Edwards Staff Had Affair 'Doomsday' Strategy

Source: ABC News

Edwards Staff Had Affair 'Doomsday' Strategy

May 10, 2009 10:16 AM
................

ABC contributor George Will suggested former Sen. John Edwards was irresponsible to campaign for the Democratic Party nomination.

"Think about what a tragedy it would have been if he had won?" Will said.

I've talked to a lot of former Edwards staffers about this. Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards' staff didn't believe rumors about the affair.

But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.

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

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/05/edwards-staff-h.html

Will must have something really dirty on someone at ABC News-that is the only explanation for his continued presence on TV

Seriously Cokie spare us this absurd idea.

Will was at the table, the jerk, along with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson and Robert Reich. He's on that crew (he's one of those contributors they keep on the payroll because they know how to address the camera, know what the red light means, etc.) along with a couple of others.

There's a video link of the full discussion at the bottom of the synopsis.

ETA--repair of a word with a dropped letter.

It was bullshit when George Stephenopoulos said it and it was bullshit for ABC to blog it.

Even if someone is making such ridiculous claims, then I can only assume they are making this up to try and save their own political hide. It's like Cokie Roberts said (I can't even believe I am quoting her, because I genuinely despise her): Why wouldn't they just all quit the campaign together in protest? This is bullshit.

It's actually not George Will talking about the Doomsday strategy, but George Stephanopoulos. I find it a relief to know there were those on the campaign actually looking out for us.

would have turned out if Edwards had not been in the mix? What if Edwards' dropping out would have resulted in Hillary, the 30 point leader, winning Iowa as well as NH? Would that momentum have gotten her the nomination? (Someone on the show, I think it was that waste of oxygen, Cokie, said Hillary and Edwards split the vote, by which I take it she meant the vote for white candidates. I don't agree with that at all. It was nowhere near that simplistic. However, Hillary and Edwards did pretty much split the "not-Obama vote," however it was made up.)

I was backing Obama from December, but I would have backed Hillary, if she had gotten the nomination "fair and square."

And, in reality, not even they know for certain that they would have pulled the plug if Edwards had started sweeping the nation. That is heady stuff and those who back the winner get treated well. Most are set for life after that.

I don't feel looked after by Edwards people at all. I think they looked after themselves and played a distasteful game with the process and are now trying to have it both ways.

I think all that would have had to happen was for one of these people to tell Edwards what they had in mind to call an end to it. Maybe they did. I'm just glad somebody even thought of it, to tell you the truth, because all I've seen until this was a terribly cynical coverup. On your other point, Edwards backers were polling strongly for Obama as their second choice, so I don't think his dropping out helped Hillary that much. The one demographic I thought they shared were white working class men - and Hillary already had them, not Edwards, for the most part. In Iowa, Edwards and Hillary essentially tied, with not even half a point between them, and both of them 8 or 9 points behind Obama. I'm pretty sure with Obama's second choice polling he still would have won had Edwards dropped beforehand.

They talk about a lot of issues, not just the Edwards thing.

as it is important in the process. Obama was the favorite of far more Edwards caucus goers than HRC.

The flaw in thinking of HRC and Edwards spliting the not Obama vote is that there is an every bit as valid view that Obama and HRC split the not HRC vote - that was actually how it was more often seen as she was the front runner and the better known.

My guess is that they would not have pulled the plug. Why?, human nature. It is hard to believe that they worked for a campaign that they didn't want to win and had their underdog looked like he was winng, to give up the chance to be in a former underdog's inner circle.

After they broke the story that the pregnant Rielle was living in Chapel Hill, he said flat out that she was not their source and it was no rival campaign, but that the source was impeccable and beyond reproach (or something like that). That story was late December 2007 just about when this little rebellion was going on, so now I wonder if the source was somebody high up in the Edwards campaign who was involved in this disaster plan. Not that Edwards was going to win the nom, but he could have wormed his way onto the ticket. Although I imagine the Obama and Clinton campaigns had all this oppo tucked away already and it wouldn't have happened in either outcome. Maybe the campaign staff was just fed up with it all.

