stood by him while he was in captivity in favour of the beer heiress he later married. (Oh, now that's SO progressive! Not to mention how funny that people who claim to be such devout Democrats would be defending the GOP nominee.....unless that's who many of them were going to vote for in the first place.....)
Did John Edwards screw up? Yes. Was it smart? No. Was it a plot against Sen. Clinton by the DNC or the "sexist media"? No. The posts from PUMA sites on this show two things common to PUMAs - a need to blame any and everything for Sen. Clinton's loss in the primaries, and a need to constantly play the victim as a result. This is why the only ones that take PUMA seriously are other PUMAs - because nobody else wants to buy into the victimhood and blame everyone mentality.
Now according to the Iowa Democratic Party, the vote had been:
Obama - 37.6%
Edwards - 29.7%
Clinton - 29.5%
Wolfson states that "Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama." Wolfson pulls these numbers out of thin air mind you. We don't know - and have no way OF knowing - what the split would have been had Edwards been out of the race. Add to that the fact that when Sen. Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January, Sen. Obama won eleven straight contests in a row.
The problem is that Wolfson hints that the reason Sen. Edwards was IN the race in the first place was as a spoiler for Sen. Clinton, and that the "sexist media" didn't cover the National Enquirer allegations towards Sen. Edwards as part of this bias, stating that he was "mystified about the failure of the national media to pursue the story as it has allegations of other candidates' affairs."
And actually, when confronted with exit poll data that suggested Sen. Clinton was not the second choice of Sen. Edwards supporters, Wolfson backed down, saying:
"Well, my gut tells me that had Senator Edwards dropped out of the race or had this become public prior to Iowa, that we would have done better in Iowa. The exit polling tells something different."
Now I've said several times that Sen. Clinton deserved a far better campaign than she got. And Wolfson seems to be a good example of this. His "we would have won Iowa and the nomination if it hadn't been for Edwards and the media" excuse is the "Scooby-Doo" defense, "I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!". There was several critical blunders Wolfson, Penn, and others in that campaign made at the start, and they did not serve their candidate well at all.
Needless to say, several PUMA sites have jumped on this like a doberman on a kitten. To them, it's proof of the "sexist media", as well as some holding Elizabeth Edwards up as a martyr, and others showing as much hatred to her as to Sen. Edwards. (Now I in no way support or defend John Edwards on this. But I consider it a private matter between them, and from what Elizabeth Edwards herself says, it's best that way.)
But many PUMAs, (most of which expected Sen. Edwards to endorse Sen. Clinton because of allegations of hatred Elizabeth Edwards had for Michelle Obama during the primaries), are jumping on Sen. Edwards as a result. Larry Johnson at the formerly sane "NoQuarter" did a whole post on Sen. Edwards's supposed negative attacks on Sen. Clinton and claims that "In effect, he was acting as Obama’s running mate. And Obama benefited enormously from having Edwards do some dirty work against Hillary.". Not to mention that if Edwards hadn't run, Johnson claims "there can be little doubt that today the strongest, best qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic nominee".
The comments on this are the usual echo chamber, including at least one demand that PUMA try to get Sen. Edward's delegates, claiming "Edwards gave his endorsement to Obama, but not his delegates. Lets go get em. The delegates I mean", and there's blackmail ("cough up the delegates or we will reveal that the kid is really his!"), or this one:
"I do hope that is true. RealClear politics has it that Obama got Edwards 21 delegates. If not for that, and halving all those votes, Clinton would be ahead in the pledged delegate count. And didn’t they tell the superdelegates to vote for the one who had the most pledged delegates… that would be Clinton. And of course she won in the popular vote. I’m with you… let’s go get ‘em! There votes rightfully belong to Clinton."
Trying to figure the logic in that one gives me a headache in my eye. There's a big enough gap that 21 delegates wouldn't make much difference, and Sen. Obama has more pledged delegates than Sen. Clinton, (not to mention the fallacy of the popular vote myth.)
But other PUMAs are on this bandwagon. "Soldier4Hillary" makes the comment that "Senator Clinton would of been the Democratic nominee if John cant keep it in his pants Edwards wasn’t around. It was a set up. Point blank. No one, Senator Edwards included, would believe that he would ever get the nomination. So what was the point? Probably to do the attacking when it came to Senator Clinton and do what Senator Obama could not do."
"Alegre" also pimps the "Clinton would have won if Edwards had dropped out early" line from Wolfson. "Not Your Sweetie" shows her support for the media angle, asking "why the media sat on this - Iowa caucus time ? It was ABC - Anyone But Clinton - so he was protected. Iowa might have gone differently otherwise."
"Anglachel" uses the story to go off on a rant that boils down to "all men are evil, cheating, lying scum":
"There has been no secret about his infidelities, only a refusal by power brokers (in the party, in the press) to use it to Edwards' detriment, at least not publically. This stands in stark contrast to the way in which every utterance or appearance by Hillary was cast as reprehensible, even when the alleged behavior was simply invented. At the same time, the flip side of male privilege, the right to exploit, harass, intimidate and threaten women as they please, was on display day after day."
Comments at "RiverDaughter" also feed the "Edwards was in the race as a spoiler" meme, with "Edwards served a purpose during the primary, he took white votes away from Hillary which helped Obama" There's also a couple of people defending McCain's cheating (and later dumping) of the wife that stood by him while he was in captivity in favour of the beer heiress he later married. (Oh, now that's SO progressive! Not to mention how funny that people who claim to be such devout Democrats would be defending the GOP nominee.....unless that's who many of them were going to vote for in the first place.....)
Did John Edwards screw up? Yes. Was it smart? No. Was it a plot against Sen. Clinton by the DNC or the "sexist media"? No. The posts from PUMA sites on this show two things common to PUMAs - a need to blame any and everything for Sen. Clinton's loss in the primaries, and a need to constantly play the victim as a result. This is why the only ones that take PUMA seriously are other PUMAs - because nobody else wants to buy into the victimhood and blame everyone mentality.
