Good piece. And as a Clinton-supporter, I think Wolfson has a valid point. This whole past year with the media has been very disturbing.
Except for…Jake! You did great yesterday on This Week, and you always make mention of the controversial stories.
Posted by: Vnd | August 11, 2008, 8:53 am 8:53 am
America will be called “Obama Land” with its new flag and symbols. A simple question by a 7 year old has revealed Obama beliefs where the “Media has failed”. “Why are you running for President Mr. Obama”?
Obama response was: “America is, uh, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, ‘I don’t want that future for my children.’”
Obama is not selling “hope” he is selling “despair”. America is an awful place and he “does not want that future for his children”. When Obama made the original statement that our fighting men in Iraq just “wasted their lives” it sent a chilling chord down some American families. Now Obama is sending a LARGER message that all Americans that have fought for our “freedoms” and life style have wasted their lives, as Obama is here to change America from what it is to a New America or socialism.
Posted by: Mike | August 11, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am
What makes ANYONE think that those votes would ALL have been for Hillary???
Don’t you think some may have gone to Obama, or haven’t we THOUGHT that far?
Posted by: DAVID NH | August 11, 2008, 9:14 am 9:14 am
The media failed to do its job about the Edwards affair and about Obama’s 20 years in Trinity church.
After the Wright story broke Obama lost his momentum, 9 out of 14 primaries, and the trust of many Americans.
WE know a very different side of Obama and Edwards now. No thanks to the MSM.
Posted by: riley | August 11, 2008, 9:19 am 9:19 am
It can’t be stated strongly enough how the majority of our media have manipulated this election. It’s the media’s job to report and let the chips fall where they may. When they cover-up things like Edward’s affair and Obama’s radical church and associations, they’re breaking their trust to the public. Whether the Edward’s affair would have made a difference to Hillary is pure speculation. What is fact is that we can no longer trust the media as a wholely reliable source.
Posted by: marylou | August 11, 2008, 9:29 am 9:29 am
If the media would have gone after Edwards like they did Hillary, Edwards would have never been in the race and Hillary would be the Democratic nominee.
Posted by: Sally J. | August 11, 2008, 9:30 am 9:30 am
People please! Just admit that Hillary beat her own self. Edward and Obama had nothing to do with it. Had Edwards told the truth from the beginning, Hillary still would have lost, because Obama ran a better campaign than she did. That says a lot about her leadership ability vs. his. She couldn’t even win a campaign that was wrapped up for her, so how was she going to run this country with all the problems she would inherit? It is strange that I don’t hear any Clinton dynasty supporters saying that she ran a BAD CAMPAIGN!!!
Posted by: Tina | August 11, 2008, 9:36 am 9:36 am
I am not sure if Edwards’ lies kept Hillary from becoming the nominee, but I am sure that Obama’s lies keep him in the game.
Posted by: young_voter | August 11, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
This reaffirm the need to defeat the phony Affirmative Action candi by the media and House Mommy and Senate Daddy.
Zero-bama and associates’ deceptions are not to be rewarded by a vote in November.
Posted by: fact check | August 11, 2008, 9:47 am 9:47 am
My problem with Barack Obama is the fact that as president, he will name at least one and probably two Supreme Court justices. As much as I’d like to see abortion kept legal, I have a bigger concern. McCain promises to appoint judges who will decide cases based on the constitution and laws are they are written. Obama has said that he wants judges who are “more sympathetic” to people. To what people? Obama claims he does not favor affirmative action based on race or ethnicity. However, when Ward Connerly, a conservative black man in Michigan, tried to get laws passed to end affirmative action a couple of years ago, Obama taped radio ads opposing him and arguing for affirmative action. Obama also avoids the topic of reparations. However, his radical black church calls for reparations, and I believe Obama agrees with that position. Otherwise, why would he consistently avoid the subject when asked? As Rush Limbaugh says, people who support reparations want to take money from people who never owned slaves, and give it to people who never were slaves. For this reason, above all, I am voting Republican for the very first time in my life, not only for President but for every other office on the ballot. As a Democrat, I do not want to see my own party in power. The Democrats are unable to win a national election without the overwhelming support of the black community. If it takes more affirmative action, reparations, etc. to keep the black community onboard, the Democrats will do it, regardless of its effect on other groups. I am afraid I am done with the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Edith Lenore | August 11, 2008, 9:48 am 9:48 am
“I am not sure if Edwards’ lies kept Hillary from becoming the nominee, but I am sure that Obama’s lies keep him in the game.”
young_voter -
Boy, did you hit THAT nail on its head!