I got the sense they both touched that base because it was expected, and they were maybe hoping to pick up a few converts from his camp, and maybe the old endorsement--but not that either one of them wanted to spend much, if any, time with the guy. And I thought that well before I knew about this story.

Something about Edwards never rang true with me. I think it's interesting that I (and others, plainly--because his message, which was a good one, never caught on as it might have delivered by someone else) just couldn't buy what he was selling.

Get over it. Investigate something newsworthy...

John Edwards had an affair? Elizabeth's. Nobody else's that I know of.

nation.

And, btw, the character of a candidate for President matters to me. I might not impeach him for cheating on a dying wife, but I sure would want to know when I was making up my mind about the nomination.

Edwards didn't have a prayer, though, which in retrospect was fortunate--he may have played an unintended role as a vote shifter or spoiler, but even that's not plain.

We are so damn backwards in America and so obsessed with the private lives of public figures. As long as someone can do the job, who cares with whom he does the hokey pokey?

also care that he ran for the Democratic nomination without disclosing this, because it could have been the October Surprise and cost the Party--and the nation--the election. That he thought he might make it to the Wh without having this hit the fan is frightening.

That kind of selfishness, narcissism and divorce from reality is not what I want in a President.

and the sooner we understand that, the better.

And not everyone is entitled to be President of the United States.

John Edwards, through his baffling display of immaturity and bad judgment is one of those people who is should never be President

He had at least one, if not two, affairs.

of how the Repukes will go after someone for this, John Edwards owed it to all of us to either keep his fucking pants zipped, or just have his fun and drop out of the race.

For the last three years of his Presidency, Bill Clinton's life was about Monica and avoiding impeachment (then avoiding the subject by bombing Yugoslavia), instead of about building a progressive society that could have gotten Al Gore elected as his successor.

I'm quite glad that our current President is a man in love with his wife, and in love with the American people, and not someone stupid enough to screw up the chance that the American people gave him to use his amazing intellect for the purpose of restoring our society, not just for "scoring".

while that ASSHOLE was fucking around...fucking HYPOCRITE!!!

Edwards may be a good man overall with his politics, but after we lost control of government for eight years because of Clinton's infidelity we simply cannot afford it. I personally dont care, and I believe that in Europe they wouldn't care either but the sad fact is that he knew it would come out and he should never have been in the race. He was essentially running for VP anyway and used his clout to hurt Hillary at just the right time. If he had gotten the VP nod it could easily have lost us close states and allowed the repubs to win another election while losing the popular vote. If he really cared about his issues he should have taken a cue from Al Gore and stayed out of the race and been involved in pushing policies. Nader is another who lets his own ego push him into the race when he could better serve his politics by pushing the candidates as a non-candidate instead of being a spoiler. Thakfully those on the left learned it is better to have a moderate centrist who will give you some of what you want than to back someone who has no chance and simply is a spoiler. It is the way our system of government is built, and unless we do away with the electoral college and possibly the senate that is the way it will always be in the US.

but - I have to agree with No Elephants. Couldn't have said it better myself.

How many other potentially great presidents were brought down by their own campaign staff, purposely, for their own reasons that had nothing to do with their leadership ability?

It's doubtful this campaign staff pulled that idea out of their asses on their own. It's likely there was a past case where something just like this was done, and it never leaked out to the public.

the economic cyclone that was about to hit. Edwards was, in my opinion, the best candidate when it came to substance. And I still think that.

I'm very disappointed that he had that affair. He could never have won thanks to that mistake. But, I am very pleased that he ran, because he forced the other candidates, Obama included, to take stances that they would not have taken. He pushed the whole primary toward progressive.

I wish now that Obama would consult with Edwards on the economy, especially outsourcing, trade and bailing out banks. Obama's trade policy is just more of the same. Edwards had new ideas. It's really sad that Edwards had an affair. But then, Clinton did too -- while in office, and Democrats everywhere defended him and protected him.

If Edwards had been the nominee, he would have lost badly.

