John Edwards' Staffers Had Plan to Scuttle His Campaign?

[Brainster]

I'm going to call huge BS on this story being promoted by George Stephanopolous:

Several of them had gotten together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts.

Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards' staffers have told me.

They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Say what? Look, if you think your guy has a disqualifying secret, it should be your duty to the party to disclose that before people vote. Remember, although the race became Obama/Clinton before long, Edwards managed to slip into second place in Iowa, which was the whole reason Hillary would have been circling the toilet if she had lost New Hampshire.

There are a host of ethical questions here as well. If you're taking the money from the campaign, aren't you obligated to them? It seems pretty sleazy to work for him and yet be secretly working to sabotage him just as he's winning.

What I think is it's a bunch of lying from Edwards' staffers facing the inevitable backlash of "How could you let him run with a love child on the side?" They can tell that there's nothing to be gained from loyalty to the Silky Pony and so they're making sure their Dem bona fides remain up to snuff.

 

[Puppycow]

Interesting. Politics, as they say, ain't beanbag.
I don't know. Maybe they knew that he was unlikely to be the nominee, but they thought he served some useful purpose in the campaign by speaking for the left-wing of the party? (Edwards was positioned furthest left of the top three contenders, but also seemed like he was a tier below Clinton and Obama).
And Edwards did get out of the race before super tuesday, which IMO had the effect of helping Obama. Maybe his advisers told him that the writing was on the wall and the sooner he got out, the sooner he could get out of the media spotlight and the attention of muckrakers (it came out anyway, but they didn't know that it would at the time).
They may have had a "duty to speak out" but speaking out would not be good for their careers, either. What politician would hire someone who sabotaged a campaign they worked for?

 

[Texas]

Interesting. Politics, as they say, ain't beanbag.
I don't know. Maybe they knew that he was unlikely to be the nominee, but they thought he served some useful purpose in the campaign by speaking for the left-wing of the party? (Edwards was positioned furthest left of the top three contenders, but also seemed like he was a tier below Clinton and Obama).
And Edwards did get out of the race before super tuesday, which IMO had the effect of helping Obama. Maybe his advisers told him that the writing was on the wall and the sooner he got out, the sooner he could get out of the media spotlight and the attention of muckrakers (it came out anyway, but they didn't know that it would at the time).
They may have had a "duty to speak out" but speaking out would not be good for their careers, either. What politician would hire someone who sabotaged a campaign they worked for?

When men like Edwards and Gingrich cheat on their dying wives they should be ostracized for life. I wonder what ever happened to the sense of shame.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

When men like Edwards and Gingrich cheat on their dying wives they should be ostracized for life. I wonder what ever happened to the sense of shame.

There's not much to say about John Edwards. He used junk science to sue doctors, claiming that they were responsible for birth defects of infants. He uses corporation as a scapegoat as frequently as Rudy Giuliani uses 9/11 is proverbial demagogue fashion. Then he cries till the cows come home about children going to bed hungry at night.

All in all, he fits the shoes of a typical politician.

 

[ravdin]

Fortunately, John Edwards is now as irrelevant as he is slimy.

 

[davefoc]

Then there's that whole talk to the dead thing. Disgusting.

 

[corplinx]

Susan Estrich wrote a piece during the primaries telling Fred Thompson not to run. She implored him to ignore all the political operatives who weren't attached to a campaign. Her suggestion was that the unemployed professional staffers out there were luring him into it.

Given this view of these professional operatives as.. well.... leeches. One could see how the Edwards staffers were willing to ride the gravy train as long as it wasn't in the lead.

I will say its plausible, even if its equally plausible that these rats are trying to retcon their reps.

 

[dudalb]

Fortunately, John Edwards is now as irrelevant as he is slimy.

