You mean, she would have coasted in Iowa had Edwards' not been on the ticket

The Clintonistas may have been quiet most of this summer. It doesn't mean they put their grinding stones nor their axes away. It certainly doesn't mean that Howard Wolfson, Patti Solis-Doyle, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton are willing to step up to the bat and take responsibility for the most mismanaged primary of the last 3 presidetial elections cycles.

So when I read the following denial-laden rant by Howard Wolfson, it just doesn't strike me as out of character:

ABC News: Wolfson: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination:
"'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.

[...]

'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.' "

What's shocking is that historically full-of-douchebageosity James Carville actually comes out sounding like the only Clintonista in touch with reality and devoid of spin. Who knew!

It's almost as shocking ABCNews' analysis, which has been known to prefer Clinton over Obama. They point out that the minute Edwards dropped from the race, Obama won 11 primaries in a row.

That couldn't really support Wolfson's theory, couldn't it?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |