> They said they were Democrats first. . . .

Good for them.

As to what their "sabotage" might consist of, I should think an unexplained, en masse resignation would do the trick -- let the media (and especially) the bloggers pick up the ball from there on the story. No reason for the staffers to have to get down into the mud on that one.

"In either case, it's something for future reckless candidates to think about."

Yup. Make sure you only cheat on your wife AFTER you win the Presidency. Then your supporters will swallow absolutely anything to keep you in power.

Mike

Really, these people stood by Clinton corporate crony ass through a DOZEN infidelities.

But a populist cheats with one girl, and it's a sign that he's a horrible wretched man who hated the Democratic party and they threaten to sink him.

Is there anyone who REALLY thinks this has anything to do with infidelity, as opposed to the fact that a politician dared care about someone other than the top .000001% of our country.

I'm a little skeptical about this. These campaigns are supposed to be exhausting, all-consuming jobs for the people involved; why would they continue to work so hard for a campaign they didn't support? I dunno....

This is great news to see that Democratic operatives would take such an action. They would have been heroes.

Soullite, you are incoherent. Yes, I think this is entirely about infidelity. I am not paranoid, naive, or on medications. Bill Clinton was as good a leader as we were going to get at that time. And do you really think Edwards was more "sincere" than anyone else about inequality? Send over whatever you've got, it must be good stuff.

First, reckless candidates don't think -- that's why they're reckless. Second, these staffers planned on getting paychecks from Edwards' campaign while planning to ensure his defeat -- this is unethical; at the point they firmly believed in his infidelity, they should have confronted Edwards and given him an ultimatum. What a bunch of spineless weasels.

So ... these people spent much of 2008 working for a campaign that they were simultaneously prepared to sabotage to keep Edwards from winning?

Interesting career choice. "I'm building a house I am fully prepared to burn to the ground should it ever show signs of completion."

This is after-the-fact ass covering. That's all.

it is quite the pity that cracker john has no character outside his fuckin' ego (and i use that term in a technical sense).

our missed opportunity of having elizabeth edwards in the white house is the most grievous tragedy of the whole affair (again with the technical term).

MBunge, soullite, a marital indiscretion absolutely has nothing to do with a politician's ability to discharge the duties of his office. Edwards was reckless because his infidelity would have inevitably come out during the general campaign, and because politically his campaign would not have survived that revelation. An affair might not always be a game-ender, but having one while your wife is being treated for cancer most certainly would have been.

That's why Edwards' staff was thinking about mutiny: not because they were morally outraged that he had had an affair, but because he was taking the entire progressive ship through a political minefield that was certain to sink it.

I agree with Canuck, Reid, and shortstop. The story just does not make sense. If you don't want a candidate to win, you quit his campaign.

From a netroots perspective ... once again, Petey, wherever you are, go fuck yourself.

Shortstop - perhaps. For many of these pros, they're already thinking of the next campaign. So it's not impossible to imagine, both that they'd stay and that they'd think of sabotage under some circumstances. Quite an self-serving, ethical needle they're threading...

Everyone seems to be missing the underlying issue in this, being: Why did these "inner-circle staffers" wait until May 2009 to go public with their "Walküre" moment? They could have gone public the day after Obama won the general, if they were so worried about "the Party."

Either Edwards has pissed off some ex-staffers, or there's a book deal in the works somewhere....

Nobody's said it yet, so I will.

Many of my liberal friends loved Edwards' populism.
I thought his belief in the populist causes were feigned and shallow. I remain unconvinced.

Those that loved Edwards tended to support Obama as second choice. His staffers may have been trying to keep Edwards in the race thinking he was skimming southern support for HRC. Noble intentions in their eyes, perhaps.

Given that Obama won and we can't know if HRC would have beaten McCain (though after the Palin pick, it's entirely plausible.) can we second guess their gamesmanship?

Doing it on Edwards' contributors' dime? Maybe not. Just trying to explain, not justify.

Soullite wrote:

> Really, these people stood by Clinton corporate crony ass through a DOZEN infidelities.

Doesn't it occur to you that they may have been considering this step explicitly because they remember how Clinton's extracurricular activities wrecked the second term of his presidency?

Um... rather than stick with the campaign until he won the nomination, why not just quit in january and leak the affair?