Yeah, his political career is dead,dead,dead, and deservedly so.
There are still a few supporters around who are using the old "he did nothing illegal" defense. True,so far, but there are plenty of things that are not illegal but still show you are unfit for political office, and Edwards did a whole slew of them.
As for the story in the OP, I don't know. It seems to me if the staffers knew, it was their duty as Democrats to inform the party leadership and then confront Edwards and tell him that if he would not come clean and withdraw they would go public.

 

[theprestige]

When men like Edwards and Gingrich cheat on their dying wives they should be ostracized for life. I wonder what ever happened to the sense of shame.

Why? Because the sanctity of marriage is that important to you? Because hypocrisy is on your list of deadly sins? Because you're the duly-appointed arbiter of justice in other people's relationships? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[davefoc]

...

Given this view of these professional operatives as.. well.... leeches. One could see how the Edwards staffers were willing to ride the gravy train as long as it wasn't in the lead.

I will say its plausible, even if its equally plausible that these rats are trying to retcon their reps.

I suspect that this is it, but I'm not sure how much scorn they deserve. I think what they did was pretty human. Most of us are scrambling a bit to make a living and it is only the most noble or the most rich that can turn down a pay check that might not be coming from some place else.

As to whether or not they would have undermined his campaign, I think it's pretty human to after the fact make yourself believe you would have done the noble thing. Whether they might have done it at the time, nobody knows including themselves.

And as to whether it was the noble thing to undermine his campaign on these facts:

I think so. This was not a simple mistress deal. This was creating a job for his mistress on the campaign (abuse of contributors funds), this was taking a reckless chance while others were making sacrifices for him and the whole issue of taking up a mistress given the situation with his wife seems pretty scummy to me.

And then there's that whole talk to the dead thing. So overall, I'm pretty glad he didn't get the Democratic nomination.

 

[WildCat]

There are still a few supporters around who are using the old "he did nothing illegal" defense.

Maybe not for long:

The two-time Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged Sunday that investigators are assessing how he spent his campaign funds — a subject that could carry his extramarital affair from the tabloids to the courtroom. Edwards' political action committee paid more than $100,000 for video production to the firm of the woman with whom Edwards had an affair.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/03/national/a075007D46.DTL

 

[Cicero]

Back on June, 07, Elizabeth Edwards called into the Chris Matthews "Hardball" to take Ann Coulter to task because her husband was too busy getting his $1400 haircut. Now Liz is doing the talk show circuit to promote her book.


"I do love him," she said.

The wife of philandering husband Sen. John Edwards told Matt Lauer on the "Today" show that if she knew initially that her hubby was having a long-term affair with another woman rather than just a one-night stand she would have resisted his running for president again.

"I only knew about a single night, a single moment of weakness," she said. "I probably would have been more adamant about his not running."

Edwards said her husband was a "marvelous father" who "really cared for [her]" when she was sick.

Though Edwards requested that Lauer not make reference to her hubby's mistress by name, she indicated the pair could rise above the past infidelity.

"I see in the way he looks at me and cares for me that this relationship is the essential relationship of his life -- as my relationship with him in the essential relationship of mine," she said.

She also said that if her husband's alleged love child with longtime mistress Rielle Hunter turned out to be his it would be no further betrayal in her eyes.

"The betrayal happened -- whatever the consequences were," she said. "That's not like a further betrayal that I need to deal with."


Being the wife of an ex-Senator and Presidential candidate trumps the husband's infidelity, illegitimate children, misappropriations of funds, and overall sleaziness. When her book winds up in the cut out bin, will she still be married to this weasel?

 

[dudalb]

Why? Because the sanctity of marriage is that important to you? Because hypocrisy is on your list of deadly sins? Because you're the duly-appointed arbiter of justice in other people's relationships? Inquiring minds want to know.

So you have no problems with what Edwards did??????

 

[theprestige]

So you have no problems with what Edwards did??????

Strawman noted.