Honesty is part of "doing the job". We have a right to a president who will do what they say they're going to, and who will keep their promises and committments to the best of their ability. If Edwards would lie to the person he loved more than anyone about something so important, he would lie to anyone about anything. If someone wants my votes for the most powerful office in the world, then I damn well AM entitled to that information. What's more, Edwards and his wife knew that this could have come out at any time, and that it could have put another Republican in the White House if it came out after he got the nomination. They put their own naked political ambitions ahead of the good of their party, the country and the world, and they deserve to be shut out of politics forever because of it.

as the reason he couldn't support same sex marriage. And he's a slimy little liar. I detest that phony- and I did long before news of his scuzzy fucking around came to light.

Tragedy for the country. That's ridiculous. What on earth is the matter with people.

resulting in election of McCain Palin.

Everyone I heard express an opinion on the matter had been saying since 2004 that Elizabeth was superior to John and, in any case, she was a dying woman. I think it takes an incredibly narcissistic guy to do that to his wife and kids at that kind of time. I think it was no accident that Bill Clinton was succeeded by someone who I saw announce his candidacy on the Trinity Broadcasting network before I heard about it in the MSM--and John Edwards is no Bill Clinton in terms of brains and savvy.

I know that a McCain Palin win may not have been the outcome, especially given McCain's conduct to his crippled wife. However, that had been dulled by age. Bottom line: if this had come out a few days before the election, people may not have calmed down and rationalized it all.

extramarital sex is not a tragedy.

And there was no way John McCain was going to be elected. No one liked him, not even Republicans.

We think alike. :D

than, in any sane universe, they should have had.

A "Clinton II: This Time With a Baby!!" scenario could easily have put things over the edge.

pregnant and unmarried right around that time? And didn't McWar have a long history of infidelity?

cheating, nor cheating on a well liked, popular spouse, nor cheating on a well-like popular spouse who was dying. And she was not a mature adult.

McCain's affairs were those of a younger man who had just returned from years of being tortured--and they supposedly ended almost 30 years ago, when he met Cindy. News that old just does not have the impact of something that you don't have much time to process before you have to pull that lever or fill out that paper ballot.

Edwards displayed incredible selfishness, callousness, narcissism and being out of touch with reality (thinking he could escape detection).

You keep trying to make this about sex and only sex, but there was a lot more to it. Bristol's situation was indeed only about sex and unwed motherhood. Edwards' situation went way beyond that.

who is obviously impaired AND a member of a tanking party over a good looking guy who had an affair. In some circles, that just proves Edwards is a man.

I don't believe most Americans are that moralistic. We don't want to know. We want jobs and for our interest rates to go down. We're not a center-right country and we don't want any telling us what to do in our bedrooms. That's just a right wing lie.

Edwards would have gone through two bad weeks but if he made the right gestures, that would be it. He'd have his wife at his side after his confession and then, we'd be off to the races.

/ack

What circles would those be?

but I understand that to a certain demographic, having an affair is a coup.

two young kids already dealing with their mom's illness and coming death. And the lack of honesty, to his wife, to his party and to the nation. This is not about judging a man just for having sex or even just for having extra-marital sex. The situation was extraordinary and he handled it extraordinarily badly. He displayed some serious character flaws and a degree of narcissistic loss of touch with reality and his own limitatins that is reminiscent of Dummya.

and those continue through cancer, through everything.

I cannot imagine a scenario where a man would announce to his circle of friends that he is cheating on his wife who is dying of cancer and the response would be cheers and high-fives.

The information could have hit the fan on October 30. And, as I said, anythng said about a McCain-Palin win or loss is just speculation. But, the fact that Edwards would even have risked that on my behalf, on behalf of the Party and on behalf of the nation is enough for me.

that whatshername and her people wouldn't have stfu. You don't tank someone that close to that much power.

I'm not defending JE, I hope you understand that. It's more that every Democratic president in my lifetime with the possible exception of Mr. Carter has been caught having extramarital sex.

speculation. I am dealing in what actually happen and what we can see of Edwards character from what happened--the totality of what happened, not just the fact of extra marital sex in a vacuum.

I don't know what you mean about whathername. Do you mean Rielle or however you spell it? If so, she was not the one who exposed him (so to speak). The National Enquirer had been following him around. They even confronted him during his primary campaign and he denied it, more than once.