S. Waybright says: Either Edwards has pissed off some ex-staffers, or there's a book deal in the works somewhere....

I think this is the right answer. And how would it have been better for the Party if these "in-the-know" staffers waited until it looked like Edwards was close to getting the nomination to drop the dirty bomb?
It would have made the final primaries even more bitter, possibily turning off non-hardcore Dems to voting for the eventual nominee.

What about the Republicans who are closet gays whose whole political structure is based on gay baiting? What about Mr. Family Values Vitter and the prostitutes? The outrage over that lasted maybe ten minutes.

If Edwards and Clinton had behaved like Spitzer in public - denouncing prostitution and building their entire campaigns on virtue, then it might be equivalent to the closeted Republicans.

Double standard again.

Andrew asked:

> Um... rather than stick with the campaign until he won the nomination,
> why not just quit in january and leak the affair?

Because unless Edwards was on track to win the nomination -- which never actually played out -- there would be no larger point to doing so, other than to personally embarrass the candidate.

The reporting makes clear that they weren't going to wait until after he won the nomination.

neill: "our missed opportunity of having elizabeth edwards in the white house is the most grievous tragedy of the whole affair (again with the technical term)."

Time yet. All sorts of positions she can fill, and I don't see a rough confirmation hearing.

Edwards is a philandering jerk, but I still appreciate his politcal leanings, and his policy prescriptions would have helped the country.

Why is his shameful affair a career ender, but every time I turn around McCain, Gingrich or Vitter are saying and doing things that harm the country, without discussion of their equally disgusting lack of "family values?"

"a marital indiscretion absolutely has nothing to do with a politician's ability to discharge the duties of his office."

kth, thanks for totally confirming my point.

Mike

Let's see -- John Edwards was within the margin of error of winning Iowa just days before the caucus despite hiding an affair and a campaign staff poised to betray him.

Thank you, great Iowans, for what you did Jan. 3, 2008. As resident of next-door Wisconsin, I am eternally grateful and will never, ever again tell an Iowa joke.

Although I wish marital infidelity were not a serious concern in evaluating presidential candidates and elected officials, it still seems to be. My only interest in such matters is whether it really tells me something about the person's qualities as they might effect the office for which they are running. But considering that in the public space this is still a big deal, the fact that a John Edwards or Gary Hart would play such a risky game does indeed tell me something about their qualifications. And moreso for Elliott Spitzer, who violated laws he put in place. Clinton, well he was already in office and exhibited exceedingly poor judgment. And yes, he did lie under oath. There is really no excuse, however his lie was in the course of a witch hunt disguised as an investigation. It was unfortunately legitimate to put him on trial, and the correct verdict was reached. Now, what about other small crimes possibly committed by the last president?

By the end of 2007 I thought that Edwards, who had not impressed me during his callow turn as running mate, had used his down time to good effect. He seemed a considerably more seasoned character, and I likely would have voted for him in the California primary had he not bailed first. When it came out last summer that he had indeed strayed into realms forbidden to serious candidates ever since the Monkey Business business, I did not fault him for his lack of priapic self-restraint (I like the idea of casting the first stone as much as the next guy, but for some reason it was too heavy to lift), but I took it very ill indeed that he had offered himself up as the standard-bearer for a cause far greater than himself, with the potential to put it at mortal peril. If this was done cold-bloodedly, then I cannot disparage his cynicism enough. If, as I am (perhaps charitably) slightly inclined to believe, he had contrived to persuade himself that the secret would not emerge, or that his candidacy could somehow survive it, then he was perhaps merely deluded rather than sociopathically selfish. This still remained a deal-breaker. I do not require that a president possess better-than average personal morals, but I do look for a better-than average resistance to self-deception. We have just got through ninety-six months of experimenting with fantasy-based policymaking, and I trust that most of recognize how that turned out.

Remind me again: why are we talking about John Edwards at this late date? Oughtn't he be remanded to the obscurity to which his reckless conduct had deservedly consigned him?

"But considering that in the public space this is still a big deal, the fact that a John Edwards or Gary Hart would play such a risky game does indeed tell me something about their qualifications."

No, it tells us they like women, like most men do. That's that.

