Tuesday, May 12th, 2009...7:53 am
I Call Bull…
The tale of John Edwards staffers looking to “sabotage” his campaign if it looked like he would win would make a good plot for a Richard Condon novel, but it smacks of operatives trying to make themselves look better, especially after Elizabeth Edwards’s revelations last week.
Think about the plausibility of this: these operatives were so disgusted by the behavior of Edwards that they continued to campaign for him. Then, over a year later, they tell a reporter their tale of being creeped out by this and their “secret plan” to scuttle the campaign should he look like he would be the nominee. This was supposed to be for the sake of the party. How a probable nominee’s campaign colapsing later in the year would be good for the party is unaddressed.
This is all said anonymously, so no one can ask, why not just quit the campaign? Having several staffers quit may have scuttled the campaign back then. There were plenty of political jobs available at the time too; few competent operatives would have been unemployed for long.
Since the source of these tales is anonymous, it is impossible for the rest of us to evaluate whether or not the folks spinning this yarn were higher ups, staff or the volunteer that emptied the headquarters trash on alternate Thursdays. If this turns out to not be true, what does it say about the folks that peddled the story? Heck, for that matter, it doesn’t say much for the folks involved in the unlikely event that it turns out to be true either.
8 Comments
May 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
so the staffers kept getting paid by the guy with the intentions of sabotaging the guy. YEAH!!! That is honorable. A tank full sharks, a tank full of lawyers, a tank full of politicians, a tank full of political operatives. I’ll take the sharks, then lawyers, then the politicians, just keep me away from the conniving, backstabbing, rumour brewing operatives.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I call bananas on their story: “We would have sabotaged a party member’s campaign we were working on for the good of the party if it looked like we were going to win.” No qualms then about soliciting campaign contributions or getting their own paycheck in the meantime.
Their next “admission” will be that they were only in it to siphon off a portion of the Hillary primary supporters in order to help the Obama campaign. Again, just for the good of the party.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Seems to me that they were more concerned about drawing a paycheck.
And yes, I do think they were aware of the consequences should Edwards fallout. And it could only help Hilliary.
As for Edwards, he is an arrogant man. We should watch out for people like him, no matter what banner they may be carrying. Disgusting.
R!
May 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I agree with Politico’s point that the anonymous staffers in question should hope their names don’t get leaked otherwise they are finished in politics.
And yes, Edwards is an idiot. But so are some of his staffers, apparently.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“Mah father worked in a mill…”
May 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
That’s not “mill”…it’s “meal.”
May 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Arrogant, disgusting, idiot…..
Geez, when did we become a party of puritans?
Losing Edwards to marital issues took away the only voice we had on poverty.
Losing Elliot Spitzer to marital issues took away the only voice for reinstalling & enforcing tough regulation of the financial sector & the only guy the financial titans were legitimately afraid of.
All we have now are middle class issues & nursing the banks back to their former strength. We sound more like the party of Ronald Reagan than the party of Franklin Roosevelt…
May 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
T—if you can figure this name reference you in the running for genius of the month……Stephen, VERY, VERY, VERY well said. Marital issues also cost invariably or at least indirectly cost Dems the presidency in 2000. That and the twitasaurus herself, Donna Brazile.
T–obscure hint…..Air America Radio host