Money Talks, Suckers Walk
In regard to the stories about refunds of contributions to Big Wheels, I don't have strong feelings either way, and a couple of Devil's Advocates could argue both sides.
I do note, however, that even though the latest, baddest story was not broken until August 8 or thereabouts, the stories, both National Enquirer and blind items in the New York (Daily News or Post, I forget which), go back to at least August, 2007, and the bizarre stories regarding Ms. Hunter and Mr. Young developed months ago, so the campaign has been on notice that a big storm was on the horizon for much longer than August 8, 2008.
There were reasons a long time ago for the campaign to start placating big supporters in some way. Those are the supporters who probably have access to the candidate and campaign leaders, and who could influence action from general pressure and explicit statements of chagrin, whether there were specific questions as to why the candidate had not thought with his brain, and "what the heck is going on and I spent all my time bundling for you for this mess to develop?"
It is probable that most regular Jills and Joes who sent small donations would not have such access and implicit, if not explicit, influence. The regular Jills and Joes would get their info and ability - - or lack of ability - - to exert influence as a group from the MSM - - - and now back to square one re the MSM. When the recent explosive story came out and the MSM covered it - - or covered their failure to cover it - - Andrea Mitchell said on a cable news show that the journalist community had known about the stories for a long time. It sounds as if journalists knew and sat on it, and those in the inner circle knew, or knew something was stinky, and said, "I'm disappointed with you. I am taking your allowance away this year."
Most scenarios don't unfold all neat and tidy like on "Matlock," where the evidence is so obvious the lawyer just explains it in a five minute narrative and then asks the stunned and cowering witness, merely, "Isn't that true?" It is a mistake to assume after the fact, with enhanced hindsight, that all actions in any scenario took place with perfect knowledge on behalf of the actor. It may simply be a case of the squeaky wheel got the grease.
Big supporters may have been harrumphing because they knew something was up, whereas regular Jills and Joes may have had to choose between the National Enquirer and John Edwards, their hero, who said it was all a pack of lies.
To be fair to all donors, big and small, if there was not enough money to repay all contributions, then the campaign should have issued pro rata refunds to all donors in both Americas, without waiting to be asked.
[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, scandal and cover-up: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]
by Phil Ander