"Is there anyone who REALLY thinks this has anything to do with infidelity, as opposed to the fact that a politician dared care about someone other than the top .000001% of our country."

I DEFINITELY think this had to do with infidelity. For me, the problem isn't the cheating at all, but rather that he was trying to become our nominee knowing that he had this timebomb ready to explode in his closet. Sure, it's possible he still could have won, but had this story broke while he was our nominee, it would have sucked all the wind out of our sails and put McCain in the driver's seat. Edwards would have been playing defense all the way to election day and I DEFINITELY think this would have changed the results of the election for the worse.

And the fact that Edwards entered the race knowing all this is all the evidence we need to know what a selfish jerkoff he was. If anything, he should have admitted to it BEFORE the primary began; not wait until it exploded in mid-July (or whenever it finally came out). Not only would it let us know what we were voting for, but it would have removed much of the explosiveness out of the truth. But he knew that this would hurt his chances in the primary, so he decided to screw us over by keeping it a secret until it was too late to do anything about it.

I'm not sure what Edwards ever did that makes you think he really cared about the little people, but his actions certainly spoke louder than his words. I can't believe any of his supporters are still defending him on this. Again, it's not about the infidelity, but about the lies. He wanted to put us all at risk of a McCain presidency and betrayed his supporters more than anyone. Yet you defend him all the same.

And just so you understand, most folks were defending Bill against the impeachment. But I'm not sure I know of any Dems who were cool with what he did. I never was.

"Again, it's not about the infidelity, but about the lies."

Yeah right, like most Americans would be honest if they were asked about their affairs the way Clinton and Edwards were.

There's a screenplay in there somewhere. Whether or not staff woulda done this, it explains some of the weirdness of the Edwards campaign.

And I dunno re "marital indiscretion," though the euphemism sure is entertaining. Another argument for taking this seriously is that people who cheat lie. They lie to the people closest to them. They know when they start an affair that they will have to lie to the people closest to them. I have a hard time thinking a pattern like this "has nothing to do with a politician's ability to discharge the duties of his office."

To those of you so bothered by politicians having affairs: Do you think Martin Luther King should have been demoted as a civil rights leader because of his?

What about the Republicans who are closet gays whose whole political structure is based on gay baiting? What about Mr. Family Values Vitter and the prostitutes? The outrage over that lasted maybe ten minutes.

What do you think you just did? Vitter, Craig, and the rest of these guys have this stuff hung around their necks forever. And any Dem opponent who doesn't at least casually remind voters of their indiscretions is a fool.

One thing I wish liberals would do better is to understand how their words are attacks. If a Republican came in here attacking Clinton's affairs, he'd upset everyone and get blasted; primarily because we'd be offended at the attack. Yet, we reference Vitter and other disgraced Republicans without realizing that our mere reference of their indiscretions are attacks. And if you went to a Republican website and started referencing Vitter, you'd see the same pushback that you'd see here from a Clinton attack.

That's just how it goes. We need to stop seeing how they're attacking us and see how we can attack them; because the truth is, we're already doing it. And anyone who doesn't think Gingrich is a disgraced politician would be pleasantly surprised at how badly he got stuffed in a presidential run. The media might still like the guy, but America never did.

Yeah right, like most Americans would be honest if they were asked about their affairs the way Clinton and Edwards were.

Most Americans don't run for president. And if Edwards didn't want to be truthful about this, he shouldn't have run. It's that simple.

Frank, don't give me that shit. We know how the DLC thinks. We know how they act. We know the blue dogs. We know the

so don't pretend it takes a conspiracy theory to think they would try to undermine a more progressive Democrat. That's pretty much the entire purpose of their organization.

The hostility you show me is kind of telling, don't you think? Unless you're one of those aides, there was no calling for that 'OMG A CRAZY PERSON OMG OMG" BS you tried to pull.

But thats a so-called 'moderate' democrat. Always willing to cater to those on his right, never willing to even listen to those on his left.

"Most Americans don't run for president. And if Edwards didn't want to be truthful about this, he shouldn't have run. It's that simple."

He should have said it was none of anyone's damn business--just like Clinton should have.

So...

Everyone in clintons campaign knew he cheated. They said nothing. You all knew he cheated. You voted for him anyway. You moderate democrats didn't say jack shit back then. you were fine with it, because you agreed with him.

