Howard Wolfson is, yet again, proven to be an ass:

Wolfson, in yet another sign that some Clinton acolytes are having difficulty letting go of the past, caused a stir by telling ABC News that his boss would have captured the Democratic nod had Edwards been forced to the sidelines before the Iowa caucuses in early January.  

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," the often pugnacious Wolfson said.

Au contraire, argues David Redlawsk -- head of the University of Iowa's Hawkeye Poll and, in the walk-up to the caucuses, himself an Edwards backer.

An e-mail sent today by the school's news service says that polling on caucus night supervised by Redlawsk indicated "that the absence of Edwards would have helped (Barack) Obama."

Sorry, Team F.O.O. - I don't have too many functioning brain cells left for a catchy intro. I hope to have pictures of yesterday's festivities in the next day or so.

R.I.P. to Isaac Hayes. I'll ready myself for slings & arrows; I'd never heard of him until South Park. I was born in 1971; I wasn't exactly "of age" for Shaft!

It's 85 days until the election. Hopefully, we won't be at war with Iraq, Iran, AND Russia by then.

Let's count down tonight's Countdown!

Now that Michael Chabon's wonderful The Yiddish Policemen's Union has copped this year's Hugo Award, I guess contra-historical fiction will be all the rage for awhile.

And look who's getting an early jump on things, none other than deep-thinker Howard Wolfson:

Clinton Advisor Blames Edwards for Her Nomination Loss

Hillary Clinton’s former campaign communications director on Monday said if John Edwards had been honest about his affair or if the news were public before the Iowa caucuses in January, the New York senator could have been the next presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, not Barack Obama.

Fox News "Democrat" Howard Wolfson is embracing his new role as "useful idiot and concern troll" wholeheartedly.

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.

"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.

Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses.

Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5%

Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5%

Given that Edwards, Obama and Clinton were all essentially tied heading into caucus day, it's telling that Clinton lagged the other two candidates as the fallback choice of Iowa voters. Now there's no polling that shows specifically who Edwards supporters considered as their second choice, so these numbers aren't determinate of anything much other than the fact that Clinton was the least popular second choice. But it seems absurd to suggest that 2/3rds of Edwards voters would've backed Clinton given those numbers above. And if you group Edwards supporters with Obama supporters as anti-establishment "change" voters, then the notion seems even more absurd.

Now note -- the CW during the early primaries was that Edwards helped Obama as long as he stayed in the race. Even I subscribed to this theory -- that if Edwards dropped out, white voters could boost Clinton past Obama. But what happened after Edwards exited the race?

Edwards dropped out January 30. Shortly after, Obama won Super Tuesday, winning Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri. Outside of Massachusetts, Clinton, for her part, won only home and regional strongholds (Arkansas and New Jersey) and states with large Latino populations -- Arizona, California, and New Mexico -- which she owned in the primaries (spawning those ridiculous "only Clinton can win the brown vote" stories now proven patently false).

Then, after Super Tuesday, Obama went on to crush Clinton in DC, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. It wasn't until Texas and Ohio on March 4 that Clinton was able to stop her streak of landslide losses, long after Edwards' memory had faded from the campaign trail.

So if Clinton was truly the second choice of Edwards voters, they sure had a funny way of showing it -- voting for Obama in huge numbers.

In one of the more laughable comments from a treasure trove of ridiculous statements from supporters of Hillary Clinton, former spokesman Howard Wolfson's suggested that the affair of John Edwards somehow cost her the Presidency.  This meme is patently false and it insinuates that Barack Obama failed to earn the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton campaign which hasn't moved past the denial stage of grief has yet to take responsibility for running one of the worst presidential campaigns in recent history. Not only is Wolfson blaming others for Hillary's demise, but he is also playing revisionist historian as he tries to make us drink the sour grape chardonnay that men conspired to prevent her from winning the nomination.

How's that old phrase go? "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle."

Seems that the former Hillary Clinton campaign guru, Howard Wolfson, is indulging in a bit of the same kind of meaningless speculation.

He told ABC News today that if John Edwards' affair had been exposed in 2007, Hillary would be the Democratic nominee today. "I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Wolfson said.  Wolfson, now an analyst with Fox News [Doesn't that just about say it all?], whined: "Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people... Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us."

More after the jump....

Alright, first off, die hard Edwards fan here. And Wolfson is not my favorite guy. That being said, he is putting it out there that Edward's being in the race in Iowa cost Clinton the other votes that she would have gotten had he been truthful about the affair or had dropped out.
So in essence, Edwards took Clinton's win in Iowa by lying, and giving a win to Obama.
more here

Howard Wolfson thinks HRC was cheated.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABC News.com.

ABC points out that this isn't helping unity:

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.

More at abcnews.com: http://abcnews.go.com/...

Howard Wolfson joins Faux News and initiates the Clinton strategy to keep fanning the flames among disgruntled Clinton voters.

The Clinton machine is quietly and covertly operating behind the scenes to undermine Senator Obama's campaign. Ever since Wolfson became a faux news contributor, he has been seen on Bill O'reilly siding with the Right on every single issue.

On Wednesday, the wolf claimed that Senator O was beholden to Move-On.org and therefore the Senator couldn't bring himself to say that the surge was working.

In today's  N.Y Times there is a front page story entitled:"Obama Donors Aren’t Rushing to Aid Clinton"

Well you're damn right we aren't Senator Clinton.Originally, you asked us in a nice tone to help you pay off the debt you incurred while slapping our candidate from pillar to post. So, to promote unity we listened to Barack and sent you some money. Begrudgingly,yes, but considering you labeled our candidate as a wuss, we felt we were being generous.

But now you seem to be growing strident by implying that you cannot be really gung-ho about the Obama campaign while your so anxious about your financial condition.Well we certainly don't want an important supporter to be anxious.So,here's the dealmaker,Senator;  

Harold Wolfson, former top Hillary Clinton advisor, announcing his move to Fox News Channel:

"Fox has the largest audience in cable television -- many of its viewers are independents who will help decide the next election," said Wolfson of his decision. "It's critically important for strong progressives to be talking to and offering analysis to that audience."

Reality:

An audience that decides for itself, based on "fair and balanced" coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Democrats can pretend that there are "independents" watching Fox News, but the data is clear -- it is the most reliably Republican outlet in the nation, more likely to deliver Republican votes than even conservatives!

If Wolfson likes that check Fox News is waving at him, then by all means he can grab it. It's a free country. But there's nothing noble about it. He should stop pretending he is doing anything more than whoring himself to the opposition.

The New York Times blog The Caucus is reporting that everybody's favorite Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, is going turncoat:

Howard Wolfson, who was a top strategist for the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is going where some Democrats were unwilling to go during the early days of the election season: the Fox News Channel.

The network is expected to announce as early as Tuesday that it has signed Mr. Wolfson as a contributor who will appear regularly on its programs.

Like the rest of us, Barack Obama learned from the media that Hillary Clinton will announce the suspension of her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for President this Saturday.  And while there is all sorts of gossip about what will happen next, for now the drama continues.  

Just last week, Bill Clinton complained that he'd "never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."  Well look again, Bill.  Because your wife just succeeded in performing a 10-point-perfect double-dis against Barack Obama.  First she stiff-armed his historic claim to the party's nomination with her "victory" speech on Tuesday night.  Then the next day she ignores the most basic courtesy of telling her party's nominee she is dropping out of the race.  She even passed up the opportunity to do so in person at the AIPAC conference.  What a class act!

All's not well in Hillarywood.  

Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes and Howard Wolfson. Three major reasons why the superdelegates and state party apparatus will never fully support Senator Clinton. A long time ago, there was a young man who took the time out of his life to run Democratic Congressional Campaigns, after a lifetime of volunteering. He ran headlong into a process controlled by members of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), the moderate to conservative body embraced by the team that ran Bill Clinton's campaign. It was an eye-opening and unhappy experience. In case you haven't guessed, that young man was me...

There are at least two reasons why the DNC’s rules committee should not have met on Saturday to discuss Michigan and Florida.

For the past seven years I have turned off the radio - NPR whatever - and turned off the TV when President Bush or one of his surrogates have come on the air because I don't want to be lied to. Most people on this site knew we were being lied to from the getgo.  It was so obvious how deceitful and criminal Bush would be that I gave money to McCain in 2000 (as my plan B if Gore did not win).  And that is how I feel about the surrogates the Clinton Camp sends out, Penn, Wolfson, Davis, Ickes, McAuliffe and Bill Clinton himself, they are a bunch of liars and I don't want to be lied to by my government.  Certainly Senator Clinton is a cut above President Bush because she actually knows a thing or two about public policy and governing - but the people she has surrounded herself with are a disgrace and indicate that a Clinton Presidency would in actual fact be a continuation of the "permanent campaign" Scotty McClellan has been talking about of late.

If you want to know why Democrats have lost elections in the past 40 years despite the vast majority of Americans agreeing with Democrats on the core substantive issues, it is because of people like the few hundred dead end one percenters who showed up yesterday in Washington, D.C. in faux outrage to declare this situation "worst than slavery" and even had the chutzpah to photograph themselves with Larry Sinclair.  

If you want to know why Democrats have lost elections that should have been slam dunk victories for us, I submit to you the names of Harold Ford Jr., Lanny Davis, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ickes, Jerome Armstrong, Taylor Marsh, Zell Miller, and Alegre.   And no I don't want to hear about Bill Clinton.  Clinton never got 50% of the vote and his brand of politics gave us Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and yes George W Bush.

The bottom line is this --- If you want to be a majority party then we must remove these liars and scoundrels from our big tent.  For every dead end one percenter we remove from the Democratic Party, we'll pick up three voters elsewhere merely for showing the public that we are 100% serious that these corrupt, dishonest, and power hungry nutjobs do not speak for us.

In an effort to forestall a growing PR disaster Dunkin Donuts has announced that effective June 1st all Dunkin Donut Reatail Location employees would be required to report to work in the nude.

The decision is just the latest attempt by Dunkin Donuts to respond to critics of their apparell decisions. The trouble started when Dunkin Donuts featured and ad with Rachel Ray wearing a scarf that conservative blogger Michelle Malkin identified as sympathetic to Islamic terrorists. Dunkin Donuts later pulled the ad in an attempt to end the controversey.