Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
....
"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."
I can only speak for myself, but had I not voted for Edwards in the primary, it would have been Obama. This is exactly like the Gorons' insistence that all those Naderistas would have automatically given Al what had been comported to him by divine fiat. Which is a load of crap, to put it mildly.
Hell, if you must go there, maybe if Puffy hadn't mistaken the Oval Office for a happy-ending massage parlor, people wouldn't have gotten so sick of all things Clinton-Gore that they handed the keys over to the village idiot. Is that where Wolfson wants to take this? Because that's certainly one logical conclusion.
2 comments:
And a good one at that.
I must say, my anecdotal experience supports your hypothesis about Clinton vs. Gore. My mom had always been a Democratic voter, but in 2000 she voted an all-Democrat ticket with Bush at the top. Flabbergasted, I asked her why, and she said that the Clinton affair proves how immoral the Democratic leadership is. She's voted solid Republican ever since (mainly due to 911, I suppose).
Post a Comment