Now, Edward is Satan himself because he dared to try to get elected to office after having done something 99% of the folks who ever got elected to that office have done. And you all expect me to believe it has nothing to do with ideology?

Democrats first. Hmmm. And then the question: If you really don't support the campaign why stay with it?

Perhaps they are whores first, Democrats second (let's continue to take money for those who continue to send it to support the Poverty candidate and line our pockets and build our resumes; we can always bail if it looks like he seriously has a chance.), and John Edwards supporters... when exactly?

As I reflect on Edwards, I am chagrined to acknowledge that I was always more impressed with Elizabeth than I was with him. But, I thought, she seems to really believe in him. There may be something there that I am not sensing. So, I sent him money early on because I felt his message was important.

I am comfortable saying that his infidelity disappoints me, and it remains to be seen whether he has enough substance and character to overcome what his lapses have cost him. The sin for establishment politics is that he could potentially have put the 2008 election at risk. I think revelation of his affair - even notwithstanding Elizabeth's battle with cancer - would have tipped the scales decidedly against him. Time will tell: Will he continue to battle for those who live in poverty even when there seems to be little opportunity for immediate (or even long-term) political benefit?

Re Doctor Biobrain (really?): Telling the indisputable truth about someone -- especially someone who holds a public trust -- is not an attack. Hitting a person is an attack, pointing out that a person fell down is not an attack.

Other than that, you're pretty much on the money (an oversensitive journalist might even regard your mention of Gingrich as an attack on the MSM).

Every time we have this discussion, about half the commenters, always including Lee, show they're unable to make the distinction between what the public's reaction to politicians' infidelity should be (none of our business) and what it, at least currently, is.

Edwards's affair is between him and his wife. His willingness to selfishly and/or incredibly self-delusionally risk the entire progressive agenda at an absolutely pivotal point in our history isn't. That he, knowing what was in his closet, endangered everything we're working for is really not in question here.

Yes Soullite, we all think that Edwards is Satan himself.

Have a bit too much coffee this morning?

Karl - You have some problem with my name? I find that to be a personal attack. Pistols at dawn, sir. Pistols at dawn.

On ABC's "This Week," George Will noted, "Think about what a tragedy it would have been if he had won."

yeah, boy howdy, george would have hated that.

i know he didn't like mccain much, but obama has driven him apeshit. i think he, just maybe, would have preferred john sidney.

your pal,
blake

I find Soullite's comments here to be much too amusing. Most readers here are liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama, but would prefer him to be somewhat more liberal. And I daresay that most of us found Bill Clinton's presidency to be too far to the right. And even Hillary's supporters were in the anti-DLC crowd, even if she was a DLC leader. And I seriously doubt there are many anti-Edwards people here, at least before the whole infidelity thing came up. We may have preferred Obama or Clinton, but I have no recollection of a strong anti-Edwards movement here; though I often found the Edwards supporters to be a bit too strident for my taste.

And yet, we're suddenly all "moderate Democrats" following an all-powerful DLC, Blue Dog Dem led effort to hurt Edwards; which could be the only explanation for why we waited until after the primary and news of his infidelity broke before we started denouncing him. This is just too much. I mean, if that's what you think about us, why are you here? We're liberals. We aren't mindless DLC sheep, which is a joke anyway, as the DLC is now a powerless pariah.

And sure, it's possible that we're all delusional corporate whores who hate progressives. But it's more likely that we're just upset that Edwards was selfishly going to screw us over by trying to head into a general election with a timebomb in his closet. Why else would we have waited until after news of his infidelity before heaping scorn on him? I'm not sure if I remember ANYONE here attacking Edwards for his affair before it was confirmed, and I remember lots of folks defending him. But afterwards, his betrayal of us became clear. That's what this is about. He betrayed us, and you. I really can't see why you choose to defend someone who let you down so badly.

I realize that it was unforgivable for John Edwards to have an affair. Let us be realstic though, seems to me that Newt Gingrich did axactly the same thing, how about Guilliani's affairs. Not to mention diaper Vitter - I heard he had fathered an illegitimate child too. This is the party of family values. Also how about Sarah Palins family, they all seem to have some kinky values.

Time yet.

