Posted by Ashley Slayton for BET You(th) Vote

Howard Wilson thinks so. And the former communications director for the Clinton campaign made it known in an interview with ABCNews.com today.“I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee,” Wilson said.John Edwards, who has been running for months from a scandal involving ex-campaign aide Rielle Hunter, gave up Friday and admitted to the 2006 affair. (He still claims that he did not father Hunter’s 5-month-old daughter Frances Quinn Hunter.)

Wilson believes that if Edwards had revealed the truth sooner, he would have been forced out of the race and Clinton would have won the nomination. His reasoning behind this?

“Our voters and Edwards’s voters were the same people…Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama,” he said.

I wonder if Hillary Clinton is still paying her staff because they refuse to quit campaigning, despite the fact she dropped out of the race. No doubt that if John had kept his john in better control, Edwards’ campaign might have seen some longevity. But that’s water under the bridge. (Much like the $114,461 he paid Hunter to produce those homemade looking campaign videos.)Now the idea that his refusal to reveal his affair somehow cost Hillary the nomination…is it delusional? Or is it dead on point?

Would Hillary have stood a better chance with Edwards out of the way? Would Obama have lost because of Edwards’ affair? And is Howard Wilson holding onto the hope that this was all a bad dream? You tell me.

-Ashley

P.S. Judging from this photo, Edwards is good with kids but is he the father of baby Frances?

Watch celebrities take a stand, check the latest political events, and upload your own Sound-offs on our Facebook Site!   

  Register to vote, CLICK HERE!

Comments (346)