L'Affaire Edwards: To Sabotage or Not?

On the heels of Elizabeth Edwards' revelation in her new book that she wanted her husband to drop out of the race for the presidency after having an affair with videographer Rielle Hunter, George Stephanopoulos reported on Sunday that Edwards staffers had convened a strategy to "sabotage his campaign" if he won the Democratic nomination.

Onetime Edwards strategist Joe Trippi has since responded to that report, calling it "complete bullshit."

Trippi told CNN: "No one that I know had such a plan, I wasn't involved in a plan like that, it didn't exist, it's a fantasy."

Trippi may be right, but I distinctly recall a conversation with an Edwards confidante at the Democratic Convention in August that lends some credence to the "sabotage strategy." I asked the Edwards insider--who asked not to be named--whether the staff knew about Edwards' affair (and possible love child) and whether they had planned to do anything about it. "We would have prevented Edwards from becoming the nominee had he won Iowa," this person told me based on my recollection of the conversation, "because we believed some portion of the rumors to be true."

I remember being surprised at that revelation and finding the whole scenario somewhat implausible. Why wait until after Iowa? If longtime staffers knew about or suspected Edwards' entanglements, shouldn't they have acted long before it reached voting time?

I asked that same Edwards confidante yesterday whether such a "sabotage strategy" ever existed? The person replied: "To suggest there was a plan is too strong. There was concern that if Edwards were actually in a position to seriously be the nominee, then this stuff needed to be aired and dealt with. He couldn't be the nominee without this dealt with in a real way." There was never an official conference call or the like, but such chatter did take place among Edwards campaign vets as the candidate picked up steam in Iowa in December. Prior to that point, it was assumed--even among some longtime supporters--that Edwards had little change of winning the nomination.

The Edwards staffers who discussed such a scenario figured "the problem would fix itself"--either Edwards would lose Iowa and drop out, or "if he was doing well, he'd get a lot more scrutiny and the press would either figure it out or not."

It's possible, in the end, that some people in the Edwards campaign knew about or suspected the affair and were prepared to do something about it, and others were kept in the dark or didn't take part in such conversations.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell makes a good point in her latest Notion blog; it's strange that people are blaming Elizabeth for opening old wounds when her husband's extraordinary carelessness and selfishness created this problem in the first place.

Comments (22)

1. 'I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.' -- Edward Forster

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/12/2009 @ 08:56am

2. The question is...with a possible "3rd Bush term" on the line...

   Why didn't EDWARDS "sabotage" his campaign, rather than risk that with his nomination???

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 08:57am

3. ITA with Melissa Harris-Lacewell. When the news first came out, everyone and his housecat was trash-talking Mrs. Edwards for staying with a cheater, not blowing the whistle, etc. She has a perfect right to respond.

   Posted by sdchandler at 05/12/2009 @ 09:58am

4. <The Edwards staffers who discussed such a scenario figured "the problem would fix itself"--either Edwards would lose Iowa and drop out, or "if he was doing well, he'd get a lot more scrutiny and the press would either figure it out or not."

   It's possible, in the end, that some people in the Edwards campaign knew about or suspected the affair and were prepared to do something about it, and others were kept in the dark or didn't take part in such conversations.>

   So, they knew he was guilty, but they continued lying to the public and promoting his campaign because?

   Sounds like political opportunists who saw the Edwards campaign as a money opportunity for themelves and cared little about integrity. And we should listen to such people? Why?

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:00am

5. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:00am

   Speaking of people defending liars and John Edwards, Larry...

   you remember in the 2004 Veep debates when Dick claimed that he only just met John Edwards when they walked on the stage for the debate...

   despite the fact that they had met several other times before?

   (Yes, others...A minor Cheney lie, I grant, but apropos....heheh)

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:04am

6. Edwards sad to say is delusional. If he thought he had a chance in hell of winning the nomination while keeping his affair secret, he is an idiot. Too stupid to be president. Sure lots of charm, but a dimwit. What a waste.

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 11:20am

7. I was a field organizer for Edwards in New Hampshire during the 2008 primary. I backed him because I believed he was the only candidate with a real shot of winning who was unashamedly progressive and had the right ideas about health care, the war in Iraq, education, and the many other issues facing our country.

   When the National Enquirer broke the story about Edwards's affair (some time in December '08, as I recall) all of us staffers on the ground decided to ignore it until the story was carried by news organizations not known for printing stories about men giving birth to alien babies. Unless a more reputable news source carried the story, we figured it was just more tabloid trash. As somebody who pretty much takes it as a given that all male politicians cheat on their wives, I am amazed, in hindsight, of my own naivete.

   What I can say for sure is that if high-level staffers knew about the affair, they certainly did not share that knowledge with those of us in the campaign who were at the bottom of the totem pole. Whatever "plot" to sabotage an Edwards nomination did or did not exist, field staffers were not in on it.

   In retrospect, what is so hurtful to me is not that Edwards had an affair--as I said above, I think one would be hard-pressed to find a pol who hasn't philandered at some point in his life. What is so upsetting is that Edwards funneled campaign money to his mistress. How someone who was so brave in his message--what other nationally successful politician makes addressing poverty a central part of his/her campaign?--and so right on the policies could be so ethically shifty is something I don't understand. Just when I thought I couldn't get more cynical...

   Posted by annhorwitz at 05/12/2009 @ 11:28am

8. Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 11:20am

   The exact point I made to B_KOOL on the other "Edwards" thread.

   Edwards showed himself to be either so monumentally STUPID, as to have no place in the White House (by believing he could "keep it secret for 8 years" ((of two Pres. terms)).)....

   or so incredibly egotistical and self-centered as to also be disqualified.

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:33am

9. Speaking of people defending liars and John Edwards, Larry...

   you remember in the 2004 Veep debates when Dick claimed that he only just met John Edwards when they walked on the stage for the debate...

   despite the fact that they had met several other times before?

   (Yes, others...A minor Cheney lie, I grant, but apropos....heheh)

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:04am

   But you seem to be ignoring my point that Ari is completely sidestepping the issue that these Edwards campaign workers are just as sleazy as Edwards. They attempted to keep the campaign going, strictly for their own personal gain.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:45am

10. They attempted to keep the campaign going, strictly for their own personal gain.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 11:45am

    OR they wanted him to get his political message out, but were patriotic enough to not let him actually get the nomination and give you guys your 3rd Bush term.

    All a matter of interpretation and since MY interpretation is of divine inspiration, I'm right and you're wrong.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:49am

11. All a matter of interpretation and since MY interpretation is of divine inspiration, I'm right and you're wrong.

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 11:49am

    Are you now claiming that "the end justifies the means"?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:10pm

12. Are you now claiming that "the end justifies the means"?----Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:10pm

    Interesting.

    I nearly perfectly impersonate your view...and you criticize such a view?!??!?!???

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:23pm

13. Interesting.

    I nearly perfectly impersonate your view...and you criticize such a view?!??!?!???

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 12:23pm

    Not sure whether that is an answer or not.

    Yes or no?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:25pm

14. The National Enquirer does not print "stories about men giving birth to alien babies." Find one.

    Posted by swanny58 at 05/12/2009 @ 1:48pm

15. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 12:25pm

    Well, it's not strictly "ends justifies the means", Larry.

    it's more like "I cannot be wrong because God (or some minister or some church) told me I was always right in my interpretation of things Biblical and geo-political."

    Which of course is just plain dopey, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 1:57pm

16. "Do the ends justify the means?" is a very silly question.

    What means and what ends?

    Put simply: shooting someone to protect your cookie; probably not justified.

    Shooting someone to protect your family? Likely justified.

    I would remind my fellow liberals that Bill Clinton was a known philanderer in the primaries. We elected him anyway. Then reelected him. Kind of a recent precedent for everyone I have read on the subject to have completely forgotten.

    McLiar set some kind of record for that, himself. Don't think he would have willingly opened that can of worms or that it would have made a damned bit of difference had JE won the nomination. The vast majority of those who would have disqualified him for that sole reason would never have voted for him in the first place.

    Odd that I have seen the most horror about the situation from fellow liberals.

    Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/13/2009 @ 06:49am

17. Well-stated, UnEasyOne. Anyone remember JFK?

    Posted by grndrush at 05/13/2009 @ 11:48am

18. <The National Enquirer does not print "stories about men giving birth to alien babies." Find one.

    I don't waste time finding ANYTHING in the National Enquirer, but I myself, while standing in line at a grocery check-out, have seen "alien babies" (PICTURES, not just a "story line") ON THE COVER of NE. Complete with ears that would shame Spock.

    That anyone who even occasionally reads "The Nation" would try for a moment to defend, in any way, the NE, frankly makes me wonder about that person's integrity. It's like a D&A counselor defending Barry Bonds.

    Posted by grndrush at 05/13/2009 @ 11:58am

19. http://socialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

    Posted by Juanpamel at 05/13/2009 @ 12:13pm

20. #

    Well-stated, UnEasyOne. Anyone remember JFK?

    Posted by grndrush at 05/13/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I sure as hell do - and it's gonna turn out that Obama is not perfect in every way also. The Repubs are working 24/7 to find something. They will if they have to make something up.

    Will we turn on him so fast?

    Full disclosure here: I supported Edwards until he dropped out. For the first time in my life, I think I supported the wrong man in the primaries - and not because of this.

    I should have supported Obama in the first place because part of the reason for my choice is that I didn't think a black man - or Hillary - could win (and I didn't want Hillary anyway.)

    I was obviously wrong about that, but more importantly, the way he (Barack) conducted his campaign, I became convinced that he was simply the only person who could handle the job right now.

    Whotta freakin' mess!

    Posted by UnEasyOne at 05/13/2009 @ 6:01pm

21. Ditto well stated UnEasyOne. This nation gets more Puritan and more stupid by the day. We allow some people their affairs and others not. Why? If the politician is controllable, they make the cut. If they push a too anti corporate agenda, there is always a scandal to reveal.

    I can't help thinking that they have a whole lot of scandals on members of congress that keep them from prosecuting torture dudes. J. Edgar Hoover spirit is alive. We should have a moratorium on affairs, so we can get

    Posted by dikamp at 05/14/2009 @ 12:34pm

22. oops....hit the button to early. Have a moratorium on affairs so we can fix big things like health care. Once we can get the nation back on track by caring about "we" instead of "me", maybe all the cheating will start to disappear. Kind of "trickle down".

    Posted by dikamp at 05/14/2009 @ 12:37pm