Um. No. Elizabeth Edwards is terminally ill. There is not "time yet."

If recklessness is defined by marital infidelity the US has survived many "reckless" presidents. It's pretty well accepted, although not much mentioned, that George H.W. Bush had a long term mistress (Jennifer Fitzgerald) whose relationship with Poppy was an open secret well before and during the 1988 campaign and who maintained her position as maitresse en titre the whole time Bush was in the White House. Bush also had several other shorter affairs before, during, and after Ms. Fitzgerald's heyday.

While Poppy was a terrible president his serial adultery and chronic philandering were probably not the cause of his ineptitude, indifference and general unfitness for office. After all, Bush 43 was an even worse president than his father and is not known to be much of a sexual playboy.

I do agree that the fact that Edwards refusal to recognize that sexual hijinks would destroy him as a serious candidate reveals such severe naivete and overweening arrogance about his candidacy's ability to survive such revelations that it probably disqualifies him from running for office. I do not agree that it indicates that he could not be an effective president just as Spitzer was an effective governor of New York.

I am more interested in the fact that the press has paid so much attention to the Edwards' marriage and affair and so little to the highly dysfunctional Bush marriages. Perhaps the powers that be did not see the incompetent and unintelligent Bushes as threats to their power, but someone like Edwards (and Spitzer) far more intelligent, informed and energetic than any Bush, are regarded as dangerous or perhaps uncontrollable.

That question and its answer are more important to the republic than the intentionally distracting gossip game of musical beds in high places.

This is completely absurd.

Instead of doing the right thing and resigning from the campaign before IA, which would have killed it with minimal damage, we're supposed to believe that these inner-circle staffers are heroes because they continued to lie to and encourage Edward supporters to send them money to pay their salaries as long as possible?

Furthermore, the anonymous staffers leaking this info have made sure that not only themselves, but neither anyone else from the Edwards campaign will ever again be hired to work on another campaign.

Nice, heroic, loyal Dems, these folks.

"I do agree that the fact that Edwards refusal to recognize that sexual hijinks would destroy him as a serious candidate reveals such severe naivete and overweening arrogance about his candidacy's ability to survive such revelations that it probably disqualifies him from running for office."

Tell that to Bill Clinton. It was obvious Clinton had affairs in 1992 and he won anyway.

It isn't unforgivable to have an affair and say I've caused pain in my marriage. It isn't unforgivable to have a child that is a result of said affair (look at one curently serving GOP Congressman from red state Indiana). It is unforgivable to pose with your wife as America's high school sweethearts knowing full well there is a time bomb out there waiting to explode. Does anyone remember one Robert Novack commenting about a Democratic candidate running with a sordid sexual secret? The GOP knew and they would have used it during the election to kill the party. He should have confessed the truth and let the voters judge.

Why is it unforgiveable for a man to have an affair? If it is, then my guess is that 7 out 10 married men, who need forgiving, will not get it. During the years when I dated a lot (18-35), the number of married men who asked me out was two to one to single men. I wish I had a dollar for every married man who hit on me. These men are more common than you think. In the end, I decided not to judge them solely on that part of their character. Most of them were pretty nice guys, worked hard, and successful. I have never been comfortable sitting in judgment of people with such strict, unforgiving requirements of what makes a good person. We are all human and we all make mistakes. Kobe Bryant seems to be forgiven for his womanizing and violence against women. Why not John Edwards? As far as we know, he, at least, didn't just use her, rape her, and go on his merry way.

Well, at least Edwards hadn't been a priest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/world/americas/10paraguay.html?_r=1&ref=world

Like several other commenters here, I, too, thought that Edwards had grown up some since '04. Didn't like his whiney voice much, but his healthcare plan beat everyone else's hollow, so I supported him, originally. Now, I'd like to have my money back, I'm still *that* pissed off with him for taking the risk. I would have gone for Obama from the start, had I known that he was still the undisciplined pretty boy and little else (thankfully, Edwards dropped out before the VA primaries).

And George Will can keep his fake crocodile tears to himself; the only tragedy *for him* is that Edwards didn't get the Dem nomination, which would have ensured McCain's win in general (even with Palin at his side)

As a commenter on George's site pointed out, this is another of those anonymous-source stories. But there are lots of ethical questions raised, some of which commenters have already mentioned.