Incidentally, I do have a problem with what Edwards did. But...
... I'm not sure it's so evil that it merits everlasting shunning.
... My objections are based on my own personal Judeo-Christian value set, which is generally regarded in these forums as being irrational and unjustifiable. I would be interested to know where Texas is getting his righteous anger from.

Why do you have a problem with what Edwards did? And do you agree with Texas, that he should be universally and everlastingly shunned? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[davefoc]

Strawman noted.

Incidentally, I do have a problem with what Edwards did. But...
... I'm not sure it's so evil that it merits everlasting shunning.
... My objections are based on my own personal Judeo-Christian value set, which is generally regarded in these forums as being irrational and unjustifiable. I would be interested to know where Texas is getting his righteous anger from.

Why do you have a problem with what Edwards did? And do you agree with Texas, that he should be universally and everlastingly shunned? If so, why? If not, why not?

He certainly should not stand for public office again and if he did it would certainly be unwise to vote for him.

He betrayed his wife.
He betrayed the people who donated money to his candidacy.
He betrayed the people who supported him in other ways than donations.
He attempted to betray the Democratic Party by winning the Democratic nomination with a secret that would make his election unlikely if it became public.
He's probably lying about the paternity of the child that his mistress had and he has probably involved a staffer to take the fall for dubious reasons.

So, thePrestige, are you going to be heading up his reelection campaign? If you'd donated money to his campaign do you think it was money well spent at this point in time?

Incidentally, I thought it was a $400 haircut and not a $1400 haircut as was mentioned above. Which is correct?

And do you suppose if I made the talk to the dead joke one more time I'd get a response from somebody?

 

[dudalb]

And do you agree with Texas, that he should be universally and everlastingly shunned?

I think Texas was using a little hyperbole or Figure of Speech.

 

[ProbeX]

Strawman noted.

My objections are based on my own personal Judeo-Christian value set, which is generally regarded in these forums as being irrational and unjustifiable.

With all due respect, and as someone who's not fond of cheating, many of the people I know with Judeo-Christian propensities would say you're being overly-judgmental and need to let other peoples' marital transgressions be something they work out on their own.

We're not talking wife-beating or murder here, are we? He did something deceitful. Okay. And so have you. Do you want me to rally the public around what you did and keep you under torment of shame for the rest of your life?

 

[theprestige]

With all due respect, and as someone who's not fond of cheating, many of the people I know with Judeo-Christian propensities would say you're being overly-judgmental and need to let other peoples' marital transgressions be something they work out on their own.

We're not talking wife-beating or murder here, are we? He did something deceitful. Okay. And so have you. Do you want me to rally the public around what you did and keep you under torment of shame for the rest of your life?

I think you might have me confused with another poster. While I do have objections, I'm more than content to let Mr. and Mrs. Edwards work out their relationship issues between themselves.

 

[theprestige]

He certainly should not stand for public office again and if he did it would certainly be unwise to vote for him.

Agreed; but then I never thought it would be wise to vote for him in the first place...

He betrayed his wife.
He betrayed the people who donated money to his candidacy.
He betrayed the people who supported him in other ways than donations.
He attempted to betray the Democratic Party by winning the Democratic nomination with a secret that would make his election unlikely if it became public.
He's probably lying about the paternity of the child that his mistress had and he has probably involved a staffer to take the fall for dubious reasons.

Agreed.

So, thePrestige, are you going to be heading up his reelection campaign? If you'd donated money to his campaign do you think it was money well spent at this point in time?

No, no, and this is a pretty epic non-sequitur.

Incidentally, I thought it was a $400 haircut and not a $1400 haircut as was mentioned above. Which is correct?

I don't know, I don't care, and this is another pretty epic non-sequitur.

And do you suppose if I made the talk to the dead joke one more time I'd get a response from somebody?

What makes you think it merits a response?

 

[Cicero]

Incidentally, I thought it was a $400 haircut and not a $1400 haircut as was mentioned above. Which is correct?

Without tip it was $1,250.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/05/politics/main3019277.shtml