PUMA!
Posted by: LeeLee07 | August 11, 2008, 9:55 am 9:55 am
I am quite sure many of the votes that went to Edwards were votes AGAINST Hillary. Her supporters cannot seem to wrap their minds around that fact that many Americans simply don’t like the Clintons. 60% of the Independents I speak with would not vote for Hillary no matter what.
Bill and Hill were smug and smarmy in the White House and denigrated the office of POTUS and First Lady. Voters in their 40′s and 50 remember those low days with clarity and do not want either one to darken the hallways of OUR White House ever again.
But some seem to be allergic to the truth.
Posted by: jmc663 | August 11, 2008, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Obama and Edwards lies keep Hillary from being the nominee
Posted by: randy | August 11, 2008, 10:08 am 10:08 am
Here in Iowa at my caucus center, the majority was either for Hillary or Obama (Obama with the most count) Edwards people had to move to one or the other or not vote at all. All of Edwards people walked to Obama, they all said they did not want a Clinton in office again, they want change, they want a new Washington and they would not get it with her.
Posted by: beck | August 11, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am
That the affair was known and Obama still used Edwards endorsement against Clinton speaks volumes. On the other hand, Wolfson’s comments just highlight that the Democratic candidacies are spilt milk. Now they have to figure out who gets what is left in the bottle.
Really, the Democrats look like rich amateurs this season. One wonders if they can keep that act together.
Posted by: len | August 11, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
riley: I will take Obamas 20 years in that church before I would even consider McCain with his lies and wife cheating ways. Besides, why should Edwards quite politics?? McCain is still going strong. Why is it every news station this weekend was pointing out the 3 who got caught this past year but not ONE word on McCain cheating on his first wife??? This is what is wrong with our country… a bunch of 2 faced people. It is ok for one but not the others. Including the news people. A whole week free of Obama and not one word on McCain and his lies, flip flopping and stupidness.
Posted by: beck | August 11, 2008, 10:16 am 10:16 am
and you know, if Obama had not run at all, she probably would have won, and if, and if, and if. All this tells me is that we definitely made the correct choice in not nominating her. “If onlys” have no place in leadership. The bottom line is, had she run a better campaign she would have won, she didn’t, she lost, and now she still has sour grapes. We already have had one petty want to be dictator in the White House for the last 7 and a half years. Enough!
Posted by: louis | August 11, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am
I initially was for Edwards. His blogger choices made me reconsider. I thought about Hillary, but Howard Wolfson reminded me of Ari Fleischer.
Now that he is at FOX he reminds me of Karl Rove without any wins on his resume. Paid to do damage.
Posted by: ricky | August 11, 2008, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Wolfson has a very good point. No one is saying that Obama is not going to be the nominee but what Edwards did, has made a huge impact on America.
I for one will not be voting for Obama. He is grossly under-qualified especially to deal with a superpower like Russia who seems to be trying to regain the power that it had as the USSR. Obama would make America seem weak. I’m not willing to risk the security of our nation in order to vote for someone who promises “change” and really stands on nothing of substance.
This Democrat will be voting for McCain in ’08
Let’s hope the DNC is smarter in 4 years.
Posted by: Pete | August 11, 2008, 10:53 am 10:53 am
As a Clinton supporter Wolfson shut up. Yeah maybe if Edwards was outed before the Iowa primary Hillary would have got more delegates, but why bring it up now? As one of the emails suggests STOP IT NOW
Posted by: rachel | August 11, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am
The real problem here is the way the primaries are set up. You shouldn’t have a minor state like Iowa have such a great impact on the future outcome.
Would Hillary have won Iowa had Edwards dropped out? Is there any exit polling data to suggest that? Edwards had a lot in common with Clinton and Obama, so they could have broken either way.
But this whole story makes you wonder what skeletons in Obama’s closet the media is covering up.
I think it’s fair to say now that aside from a few respectable journalists (including Jake of course!), the media in general (minus fxnews) would cover up a damaging Obama scandal until AFTER the elections.
Posted by: JA | August 11, 2008, 11:06 am 11:06 am
Typical creepy Clinton camp response – “it is some one else’s fault”.
All I can say is thank goodness for all of the people who helped her lose – starting with Wolfson, Penn, and creepy Bill. And we now see that their true colors were exposed during the campaign as elitist, sexists, and racists.
Posted by: disambiguates | August 11, 2008, 11:07 am 11:07 am
I think your charges were meant to be directed at Obama, right?
Elitist – bitter poor folk toting their guns and religion, how much is this arugala?
Sexist – (Jake did a nice article on that one)
Racist – typical white people, sat in the pews of Reverend Wright.
Posted by: JA | August 11, 2008, 11:11 am 11:11 am
Wolfson in right. But we all know that Obama is going to be the Dem nominee. I for one will not vote for Obama because he is grossly under-qualified.
Can you imagine the US run by Obama (pretending to be president) and trying to stand up to a superpower like Russia.
Obama–No Way!
This Dem is voting against the arrogant , narcissistic Obama!
Posted by: West | August 11, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am
HILLARY CLINTON IS A NEOCON. Plain and simple. She is no working class warrior. The Clinton’s are predators who make their living of manipulating, deceiving and defrauding the working classes in this country. The Appalachian Campaign and her appeal to white lower-income, women and blue collar voters was by design to drive a wedge into the Democratic Party, ala Jessie Helms and George Wallace, to make it more difficult for Obama to have the full party embrace his candidacy. Hillary & McCain share many similarly situated advisors, lobbyists and special interests. As McCain’s Neocon wing man, Hillary did what she had to do when it became obvious she could not win and that was to sew seeds of discontent in the working class communities to turn away from the eventual Democratic nominee.
Posted by: Christopher London | August 11, 2008, 11:54 am 11:54 am
We have seen this steady drum beat from the creepy Clinton camp. The Enquirer with its connection to the Clintons via attorney David Kendall broke the Edwards story. Now Wolfson is putting out this recast of the election – of course if more people had voted for Clinton she would have won. Creepy Mike Gravel could make the same argument.
I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. When is the creepy Clinton camp going to release the story on Obama? I am thinking it will happen with in a week of the convention – too late to do anything about – too early to forget it.
Posted by: disambiguates | August 11, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am
NO DRAMA OBAMA WAS THE BETTER CANDIDATE!
OBAMA RAN AN EFFICIENT & EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN!
FOR GOD’S SAKE, CLINTONS, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ABYSMAL FAILURE!
CLINTONS RAN A LOUSY CAMPAIGN!
CLINTONS RAN AN INEPT CAMPAIGN!
CLINTONS RAN A CAMPAIGN INTO THE GROUND AND INTO DEBT!
IS THERE STILL NO DIGNITY IN THE CLINTONS CAMPAIGN?
More reason for Americans to move on pass the Clintons’ baggage!
Turn the page, America!
“We have seen this steady drum beat from the creepy Clinton camp.”
When in trouble with the party, blame the Clintons. When in trouble in the polls, blame racism.
It’s time for Obama to get some new material. The summer romance hit season is coming to a close.
Posted by: len | August 11, 2008, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
Perhaps, it is the lies of the Clinton campaign that kept her in the race.
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | August 11, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Maybe the horrible campaign clinton ran kept her from winning,First they blame dnc then obama now Edwards, IT IS NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE FAULTS HILLARY RAN A BAD CAMPAIGN SHE HER HILLARY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER CAMPAIGN NO ONE ELSE STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE (MEDIA,OBAMA,NOW EDWARDS,DNC) she lost thats that get over it move on!!!!!!!
It was over two months ago and The Clinton Cultists are still boiling, seething, and desperately looking for someone to blame. They’ve collectively adapted the Clintons’ narcissism, i.e., everything that went wrong with the campaign is someone else’s fault or the result of a “vast” conspiracy.
Other than Shrub, have there ever been two people more incapable of self-reflection and personal responsibility?