What about all those people "Edwards was fighting for" who put $25 or $100 into his campaign -- money they could really have used for themselves & their families? Everyone who knew about Edwards' affair -- himself, his wife & those campaign staffers misused those people John was "fighting for" (I was so not one of them, so this isn't sour grapes).

And here's a good question for ethical Stephanopoulos, the son of a bishop -- why didn't you sabotage Clinton's campaign? -- you knew he had lots of affairs. Was his infidelity okay because he acknowledged "causing pain in his marriage" while Edwards pretended he was a true-blue husband? Maybe. But wasn't the idea supposed to be that Clinton's roaming days were behind him? Just asking, Georgie.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

I take the lies Edwards and staff sold -- if the latter planned to sabotage him IF he was succeeding, how nice for their memoirs, but it doesn't excuse AT ALL what they did -- very personally. To wit: $2300 personally. That money could have gone to somebody else. Specifically, I could have settled happily on Obama sooner. But I was already donating to Slick Johnnie by 2007 and, I might add, his lovely wife who, however wonderful otherwise, allowed him to perpetuate a ruinous lie which would have doomed his election, and us, had he gone forward. I want my money back. y.

The story makes absolutely no sense. Why would someone work on a campaign favoring a candidate whom they plan to subvert if it looks like he is going to win? Why not just expose the deceit and end his campaign immediately?

Someone actually believes this nonsense?

http://loomisnews.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/john-edwards-staffers-woulda-quit/

“Gosh, we just won Iowa and New Hampshire! I owe it to my party to tell everyone that my candidate is having a career ending affair!

So that instead of going to the White House I can commit professional suicide and go on unemployment! Just like Stephanapolous did over Bubba’s indescretions!�

Lets face it, it isn't the affair, its the baby. Its kind of hard to ignore a bouncing baby (it) that looks just like the dad, who just happens to have a what Mrs. Edwards calls a "leech" for a mother with a taste for the good life. It was madness for him to run.

I would have been nice if they had given the rest of us a head's up before we sent him money.

I don't think we should make these anonymous staffers out as good guys. They knew, the ostensibly "worked" for his nomination, but they were going to prevent that if they needed to.

Seems to me they took campaign money on false premises. Fraud, in fact.

Why the heck should they not have forced him out at that time?

"After all, Bush 43 was an even worse president than his father and is not known to be much of a sexual playboy."

Alcohol abuse will do that to a man.

Congratulations to the Edqards staffers who would put country before candidate. As someone who has worked in professional politics, I think that is entirely admirable.

Maybe now the Democrats will realize after that worthless Southern white trash scumbag Bill Clinton - and dodging the bullet of John Edwards - that the South is no longer where you go to find a worthwhile candidate. Let the Party of Southern Treasn do that.

FWIW, Joe Trippi agrees with those of us who think that this story is absurd. Via twitter, his curt response to the story is:

"Complete BS -- fantasyland - not true."

wait until the Obama affair comes out

wait until the Obama affair comes out

Yeah!

What's mysterious is why affairs have become such an issue for presidential candidates and other politicians in the last few decades. Since JFK's time, the U.S. has become a more tolerant society in almost every respect (concerning race, homosexuality, abortion, etc.) So why is there actually less tolerance for extramarital affairs among politicians? It's downright bizarre to become more conservative about this while becoming more liberal about almost everything else.

There's a difference between being gay and being unfaithful. In one, you can't help it. in the other, if you don't think you can control yourself or keep a promise, then don't get married. or at least if you're going to get married, come to some "understanding" beforehand.

Lou,

You didn't answer my question. Why this new attitude now?

And as to coming to an "understanding," come on. How many people in our society would agree to that?

Does this stuff really matter? Obviously, prurient media hounds make a living at it. But, aside from that, does it really matter. I wish it didn't, but it does. Take for example, Senator Hart's case. Had he won the Democratic nomination in 1988, which he most likely would have, he probably would have gone on to defeat George H.W. Bush. Then, there would have been no Bush presidency, none, period. Instead we got two. There also probably would not have been a war in Iraq, and all of those thousands of families would not have suffered all those lost loved ones. Yes, it does make a difference, but one which is way out of proportion to the consequences.