As far as the Democratic Presidents, I cannot help that, but Edwards was never President anyway.

I can tell you that, while we all know cheating is not nice--even those of us who have cheated ourselves know that (I assume)--I don't think Clinton and Monica was anything near as bad as this, although Gore might beg to differ. If JFK was on a date while his wife was delivering and again when she was miscarrying, that would have been bad, too, but still not as bad as this. Besides, I think Jackie got him right back with Ari on that cruise.

Did LBJ cheat?


Maybe the Republicans cheated too, but just never got caught. Supposedly, Eisenhower did. Would you put it past Nixon or Dummya? I wouldn't.

relationship with Nancy is a big unknown.

And then we go on to Gingrich, who is reported to have told his wife that he was divorcing her for another woman -- while his wife was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery -- and numerous Republicans. Remember Henry Hyde? The Unforgettable Henry Hyde. These things do not seem to harm the careers of Republicans.

Was I disgusted that Edwards did what he did? Yes. Am I disgusted now that Obama is handing out taxpayer money to wealthy bankers and so far failing to prosecute war crimes? Yes. Edwards' errors caused problems for his family. Obama's errors are causing problems for ordinary Americans. Edwards had better ideas on the economy, especially trade. I'm very disappointed that Edwards did what he did, but, quite frankly, people have affairs every day. The percentage of married men who have affairs is very high. Edwards' affair is not unusual.

affair while running for office and/or while holding office. And again, Edwards affair was not, IMO, just a garden variiety affair. Nor am I saying that Republicans don't have affairs, but Gingrich did not have an affair that he kept secret while he was running for President either.

This is about Edwards's specific affair and the circumstances around that--dying spouse, young kids, run for the Democratic nomination. It is not about all sex or even about all extra marital affairs. Therefore, the sex lives of Gingrich and Bristol Palin, or even of Sarah Palin, are not relevant, even though all of them had sex outside marriage.

Monica was the last in a line, not the first. I don't know about Nixon and don't think I want to know!

:scared:

asked you about this affair are a little different. Edwards' arrogance and narcissim and apparent break with realistic thinking is highly relevant here, for me, anyway.

JFK and LBJ and their predecessors also enjoyed a "gentleman's agreement" with the media that has not existed since Gary Hart. They knew they had that agreement; Edwards knew he did not have the benefit of it and he also knew that the Enquirer was on to him. Yet, he continued the affair, the attempt at secrecy AND the campaign.

Again, for me, it is not primarily about simply sex, or even about primarily simply extra marital sex.

There was a specific set of circumstances in Edwards case that told a lot about his character and the kind of President he might make, well beyond garden variety extra marital slap and tickle.


I have also distinguished between a President doing something in office and a candidate while running. I would not have advocated impeaching Edwards if the affair came to light after he was President. Would I weigh the information in deciding whether to vote for Edwards in a primary, though? You betcha! (sorry, couldn't resist)

I suspect it's much more than she's acknowledging.

that a politician getting busted for sex, without more, is a tragedy. Neither you nor I can truly be sure of what would have happened on November 4 if Rielle and her baby hit the fan on October 30 as Elizabeth tries to get through her last days, so that's speculation. However, even risking sticking the country with McCain Palin was beyond selfish..

if we didn't have the best damn candidate ever.

but that's a lot of "what if-ing"

equipment, I don't think we even know how big Obama won. Everything really came together for him (and, for us!).

Not while he was governor, either. So far as we know, he's all Laura's.

Are you sure that's the criteria you want to use in judging a potential presidency?

time in the life of both spouses is the only criterion I wanted to use in judging a potential presidency? IMO, that's a wildly inaccurate and trivializing treatment of what my posts have been saying.

You've been replying to everything I've posted as though my issue with Edwards was simply some kind of Puritannical objection to sex outside marriage. That is not what any of my posts have said or implied. .

I'm sorry that you think all Democrats besides Carter have had sex in office, and therefore you need to defend Edwards and anyone else who has sex outside marriage, but that is not even the issue, either. (No one's been posting about President Edwards' having an affair in the Oval Office.)