Posted by: Howard, NY | August 11, 2008, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm
The point being made, is how the media favored candidates, altered what news they would release thus manipulating one party’s primary. They are still trying to manipulate the division among DEMS.
BIG DIFFERENCE!! McCain’s sins happened over THIRTY YEARS ago WHEN MCCAIN JUST GOT HOME FROM VIETNAM. HE DID NOT LIE ABOUT IT and……. HE WAS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Oh, geez!! Here we go again!! And the South could’ve and should’ve won the Civil War if only they had B-52′s…..! Just bitter fantasy! Plus, the research and exit polls in Iowa showed that people who voted for Edwards cited Obama as their 2nd choice, NOT Hillary. So, really, if Edwards had dropped out, Obama would have won by more. Hillary simply would have still lost!
Posted by: Deb S. | August 11, 2008, 9:15 pm 9:15 pm
Wolfson makes a compelling case. There were rumblings of Edward’s affair more than a year ago, and the media sat on the story until Obama’s nomination was in the bag! I totally agree with Wolfson, and history will prove him right. The media is so “in the tank” for Obama it’s a wonder they haven’t all drowned.
P U M A!
Posted by: Jan | August 11, 2008, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
This is Hillary’s world. If she wants it.
She is a brilliant woman with a brilliant mind. Was she lied to? of course. Was she scorned? Yes. But worse we all were lied to and scorned. Cheated of the chance to have a world that would right itself at last.
I don’t blame Hillary if she now refuses her world.
All I can say is that Hillary is a sore loser. She needs to get her act together and pay her debts. If she can’t pay her debts how can she run our country. Wolfson doesn’t have any common sense. The only one that has any common sense is Barack Obama. And that is who I am voting for.
Posted by: mary | August 12, 2008, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Email
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Good piece. And as a Clinton-supporter, I think Wolfson has a valid point. This whole past year with the media has been very disturbing.
Except for…Jake! You did great yesterday on This Week, and you always make mention of the controversial stories.
Posted by: Vnd | August 11, 2008, 8:53 am 8:53 am
America will be called “Obama Land” with its new flag and symbols. A simple question by a 7 year old has revealed Obama beliefs where the “Media has failed”. “Why are you running for President Mr. Obama”?
Obama response was: “America is, uh, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, ‘I don’t want that future for my children.’”
Obama is not selling “hope” he is selling “despair”. America is an awful place and he “does not want that future for his children”. When Obama made the original statement that our fighting men in Iraq just “wasted their lives” it sent a chilling chord down some American families. Now Obama is sending a LARGER message that all Americans that have fought for our “freedoms” and life style have wasted their lives, as Obama is here to change America from what it is to a New America or socialism.
Posted by: Mike | August 11, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am
What makes ANYONE think that those votes would ALL have been for Hillary???
Don’t you think some may have gone to Obama, or haven’t we THOUGHT that far?
Posted by: DAVID NH | August 11, 2008, 9:14 am 9:14 am
The media failed to do its job about the Edwards affair and about Obama’s 20 years in Trinity church.
After the Wright story broke Obama lost his momentum, 9 out of 14 primaries, and the trust of many Americans.
WE know a very different side of Obama and Edwards now. No thanks to the MSM.
Posted by: riley | August 11, 2008, 9:19 am 9:19 am
It can’t be stated strongly enough how the majority of our media have manipulated this election. It’s the media’s job to report and let the chips fall where they may. When they cover-up things like Edward’s affair and Obama’s radical church and associations, they’re breaking their trust to the public. Whether the Edward’s affair would have made a difference to Hillary is pure speculation. What is fact is that we can no longer trust the media as a wholely reliable source.
Posted by: marylou | August 11, 2008, 9:29 am 9:29 am
If the media would have gone after Edwards like they did Hillary, Edwards would have never been in the race and Hillary would be the Democratic nominee.
Posted by: Sally J. | August 11, 2008, 9:30 am 9:30 am
People please! Just admit that Hillary beat her own self. Edward and Obama had nothing to do with it. Had Edwards told the truth from the beginning, Hillary still would have lost, because Obama ran a better campaign than she did. That says a lot about her leadership ability vs. his. She couldn’t even win a campaign that was wrapped up for her, so how was she going to run this country with all the problems she would inherit? It is strange that I don’t hear any Clinton dynasty supporters saying that she ran a BAD CAMPAIGN!!!
Posted by: Tina | August 11, 2008, 9:36 am 9:36 am
I am not sure if Edwards’ lies kept Hillary from becoming the nominee, but I am sure that Obama’s lies keep him in the game.
Posted by: young_voter | August 11, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
This reaffirm the need to defeat the phony Affirmative Action candi by the media and House Mommy and Senate Daddy.
Zero-bama and associates’ deceptions are not to be rewarded by a vote in November.
Posted by: fact check | August 11, 2008, 9:47 am 9:47 am
My problem with Barack Obama is the fact that as president, he will name at least one and probably two Supreme Court justices. As much as I’d like to see abortion kept legal, I have a bigger concern. McCain promises to appoint judges who will decide cases based on the constitution and laws are they are written. Obama has said that he wants judges who are “more sympathetic” to people. To what people? Obama claims he does not favor affirmative action based on race or ethnicity. However, when Ward Connerly, a conservative black man in Michigan, tried to get laws passed to end affirmative action a couple of years ago, Obama taped radio ads opposing him and arguing for affirmative action. Obama also avoids the topic of reparations. However, his radical black church calls for reparations, and I believe Obama agrees with that position. Otherwise, why would he consistently avoid the subject when asked? As Rush Limbaugh says, people who support reparations want to take money from people who never owned slaves, and give it to people who never were slaves. For this reason, above all, I am voting Republican for the very first time in my life, not only for President but for every other office on the ballot. As a Democrat, I do not want to see my own party in power. The Democrats are unable to win a national election without the overwhelming support of the black community. If it takes more affirmative action, reparations, etc. to keep the black community onboard, the Democrats will do it, regardless of its effect on other groups. I am afraid I am done with the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Edith Lenore | August 11, 2008, 9:48 am 9:48 am
“I am not sure if Edwards’ lies kept Hillary from becoming the nominee, but I am sure that Obama’s lies keep him in the game.”
young_voter -
Boy, did you hit THAT nail on its head!
PUMA!
Posted by: LeeLee07 | August 11, 2008, 9:55 am 9:55 am
I am quite sure many of the votes that went to Edwards were votes AGAINST Hillary. Her supporters cannot seem to wrap their minds around that fact that many Americans simply don’t like the Clintons. 60% of the Independents I speak with would not vote for Hillary no matter what.
Bill and Hill were smug and smarmy in the White House and denigrated the office of POTUS and First Lady. Voters in their 40′s and 50 remember those low days with clarity and do not want either one to darken the hallways of OUR White House ever again.
But some seem to be allergic to the truth.
Posted by: jmc663 | August 11, 2008, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Obama and Edwards lies keep Hillary from being the nominee
Posted by: randy | August 11, 2008, 10:08 am 10:08 am
Here in Iowa at my caucus center, the majority was either for Hillary or Obama (Obama with the most count) Edwards people had to move to one or the other or not vote at all. All of Edwards people walked to Obama, they all said they did not want a Clinton in office again, they want change, they want a new Washington and they would not get it with her.
Posted by: beck | August 11, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am
That the affair was known and Obama still used Edwards endorsement against Clinton speaks volumes. On the other hand, Wolfson’s comments just highlight that the Democratic candidacies are spilt milk. Now they have to figure out who gets what is left in the bottle.
Really, the Democrats look like rich amateurs this season. One wonders if they can keep that act together.
Posted by: len | August 11, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
riley: I will take Obamas 20 years in that church before I would even consider McCain with his lies and wife cheating ways. Besides, why should Edwards quite politics?? McCain is still going strong. Why is it every news station this weekend was pointing out the 3 who got caught this past year but not ONE word on McCain cheating on his first wife??? This is what is wrong with our country… a bunch of 2 faced people. It is ok for one but not the others. Including the news people. A whole week free of Obama and not one word on McCain and his lies, flip flopping and stupidness.
Posted by: beck | August 11, 2008, 10:16 am 10:16 am
and you know, if Obama had not run at all, she probably would have won, and if, and if, and if. All this tells me is that we definitely made the correct choice in not nominating her. “If onlys” have no place in leadership. The bottom line is, had she run a better campaign she would have won, she didn’t, she lost, and now she still has sour grapes. We already have had one petty want to be dictator in the White House for the last 7 and a half years. Enough!
Posted by: louis | August 11, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am
I initially was for Edwards. His blogger choices made me reconsider. I thought about Hillary, but Howard Wolfson reminded me of Ari Fleischer.
Now that he is at FOX he reminds me of Karl Rove without any wins on his resume. Paid to do damage.
Posted by: ricky | August 11, 2008, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Wolfson has a very good point. No one is saying that Obama is not going to be the nominee but what Edwards did, has made a huge impact on America.
I for one will not be voting for Obama. He is grossly under-qualified especially to deal with a superpower like Russia who seems to be trying to regain the power that it had as the USSR. Obama would make America seem weak. I’m not willing to risk the security of our nation in order to vote for someone who promises “change” and really stands on nothing of substance.
This Democrat will be voting for McCain in ’08
Let’s hope the DNC is smarter in 4 years.
Posted by: Pete | August 11, 2008, 10:53 am 10:53 am
As a Clinton supporter Wolfson shut up. Yeah maybe if Edwards was outed before the Iowa primary Hillary would have got more delegates, but why bring it up now? As one of the emails suggests STOP IT NOW
Posted by: rachel | August 11, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am
The real problem here is the way the primaries are set up. You shouldn’t have a minor state like Iowa have such a great impact on the future outcome.
Would Hillary have won Iowa had Edwards dropped out? Is there any exit polling data to suggest that? Edwards had a lot in common with Clinton and Obama, so they could have broken either way.
But this whole story makes you wonder what skeletons in Obama’s closet the media is covering up.
I think it’s fair to say now that aside from a few respectable journalists (including Jake of course!), the media in general (minus fxnews) would cover up a damaging Obama scandal until AFTER the elections.
Posted by: JA | August 11, 2008, 11:06 am 11:06 am
Typical creepy Clinton camp response – “it is some one else’s fault”.
All I can say is thank goodness for all of the people who helped her lose – starting with Wolfson, Penn, and creepy Bill. And we now see that their true colors were exposed during the campaign as elitist, sexists, and racists.
Posted by: disambiguates | August 11, 2008, 11:07 am 11:07 am
I think your charges were meant to be directed at Obama, right?
Elitist – bitter poor folk toting their guns and religion, how much is this arugala?
Sexist – (Jake did a nice article on that one)
Racist – typical white people, sat in the pews of Reverend Wright.
Posted by: JA | August 11, 2008, 11:11 am 11:11 am
Wolfson in right. But we all know that Obama is going to be the Dem nominee. I for one will not vote for Obama because he is grossly under-qualified.
Can you imagine the US run by Obama (pretending to be president) and trying to stand up to a superpower like Russia.
Obama–No Way!
This Dem is voting against the arrogant , narcissistic Obama!
Posted by: West | August 11, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am
HILLARY CLINTON IS A NEOCON. Plain and simple. She is no working class warrior. The Clinton’s are predators who make their living of manipulating, deceiving and defrauding the working classes in this country. The Appalachian Campaign and her appeal to white lower-income, women and blue collar voters was by design to drive a wedge into the Democratic Party, ala Jessie Helms and George Wallace, to make it more difficult for Obama to have the full party embrace his candidacy. Hillary & McCain share many similarly situated advisors, lobbyists and special interests. As McCain’s Neocon wing man, Hillary did what she had to do when it became obvious she could not win and that was to sew seeds of discontent in the working class communities to turn away from the eventual Democratic nominee.
Posted by: Christopher London | August 11, 2008, 11:54 am 11:54 am
We have seen this steady drum beat from the creepy Clinton camp. The Enquirer with its connection to the Clintons via attorney David Kendall broke the Edwards story. Now Wolfson is putting out this recast of the election – of course if more people had voted for Clinton she would have won. Creepy Mike Gravel could make the same argument.
I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. When is the creepy Clinton camp going to release the story on Obama? I am thinking it will happen with in a week of the convention – too late to do anything about – too early to forget it.
