Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Did Edwards' Lies Hurt Biden and Richardson?

August 11, 2008 12:23 PM

Some former Clinton aides are suggesting that by remaining in the race despite having had a recent affair, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, hurt the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

I'm not so sure.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson came in 4th in Iowa, maybe Edwards' voters would have gone to him.

Or perhaps they would have flocked to two other white men in the race, Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del, or Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Clinton folks say their polls showed Clinton would have gotten about 2/3rds of Edwards' Iowa voters.

But as I recall, Clinton's Iowa polling was pretty God-awful.

The bottom line is gaming such a thing out is futile.

But, for those Clinton supporters who are increasingly like the Imperial Japanese Army soldiers found in the Philippines, Thailand and elsewhere decades after World War II ended, I guess it fits in with the general mindset.

- jpt

August 11, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (74)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hillary was repeatedly abused, scorned and lied to during the course of the so-called Political Campaign.

Sexism oozed from every pore of the mainstrem media's so-called correspondents. they cheered her failure. they laughed at her woe.

Woe is all of us. WE have lost.

Hillary will stay strong. She will overcome. This woman is remarkable.

But will we overcome?

god bless america.

Posted by: Nija | Aug 12, 2008 12:40:22 PM

Ok lets say Edwards had withdrawn in disgrace before Iowa. Lets assume for a moment that Clinton narrowly wins the caucus, ahead of Obama, she then goes to New Hampshire without great momentum, as the media assumes she should have won Iowa by more. But she isn't humbled enough by the result to resort to the crying moment. Obama then wins New Hampshire, reaasonably narrowly but has a narrow second, in a state where Huckabee won the GOP caucus after all, and a win in the NH Primary. All of a sudden moving forward Obama has the big mo coming out of New Hampshire, wins Nevada and South Carolina, and all Hillary has to show for the pre Super Tuesday states is a narrow win in the first caucus state, Obama then does significantly better in the Super Tuesday states than he actually did and takes that momentum into his 11 state run through feb. He is by now, effectively the nominee, and seen as such, and Clinton withdraws early enough not to cause fissures in the party.

All of this is not to say that that would have happened, but Wolfson cannot possibly know all of the ripples that would have happened without Edwards in the contest.

Posted by: markymark | Aug 12, 2008 11:45:56 AM

In every corner of America we are hunkered down.
PUMA will be here long after the dust settles. We are planning a third party, the cats are on the prowl..
THE IMPERIAL PUMA PARTY!
Posted by: HP Boston | Aug 11, 2008 3:24:44 PM
*********************************

YEH Lets do a new party. the old one is dead and rotten carrion. the new leader has proven to be totally corrupt. what can be expected from a Chicago politician.

Democrat No More
Looking for a place to park
Voting for McCain this election.
Punish the Dems for their arrogance and abuse of the voters.


People should have fought against the other great orator Hitler and we would have a better world. Our Democratic Constitution demands we fight to the bitter end. NO MORE ABUSE from Obama and DNC.

Posted by: DemocratNoMore2 | Aug 12, 2008 8:37:50 AM

First of all, Richardson isn't white, he's Hispanic. Second of all, Hillary polled at 30% in a seven-way race, only 1% below Edwards -- not exactly "god-awful". Even if Edwards voters had simply decided to stay home (rather than vote for Hillary or whomever), she still would have finished a solid second and been in a much stronger position heading into New Hampshire.

Posted by: Alex | Aug 11, 2008 10:19:02 PM

I was present at the Iowa caucus. This majority-White state punished Hillary Rodham Clinton specifically for her vote to authorize the Iraq War and her refusal to acknowledge that her vote of authorization may have been a mistake in judgement. Likely because apologizing didn't work for Kerry four years prior. But... that was four years ago. HRCs vote for war is why Obama was the first choice for Iowans and Edwards was the second choice for Iowans with Clinton last. EVEN AFTER EDWARDS SUSPENDED HIS CAMPAIGN... Iowa reaffirmed its decision at the next convention and nearly all of Edwards' delegates decided to align themselves with Obama's campaign, NOT CLINTON's. Why? It was always the Iraq War. Hillary lost the Iowa caucus years ago. If she had ignored the bad triangulation advice from Bill Clinton to vote for the war, she probably would have won Iowa. If she had ignored the bad campaign advice she got from Penn (or likely Wolfson, since he seems eager to deflect blame) to refuse to apologize or back down during the campaign, she would have won Iowa. She was given many, many opportunities to open her mouth and say the words in debate after debate. She either would not or could not. And now, her campaign advisers continue to blame everyone except Hillary Clinton for Hillary Clinton's lost. Doesn't look good now. Won't look good in 2012 when Hillary has to ask Iowa for support again. Just a few moments of bad strategy and judgement in a long line of bad strategy and judgement this past primary season.

