Ever since I started working in politics, I have had a simple rule – if I don’t believe in a candidate, I don’t work for him/her. If I lose faith in a candidate, I quit working for the campaign. Most folks I’ve dealt with in the GOP operate on the same sort of principle.

Apparently the Democrats operate differently.

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.
Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards' staffers have told me.
They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Think about that one for a minute – they were willing to take the money paid by a candidate but not show him any loyalty. They decided he should not be president, but continued to draw a check anyway, while planning to sabotage the campaign if it appeared he would win.

Disgusting – absolutely disgusting.

George Stephanopoulos has reported on this “doomsday plan”. That is all well and good – but what he really needs to do is report the names of the staffers who were willing to co-opt the political process for their own personal gain, and to commit a fraud on the electorate for a paycheck.

And let me say that as deeply as I feel contempt for John Edwards, it does not approach the level of contempt I have for these staffers. Better that they be good Americans and not participate in the cover-up -- and allow the voters in the Democrat primary to have full information on all the candidates, which might have influenced the eventual outcome of the Democrat nomination. After all, would those Edwards voters have broken for Obama, giving him an earlier victory in the delegate hunt? Or would the displaced Edwards voters have broken for Hillary Clinton, turning the entire race on its head? And wouldnÂ’t either of those outcomes have been better for America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.