If you want to say that no one should ever even consider in a primary candidate, any fact pattern, so long as an afffair is involved--what he was willing to do to a dying wife snd his kids--how he ignored warnings from the Enquirer that they were on to him and continued with his campaign, his dishonesty and his affair anyway, how he was willing to put the election at jeopardy, etc. Fine, we simply disagree and probably always will.

If you want to pretend that all that is someohow comparable to a very young, unmarried Bristol Palin getting knocked up before she even knew McCain was dumb enough to make Sarah his running mate, or to Dummya's having an unnoticed affair (or not)while he was already Governor of Texas and Laura was in great health, that is just not the makings of an honest or interesting discussion.

Laura's the smart one--maybe she just knew how to keep her mouth shut and her scehdule such that, if she was horsing around, no one would take note.

Doesn't have to be "the" criteria, but it's part of a larger picture, and needs to be put in context. When you add in a dying wife to an affair with a woman who can only be called a fucking free-and-easy flake, and a baby that looks way too much like the candidate for comfort, and a ton of money changing hands from several sources, and the use of that dying wife as an example of both family harmony and resilience, well, that's pretty fucking craven.

our Business.

how loyal would he be to his own country?

Dean said there was a cancer growing on Nixon's presidency, well there's a cancer growing on our entire country now. How loyal would he be to his own country when its hurting if he would betray his wife?

During his campaign he said private personal conduct was a valid basis on which to assess the character and trustworthiness of a politician.

in reality, people do care about this stuff when it comes to voting. so wagging your finger at a nosy electorate wouldn't have fixed the problem at hand.

winning was everything in 08.

edwards' weakness would've cost us dearly had he been the nominee, not that mccain's sordid past is any better.

In theory, communism works. In theory.

Problem is that if we had nominated Edwards, and then this affair came out as the October surprise the best prospect for electing a Democratic president in 16 years is finished. Then it becomes a problem for all of us.

John Edwards was not Bill Clinton. They Clintons never depicted themselves as the all American family; the Edwards' did. Clinton did not cheat on a wife while she was battling breast cancer. Like it or not, the American people would not have forgiven Edwards, especially had this revelation come out in the thick of the campaign.

The point is he wasn't and attempted to hide her and hush her and his real mistake was not in denying it so much as believing the tabloids wouldn't ever be able to catch him. Which they did. If he hadn't been trying to "hide and hush" it's possible no one would have ever known.

Most of us really would prefer the Ozzie and Harriet delusion when you get right down to it. And the majority of our polticians who really do litte for us could at least allow us the delusion.

As for George Will the only redeeming quality about him is that he slipped on his tongue once and as a result George HW Bush will forever be known as "Whiney" which is what Nancy Reagan called him even before he became the vice-presidential candidate. Against her better judgement. He also slipped on his tongue later and stated Ronald Reagan knew nothing about Iran-Contra. In reality he probably didn't.

Men do have mistresses. Even in this country. That is changing a little both here and in Europe. Women are not so "conciliatory" about it.

But there is a difference between a mistress and a "backstreet affair" and this was the latter. Acceptable to some. But not to others.

If nothing else it just summed up the hypocrisy of John Edwards the worst of which has nothing to do with his having an affair.

wlling to take responsiblity for his own actions. Both those things would have gone a long way with me, and probably with many people.

but, he didn't have that honesty or strength of character, And he was stupid enough to keep lying after it was crystal clear that the Enquirer had caught him. That is dumb.

How people handle things says a lot about them. What it said about Edwards was not good.

are on a continuum, they're not opposing choices. They "hide and hush" until they have to "be honest".

I get that many people are aghast at Edwards taking such a risk and after 8 years of a criminal regime, no less. But, people continue to be people no matter what. In war zones, under repressive regimes, through the Great Depression, they just keep being people.

Whatever. At least that's one thing we don't have to deal with right now on top of everything else.

.........party. Jesusfuckingchrist, a moral moron and a fucking no-nothing windbag. I guess it beats Rush and Hannity.

It was George Stephanopolous. Will was simply commenting on what GS said, as did Donaldson, Roberts, and Reich. About the only one who had anything nice to say about JE was Reich.

............and if the Republicans want to anoint him the new intellectual "Buckley" (another gas bag AND onetime racist) fine by me. When this guy talks, it's like he's high. He starts at one point and just drifts and drifts until you ask yourself "what the fuck is this guy talking about".

He has had a couple that I know of.

would have sabotaged him. Would they have exposed the affair or did they have another plan?

the repubs could have held the country for ransom while civilization collapsed.

Because a sexual peccadillo by a Democrat is intolerable.

Better society be ruined and millions starve than letting a Democrat have a little fun.

If you don't believe in the candidate, you resign.

The bigger story was them telling us the single payer health care is dead because (according to them) none of the for profit health care provider will participate if they have to compete against the government. Reality is that they already compete against medicare and medicaid.

That seems to be the corporate message for the day.

I could only handle watching about 5 minutes of the corporate talking heads.

whereas in the REPUKE Party, it's PARTY over COUNTRY, 100% of the time...

without Edwards, Clinton would have won - it doesn't get any simpler. As has been said many a time, and way back when, there was the pro-Obama 'newbie in politics' vote and the young people (and of course, some long time politicos who were for Obama), and then there were the rest of us deciding between Hill and John. Take John outta the picture from the start and Hillary would have won. Barack is president, in part, because of John staying in the contest until the exact moment that it helped Barack. Now, if that was planned, who knows!? But it worked out well.

speculating.

No one knows how many of Edwards votes would have gone to Hillary and how many would have gone to Obama. Whoever on this week said that Hillary might have won if Edwards was not in the race did not know either and seems to have been assuming that Hillary and Edwards were splitting the "white vote" between them. I think that underestimates Democratic voters. And, in fact, when Edwards dropped out, more of his votes and his delegates seem to have gone to Obama than to Hillary. So, I don't see the basis for those assertions.

People claim Edwards and Clinton split the white vote, but never pick up on how Edwards and Obama split the male vote.

Last time I checked, I was white, and I'm pretty sure I voted for Barack in the primary. :shrug:

Perhaps you meant to direct your comment to Divine Discontent?

and I would never have voted for either Obama or Hillary. Edwards and Kucinich were the only candidates that I agreed with on fundamental issues.

and to think how CLOSE it could have been for that ASSHOLE to be the NOMINEE, and we would NOW have ANOTHER repuke President and COVERUP!

He was way slicker than Clinton and too slimy...

and don't forget that fucking ASSHOLE Edwards was PUBLICLY CRITICIZING Clinton while he was CHEATING all the time on HIS wife - fucking HYPOCRITE!!!

...Had Hillary won the nomination, Palin (who was ultimately a liability) wouldn't have been forced on McCain. What would have happened had he a more seemingly capable VP nom?

Obama's eloquence would have been absent. Obama brought voters into his fold that otherwise might not have voted at all. Hillary Clinton had baggage to carry. Among a fair number of progressives, she was seen as a carryover from Bill's established corporatist policies. Those people would have stayed away from the polls in November. For every one of Obama's "unknown" factors, she had a negative one.

I just don't think she could have won the general election.

It will be a great day when ABC News stops foisting that asshole's opinion on their viewers. What a waste of time he is.

sake.

Judge & jury....It's such an uncommon dastardly crime....is it a "crime"? Or just uptight, judgmental, self-righteous, nosey assholes....seems to me it's ONLY the spouses personal & private business!!

and he knew that and lied his duplictous, sanctimonious ass off.

Pretty much sums it up right there

never be president.

If it's true.

but what a horrible idea to run with that scandal plaguing you

Often in national political campaigns, there are differences in the level and degree of commitment among various staff members. Some, usually the youngest, are setting out to garner experience and build their resumes. Others are on board because they are well known advocates for a particular issue. The candidate's strongest supporters, those who know him or her the best, would not stoop to the level of such machinations. This could only be the brainchild of senior staff members at the top level of the campaign. Tragically, for many in these "trusted" positions; party loyalty often supersedes any sense of personal obligation to the individual candidate.