Posted by: disambiguates | August 11, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am
NO DRAMA OBAMA WAS THE BETTER CANDIDATE!
OBAMA RAN AN EFFICIENT & EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN!
FOR GOD’S SAKE, CLINTONS, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ABYSMAL FAILURE!
CLINTONS RAN A LOUSY CAMPAIGN!
CLINTONS RAN AN INEPT CAMPAIGN!
CLINTONS RAN A CAMPAIGN INTO THE GROUND AND INTO DEBT!
IS THERE STILL NO DIGNITY IN THE CLINTONS CAMPAIGN?
More reason for Americans to move on pass the Clintons’ baggage!
Turn the page, America!
Posted by: Patriot | August 11, 2008, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
“We have seen this steady drum beat from the creepy Clinton camp.”
When in trouble with the party, blame the Clintons. When in trouble in the polls, blame racism.
It’s time for Obama to get some new material. The summer romance hit season is coming to a close.
Posted by: len | August 11, 2008, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
Perhaps, it is the lies of the Clinton campaign that kept her in the race.
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | August 11, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Maybe the horrible campaign clinton ran kept her from winning,First they blame dnc then obama now Edwards, IT IS NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE FAULTS HILLARY RAN A BAD CAMPAIGN SHE HER HILLARY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER CAMPAIGN NO ONE ELSE STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE (MEDIA,OBAMA,NOW EDWARDS,DNC) she lost thats that get over it move on!!!!!!!
Posted by: angie | August 11, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
It was over two months ago and The Clinton Cultists are still boiling, seething, and desperately looking for someone to blame. They’ve collectively adapted the Clintons’ narcissism, i.e., everything that went wrong with the campaign is someone else’s fault or the result of a “vast” conspiracy.
Other than Shrub, have there ever been two people more incapable of self-reflection and personal responsibility?
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | August 11, 2008, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
Can you imagine the US run by Obama (pretending to be president) and trying to stand up to a superpower like Russia.
Posted by: Belle Starr | August 11, 2008, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Actually Clinton would have still lost. After Edwards left the race and before he endorsed Obama majority of his supporters voted for Barack.
Posted by: Vanessa | August 11, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
In a word: nonsense.
Posted by: Howard, NY | August 11, 2008, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm
The point being made, is how the media favored candidates, altered what news they would release thus manipulating one party’s primary. They are still trying to manipulate the division among DEMS.
Posted by: irma | August 11, 2008, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
BIG DIFFERENCE!! McCain’s sins happened over THIRTY YEARS ago WHEN MCCAIN JUST GOT HOME FROM VIETNAM. HE DID NOT LIE ABOUT IT and……. HE WAS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Posted by: Manitu | August 11, 2008, 7:51 pm 7:51 pm
Oh, geez!! Here we go again!! And the South could’ve and should’ve won the Civil War if only they had B-52′s…..! Just bitter fantasy! Plus, the research and exit polls in Iowa showed that people who voted for Edwards cited Obama as their 2nd choice, NOT Hillary. So, really, if Edwards had dropped out, Obama would have won by more. Hillary simply would have still lost!
Posted by: Deb S. | August 11, 2008, 9:15 pm 9:15 pm
Wolfson makes a compelling case. There were rumblings of Edward’s affair more than a year ago, and the media sat on the story until Obama’s nomination was in the bag! I totally agree with Wolfson, and history will prove him right. The media is so “in the tank” for Obama it’s a wonder they haven’t all drowned.
P U M A!
Posted by: Jan | August 11, 2008, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
This is Hillary’s world. If she wants it.
She is a brilliant woman with a brilliant mind. Was she lied to? of course. Was she scorned? Yes. But worse we all were lied to and scorned. Cheated of the chance to have a world that would right itself at last.
I don’t blame Hillary if she now refuses her world.
Posted by: Nija | August 12, 2008, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
All I can say is that Hillary is a sore loser. She needs to get her act together and pay her debts. If she can’t pay her debts how can she run our country. Wolfson doesn’t have any common sense. The only one that has any common sense is Barack Obama. And that is who I am voting for.
Posted by: mary | August 12, 2008, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm