"[S]everal members of Edwards’ presidential campaign staff believed early on that Edwards was having an affair and decided to wreck his campaign if it looked like he was going to win the nomination."
Politico reports, noting that it was outrageous for these staffers to cling to their jobs if this was their attitude.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
In a word, nonsense.
This is revisionism. Pure and simple. Nobody was going to blow anything up because they were all happily along for the paycheck, the ride and the glory.
If the quote is genuine, I suspect the staffers were speaking metaphorically of the campaign as a whole. They were recognizing that Edwards was going to self-destruct eventually.
Finally, an explanation for why they hired Amanda Marcotte!
I was ready to kill Hitler if it looked like he was poised to succeed.
Sorry, but this is so much bullshit.
This is a Scott McClellan move - nothing more...
It's bizarre that they would think this would rehabilitate their image.
Who is going to hire a staffer who would stick a knife in their back?
If they would knife John Edwards, why wouldn't they knife their new boss?
Except . . .
These staffers are counting on the Washington elite to recognize that they aren't backstabbers, they're just shameless liars. They want to show off how good they are at floating a shameless lie and getting it repeated by the credulous liberal media. THAT is the hallmark of a useful political aide on the D side.
A word comes to mind: craven.
(and I'm laughing at Paul's comment)
Those campaign staffers were bad but not as bad as Tony Almeida.
Yes I know I’m violating Goodwin’s Law.
But I figure the only way to keep it alive and meaningful is to defile it every once in a while ;)
I know alot of peeps who were high up in the Edward's campaign. None expressed this sentiment.
Paul: Finally, an explanation for why they hired Amanda Marcotte!
LMAO. Best post in thread.
Lem has a pretty good analogy. A less godwin similie would be these staffers sound like some of the Vichy govt. in W.W.II saying they were actually part of the resistance, but didn't want to blow their cover by fighting the Nazis'. Whatever
Can't this story just go away fast enough? Edwards is a gone goose and rightfully so.
Tell ya' what. let's just all go stand in the corner and think of something else....perhaps try not to think of the big white bear.
ya'betcha.
Quite a racket.
Pimp out this blow-dried matinee idol who talked about poverty in moving terms in order to raise money from guilt-ridden millionaires, compliant union bosses and starstruck minions to pay the staffers' salaries, all the while planning the kill the bitch and skip town if things got a little too hot.
Covered in glory, they are.
Can't this story just go away fast enough? Edwards is a gone goose and rightfully so. Tell ya' what. let's just all go stand in the corner and think of something else
Its relevat because Edwards will try to rehab his rep and run again.
Suuuuure. Now they say that.
But they didn't mind going along for the paycheck, and until he'd done enough damage to Hillary to make it all fun.
These people have no redeeming value whatsoever.
Now they say it anonymously.
These people have no redeeming value whatsoever.
They're campaign workers. That much goes without saying.
Anyway, if these were paid staffers (and they appear to be) then they are, in my opinion, morally obligated to return their salaries. You don't accept money to work for X and then turn around and work for "not X".
How ethically superior of them! How very, very high road of them!No, sir, how very, very high road of you.
So I'm a party-loyal campaign worker hoping to do this again sometime, perhaps for real remuneration. I should confront the leaders or go public, eh?
Actually, I don't believe the story.
Two thoughts:
1. Maybe they DID sabotage the campaign
2. Intent is not action. If they did nothing early on when it was easy to do so, how likely is it that they would they have done it later when ending Edwards' ambition would have been more difficult?
It sounds like self-justifying bullshit. People like to say "I saw what was coming!" Or, "I would have..." Well, so what? What did you DO? That's what matters. There's no way to prove what you thought or what you felt (even CYA memos tend to be "just in case"). Talk is cheap. Action has consequences.
"I know alot of peeps who were high up in the Edward's campaign. None expressed this sentiment."
So the higher-up peeps you knew, do they claim to be unbelievably stupid and blind, or just did not find Edwards' dishonesty to be disqualifying?
I mean, since they aren't expressing the 'we knew and would have done something eventually if necessary' craven sentiment, it really leaves only those two other options.
Which do you think it was on the part of the high-up folks you know? Stupidity and incompetence, or moral bankruptcy?
I'm kind of curious.
"Tell ya' what. let's just all go stand in the corner and think of something else....perhaps try not to think of the big white bear."
That's what I am trying to do-- not think about that great big bear of a deficit we are running up. I was ready to throw Bush out of office over his, so I am less than thrilled Obama has decided the best way for him to differentiate himself from Bush's policies is by having an even bigger deficit.
I sincerely hope (and suspect) there might be some in the higher levels of the Obama economic team who will be pushed to doing the same to this administration, on behalf of the country rather than party.
Don't hold your breath. I can't think of any Dems that put Country over Party.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा