John Edwards said it's over and sent a signal to the Clinton campaign:
John Edwards, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, cautioned Sunday that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton “has to be really careful that she’s not damaging our prospects” by staying in the contest against Senator Barack Obama.
That's really wise advice. But, Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, is still in a fighting mood, apparently. Puffing his chest out on FOX today, Wolfson delivered some classic fifth grade school yard taunts:
But Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, struck a feisty note on Fox, saying that if Mr. Obama wanted Mrs. Clinton out of the race, there was a simple way to ensure that: "Beat her. Beat her in West Virginia, beat her in Puerto Rico, beat her in Kentucky." Mrs. Clinton, of New York, is favored in those coming contests; Mr. Obama holds an edge in the others, in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.
That would almost be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
The Clinton campaign is rife with bullies who threw their weight around, yelling at people, screaming at people. I experienced that twice myself early on, before I supported anyone and just wanted a Democrat who could win. (And, trust me, I had very few interactions with Clinton staffers.)
There's nothing better than seeing the bullies get their butts kicked. And, that's exactly what's happening now.
So, Clinton and her entire staff should heed the words of John Edwards. The Clintons and their vaunted brain trust screwed up their own campaign. They don't need to inflict their ruinous behavior on Obama and the rest of the Democrats anymore.
And while we're on the subject of Clinton campaign people, the best line of the day, didn't come from anyone on the Sunday shows. It came from Al Giordano:
I personally don’t believe a word McAuliffe says about anything, and look forward to the moment, once Obama’s the nominee, that McAuliffe won’t be sent out, not even once, to be a surrogate on TV anymore.
The Clinton campaign, for months now, has pushed this seemingly true, but logically flawed, notion that if Obama loses big states like Pennsylvania to Hillary, then that means he "can't win" big states, aka can't win big states against McCain in the fall. Here is what top Clinton advisers Wolfson had to say, again, yesterday:
"If Sen. Obama can't win in Pennsylvania, it will be another sign he's unable to win in large states Democrats need to win in a general election," says Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson.
On its face you go, wow, he's right. I mean, if Obama can't win Pennsylvania then we're screwed in the fall - that's a lot of electoral votes for McCain. The only problem in Wolfson's logic, and he knows it, is that while Obama is expected to lose Pennsylvania to Hillary in the Democratic primary next Tuesday, that has nothing to do with the results of Obama vs. McCain in the general election. Yes, Hillary's people are lying to you, yet again. Let me walk you through the logic with an example.
1. I have a choice between brownies and cookies for dessert. I choose brownies. Wolfson is trying to tell me that this means I hate cookies, that I'll never choose cookies in the future, and even if I have a choice between cookies and broccoli for dessert in the fall, I'll choose broccoli then because I didn't choose cookies today.
You see, Wolfson is making a common error that's understandable coming from the Hillary campaign. Most Democrats are not going to help John McCain become president out of spite simply because Hillary didn't win the Democratic nomination. In the real world, Democrats support their party and their nominee - they don't take their toys and go home just because their first choice in the primary didn't win.