Posted by: Sandy | Aug 11, 2008 8:56:29 PM

vote hillary

you have your numbers wrong...it is all about a general election

a lot different than a primary

and in the primary it is Hillary who with her low ceiling would be with the bigger uphill battle

I know I know...

spin it spin it

but again a start of a 51%approval/likability before primaries

not she has a lot less than that

especially in independents.

so please

Obama's numbers for the general are incredibly good. No matter how anyone wants to spin it.

Posted by: dl | Aug 11, 2008 7:37:30 PM

Howard Wolfson doesn't exactly sound like he'll be winning any good sportsmanship awards.

Posted by: Danny | Aug 11, 2008 7:22:46 PM

Hmmmmmm, where is the touted unity among Democrats! It doesn't take much for you Obama supporters to eject your claws at the mention of a Hillary win! That is why Hillary supporters will not vote for Bammy! Do you want to know what really would have hurt Bammy's chances - if the media had done their job and reported on such issues as Wright, Rezco, Ayres . . . and the list goes on! Why would you want to put another slicker in the WH?

Posted by: Beckie | Aug 11, 2008 7:14:41 PM

I think we all need to move on past the primaries. They're over!

As regards former Senator Edwards, can anyone put themselves in the mind of a man who has lost a child in a car wreck and is losing his wife to cancer?

Let's not be too hasty in judging his actions which he has admitted were wrong and deeply hurtful to his family.

It is a pity that this episode will detract from his message which was focusing media attention on the issue of poverty in America in a way that it has not done since the Johnson administration.

Des
IRELAND

Posted by: Des | Aug 11, 2008 7:13:11 PM

VoteHillary

'They will be more liberal than Karl Marx'. Not very hard given that Marx wasn't actually really at all liberal. (Religion is the opiate of the masses and all that.) Now you could have said 'More liberal than Jefferson' or 'more liberal than the founding fathers' but I guess that wasn't the point you were going for.

And besides isn't Hillary supposed to be a liberal? Are you freudianly giving away your true political leanings?

Posted by: markymark | Aug 11, 2008 6:29:29 PM


"Recent polls have shown 86% of the people who voted for Hillary are happy to support Obama now."

Did they use word "happy"?

Posted by: Al Johnson | Aug 11, 2008 5:30:16 PM

"Many who voted for him have regretted it."

NOT. Check your facts. Once Hillary started throwing the kitchen sink, there were a ton more people regretting their vote for Hillary, just as people are hating McCain's nastiness. Recent polls have shown 86% of the people who voted for Hillary are happy to support Obama now.

Posted by: sharon | Aug 11, 2008 5:00:03 PM


"Obama isn't half the man McCain is, but Hillary is."

Agreed. Obama refused to debate Clinton. He is just not a stand-up person.

Posted by: Al Johnson | Aug 11, 2008 4:25:28 PM

Newswatcher

Hillary can beat McCain
Obama can't

Do you really want 4 more years of Republican rule?

Posted by: Vote Hillary | Aug 11, 2008 4:21:44 PM


"Obama won this nomination fair and square."

Absolutely NOT. Clinton lost because Obama was not well vetted until after the first 11 primaries. It was nip and tuck for Obama after that. The early primaries he won were before his scandals (Wright, Rezko, Ayers, etc hit the news. Many who voted for him have regretted it.

Posted by: Al Johnson | Aug 11, 2008 4:17:28 PM

Could of, Would of, Should of.... enough with the excuses. It's over. Move on.

