Since the news of Edwards affair broke on Friday, I've been waiting for this:
"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.
Does the Clinton campaign really want to base their loss on an affair? If they want to go there, then perhaps an argument could be made that Hillary would have won if people were positive Bill could keep it in his pants. I hate using an analogy like that, but with Wolfson saying this, I am sure more people will raise the same point now.
If I was Hillary Clinton, I would release a statement saying that Howard Wolfson no longer speaks for the campaign. It's time to throw this sore loser under the bus and move on.
Comments
It seems Little Bill is to Blame for everything. Whenever the Clintons put forth any rational, reasonable, & logical argument someone always pipes up from the back of the classroom(blogosphere) and shouts out "Bill's fly is unzipped". Last time I checked any number of his Nemisises, Gingrich, Hasert, Bill Bennett, Ted Haggard, etc et al all seem to have fallen from grace by their own foibles other than the anointed erstwhile Kansas farm child. I suppose for some the Clintons whose years of public service and accomplishments stand as a reminder to their detractors of their ability to actually get something done, to build up rather than to tear down, to address public issues rather than point fingers. Someone called wolfson up and he answered them observing a solid possibility. Its like Toby Kieth pointed out Obama sounds like a Caucasian. Its a solid observation. As a liberal supporter of Hillary and a political science major both statements are solid observations. Of course outside of the classroom they are both political greased pigs. The are hard to catch, harder to hold, and make for quite a spectacle. Spectacles as we know are something to avoid in politics.
Post new comment