The Young accusations are going to the quality mainstream newspapers -NYT and WP

[karynnj]

This is really convenient for Sanford - though at least he is likely dead as a Republican Presidential candidate.

The New York Times surfaces the question of money illegally spent. They were given access to the proposal itself. One point they make is that Edwards made the deal with Young for Young to take responsibility while Edwards was preparing for Iowa. This is when he still thought he had a chance. We should be grateful for the judgment of Iowan votes in giving Obama a big victory.

A man who was one of former Senator John Edwards’s closest aides has a deal to write a book claiming that Mr. Edwards said he “would be taken care of for life” in return for falsely claiming he was the father of the baby carried by Mr. Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter.
<snip>

“ ‘You know how much I love you,’ Edwards said. ‘You know I’d walk off a cliff for you, and I know you’d walk off a cliff for me,’ ” Mr. Young wrote in the book proposal. “ ‘I will never forget this. And I will always be there for you.’ ” The proposal was shared with The New York Times by a book publishing industry executive. Portions of it were reported over the weekend by The Daily News of New York.

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether any of Mr. Edwards’s campaign money was improperly used with regard to his affair or efforts to keep it from becoming public. Mr. Young wrote that he had been questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and had been subpoenaed to speak before a grand jury.

A spokeswoman for the United States attorney in Raleigh, N.C., would not comment. Mr. Edwards has issued statements saying he is confident his campaign acted properly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/politics/30edwards.html?ref=politics

The Washington Post reports that in Elizabeth Edwards book, she refers to him just as "JIM" -even though it was obvious who Jim was as Young publicly claimed to be the father.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/06/john_edwards_faces_new_questio.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Both Edwards need to simply tell the whole truth - with no dissembling to the timeline, otherwise it is likely that details will continue to roll out - bringing the story up again each time it does.

[TayTay]

1. I think that might be best

There is no way to remove this story from the public now. Perhaps it would be best to just clear the air now and take the air out of the balloon this former aide is floating.

[beachmom]

2. Well, they always had a problem with the truth (at least talking about the '04 campaign)

so don't hold your breath.

The book purportedly will also talk about the 2004 campaign. Of note, John Kerry is on speaking terms with Elizabeth Edwards. I think this is because JK is a decent person and a cancer survivor.

[kestrel91316]

3. I don't care about John Edwards' affair. He's a private citizen now.

[karynnj]

4. As a hgh profile Democrat, he does a disservice to the party that honored when with

the VP nomination if he and Elizabeth continue to lie, thus allowing the story to return time and time again. By that I don't mean the details - just a timeline and an admission that they were wrong to lie when he confessed and she hid the lies.

I agreed with your position when this started, but after Elizabeth reopened everything with her book, they can hardly cite privacy.

[kestrel91316]

6. Yanno, sometimes it's just time to MOVE ON. I have moved on.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Gee, if only he had allegedly molested children instead. He'd be deified! n/t

[karynnj]

8. Only if he were a strange musical genius and not by me

Even then, Michael Jackson's music and talent is being honored only in his death. He has been a pariah for most of the last decade - deservingly so - and even in death those charges ARE being spoken of as well as the strange sorry life he had.

In Edwards' case, the question is what will resolve this and make the story old news. I have no idea whether quietly just going away and neither he or Elizabeth ever speaking about it again or getting all the facts, about the payments and the time line out - along with an admission that they were wrong to lie to a country they wanted to lead. What I do know is that the middle position, which they are in - thanks to EE's month long media tour for her book, makes it harder to criticize others for keeping the story prominent. The fact is the story WAS nearly dead until Elizabeth Edwards revived it. Her book obviously has had the effect of pushing others involved into wanting to get their stories out.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Does It Matter Now?

Other than for those who want to gloat or the corporate mediatypes who loves to look in other's dirty laundry. Edwards was toast when he failed in Iowa last year...before the scandal and proved once and for all he didn't have the organization to win the nomination. Surely the Edwards saw the end as well...and that's when all the shit began to fly.

It's a sad case...and Edwards needs to finally clear the air. I feel for Elizabeth who is all caught up at the intersection of politics and emotion. But as others have said, this is a private matter now...as oppoesd to a Sanford or Ensign who are elected officials and have/had ranking positions in the party.

[snot]

5. Edwards is history. Speaking of "time to move on . . ."

[karynnj]

9. I thought it was significant that people know that the story has gone

has been taken up by two of the most serious mainstream papers. (From google, it is everywhere.) The NYT also brings up the fact that the FBI has spoken to Young concerning the payments. In the Sanford case, I think the 2 biggest problems are that he didn't transfer power and that he used state money to pay for the trip. In his case, there was the option of paying the state back - which does not negate having used state money to begin with. If campaign funds were used, I don't know if Edwards can correct this because I think the account was closed. Again, if he used funds, I also don't know if it is worse because some of his money was federal funds.

[struggle4progress]

10. Too bad. I supported his Senate campaign and his 2008 Presidential run. He was an

attractive candidate for the Senate seat: quick on his feet, pleasant with everyone, and accessible. I didn't think he was a terrible first-term Senator, either: he was available if you wanted to meet him. It's a standard short story: small-town kid makes good, moves to the big city big time, and forgets who he was. I supported him to the bitter end, of course. I wish him and and his family well. Too bad.