Edwards Cover-Up Cost Hillary The Nomination?
By Brian "The Squeaky Wheel" | Monday, August 11th, 2008 | PoliticsFormer Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com that he is convinced had the Edwards scandal hit earlier in the primaries, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination. Read about it here.
What do you think? Does he have a point? If so, is anyone to blame other than the mainstream media who knew about this story for YEARS but sat on it? And why do you think they did so? To help Obama? To protect Edwards? To hurt Clinton? I really want everyone’s opinions (Try not to attack each other on this one. Be a pundit, not a surrogate)
Cross Posted at BDO
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Brian "The Squeaky Wheel"
Comments
7 Responses to "Edwards Cover-Up Cost Hillary The Nomination?"
Would the dynamics of the race been different? Absolutely. Did it cost HRC the nomination? We’ll never know.
Why they sat on the story? Because it would have changed the focus away from their meme of the first woman/first black candidates.
I’m just happy she’s out of the race.
So let me pose this to you… Do you think other felt that way too and sat on the story? Do you think other in politics or media who knew about it (and apperently a LOT of folks did) sat on it to make sure he stayed in the race?
Let me throw this out there… Does anyone think this is just sour grapes from Howard Wolfson? If so, does anyone believe it is a way for the Clintons to say this without saying this? Does nayone believe Howard Wolfson speaks without first speaking to Bill and Hillary?
Complete speculation on my part.
SW, most likely planned talking points. It’s just how it’s done.
All I can say is if a Republican candidate was hitting the sheets with an infobabe and paying her six figures from the campaign, and the press knew it, how many seconds do you think it would take to be on every front page and tv screen?
This will be more impetus for those idiot PUMA folks. Any latching on to this theory is simply grasping for any rationalization for Hillary’s defeat.
As much as I do not want to turn this into a “Liberals get away with murder” thread, Kirwin is right. The only thing that would have closed the media to press about a Republican doing this would be getting up from falling over each other…
But in this case, did the media protect a Democrat, or was it Edwards in particular this time? Is this a case of Liberal bias or anti-Hillary?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.