All that talk that Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, would have won Iowa, and then the Democratic nomination, if news of John Edwards' affair had leaked before that state's caucuses is just that -- talk, a University of Iowa professor said today.
Professor David Redlawsk said a University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll showed just the opposite -- that the absence of Edwards would have actually boosted Obama, who won the state's caucuses in January.
The poll, conducted the night of the caucuses, included a question about second-choice preferences that was answered by 82 percent of those who went with Edwards as their first pick
Of those, 51 percent picked Obama while 32 percent picked Clinton.
"Monday's claim from (Clinton spokesman) Howard Wolfson that two-thirds of Edwards supporters would have supported Clinton is just not supported in data collected directly from those who actually participated in the caucuses," said Redlawsk, the Hawkeye Poll director.
Wolfson had surmised that a pre-Iowa Edwards scandal would have given the state to Clinton and thus the nomination, given how close the race was.
Why is this news?
So I was a Hillary supporter, and even I could have told you that all Howard Wolfson was doing was talking. Carville may have said it best: "I think Howard is fine in engaging in this kind of speculation, but it doesn't really mean very much."
What is more interesting to me is: Why is it so necessary to jump up and down and shout about how wrong Wolfson is?
Even were he right, it would mean nothing. Any number of things "could" have happened, and the fact is that they didn't.
Is the MSM so insecure about Obama's chances that they spend so much time time refuting hindsight?