Posted by: Vanessa | Aug 11, 2008 4:12:26 PM

Obama won this nomination fair and square. Hillary lost this nomination for several reasons: 1) Hillary and her campaign didn't realize this was a change election and ran her campaign as if she were a successful incumbent running for re-election, 2) Hillary's campaign ran the same 16 state stategy (big states versus small states) during the primaries that has failed the dems in the last 2 national elections. A strategy that basically ignores two-thirds of America and only campaigns in a handful of states. Her campaign didn't for example really focus on the caucus states. Out of several caucus states, Hillary only won 1 of those states. That strategy really hurt her campaign, and 3) Hillary assumed that the primary would be over with by Super Tuesday and did not budget financially for the race to go further should that had been neccessary. Hillary herself was interviewed during the primaries by one of the major networks and said that the primaries would be over with by Super Tuesday. To PUMAS and the rest that will not except that she fairly lost this primary, you need to go to therapy treatments now. There was no conspiracy against Hillary. Her campaign's strategy was wrong. That is what cost her this nomination period.

Posted by: Newswatcher | Aug 11, 2008 3:54:45
--------------------------------------

This is and has always been the Obama and DNC RETORIC!!
It is hogwash and does not past the smell test. You are probably an EDWARDS fan too!

Posted by: HP Boston | Aug 11, 2008 4:04:56 PM

As I recall, Iowa was a caucus state and Obama campaign had that all covered with manipulating and controlling caucus outcomes (nasty stories along the campaign trail....should eliminate caucus process, as far as I'm concerned and do vote only in voting booth).
Hillary fell behind because Americans were feeling so desperate for a change, any face yelling "change" would do, so he won 11 straight primaries, all his negatives came out too late....Hillary came back stronger than ever and won 9 out of the last 14.
Or maybe Obama had those lucky 11 wins becase AMERICAN IDOL wasn't on yet.

Posted by: Deb | Aug 11, 2008 4:03:48 PM

Obama won this nomination fair and square. Hillary lost this nomination for several reasons: 1) Hillary and her campaign didn't realize this was a change election and ran her campaign as if she were a successful incumbent running for re-election, 2) Hillary's campaign ran the same 16 state stategy (big states versus small states) during the primaries that has failed the dems in the last 2 national elections. A strategy that basically ignores two-thirds of America and only campaigns in a handful of states. Her campaign didn't for example really focus on the caucus states. Out of several caucus states, Hillary only won 1 of those states. That strategy really hurt her campaign, and 3) Hillary assumed that the primary would be over with by Super Tuesday and did not budget financially for the race to go further should that had been neccessary. Hillary herself was interviewed during the primaries by one of the major networks and said that the primaries would be over with by Super Tuesday. To PUMAS and the rest that will not except that she fairly lost this primary, you need to go to therapy treatments now. There was no conspiracy against Hillary. Her campaign's strategy was wrong. That is what cost her this nomination period.

Posted by: Newswatcher | Aug 11, 2008 3:54:45 PM

Obama spokesman Bill Burton says “McCain offers nothing but the status quo.” Do the Democrats think if they utter variations of the Bush = McCain theme enough times, it will somehow become true? I’m a 54 year old Democrat, never voted Republican in my life, and I don’t think McCain is George Bush. For a Republican, McCain is not that bad. On the other hand, Obama continually shows me he’s not ready for prime-time. What kind of idiot tells a little schoolkid that “America is not what it used to be, not what it could be. . .. “ Even if that were true, which it’s not, is it really appropriate to say something like to a young child? This is a small thing, of course, but it reveals so much about his judgement, his vision of America, and his underlying cynicism. His remarks in Springfield, MO, in which he claimed McCain and the Republicans were going to portray him as “different” was clearly an insinuation that the Repubs are racist. Shouldn’t he have waited until they actually did play the race card before attacking them on it? Didn’t he play this same game against the Clintons? I’m a lifelong Democrat, but I’m not buying into Obama-mania. I’ll vote Democratic down ticket, but for President, it’s Nader or stay home. (Or McCain, if the race is close).

Posted by: Nina Ruth | Aug 11, 2008 3:52:58 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS