Andrew Young, former aid to John Edwards has written a tell all book that includes much about the Edwards family, including the story of how Young took the fall for Edwards by claiming to be the father of Rielle Hunter’s child.  Young went so far as to take Hunter into his home for 8 months (he was paid to do so).  Much has been written about Young and very little of it complimentary and at times it seems to me there is a bias against Young in a battle between Young and the Edwards.

Now, let me say up front that I think Andrews has a reputation for being a suck up who volunteered to do most anything and everything for the Edwards, something I don’t have a lot of respect for. But, I also have little respect from the whining about Young coming out of the Edwards camp.   Elizabeth Edwards, in her book Resilience, writes of Young, albeit not mentioning him by name, that Young was obsessed.   “She and her husband were, she wrote, his victims — guilty only of “being vulnerable to obsequiousness.”¹

While much has been written about the Young said, Elizabeth Edwards said duel of words, the above quote is what I want to address.  The Edwards were Young’s victims, guilty only of being “vulnerable to obsequiousness?”  Really?  Were the Edwards really just victims or does the phrase “vulnerable to obsequiousness” give us a deeper insight into what was really going on in this relationship?  Claiming to be a victim because you enjoy having your butt kissed seems rather disingenuous to me.  Yes, I feel bad for Elizabeth…..having cancer and dealing with a husband’s infidelity would be a hard row to hoe.  What I don’t feel sorry for her or John about is the situation with Andrew Young.

Young was a volunteer and being such Edwards could have fired him at any time.  In Elizabeth’s own words, Young was well, young, and ambitious and obviously not given to good decision making.  Young made a terrible decision when he took the hit for being the father of Hunter’s child and he opened up his own life and family to scourn.  BUT, he couldn’t have done so without John Edward’s cowardliness in refusing to accept responsibility for his own actions.  And Elizabeth bears some responsibility here as well….she stood by her man after she knew he was guilty of having an affair when she must have known that that affair would ruin any chances of Edwards becoming president.  The Edwards campaign continued to take donations while hiding his complicity in the affair….and given Edwards populist message, I would daresay many of those donations came from people who could ill afford them.

I have no sympathy now for the Edwards being “victims” nor do I accept the idea that they were simply vulnerable to obsequiousness.  I think the truth of the matter is they were perfectly happy to let Andrew Young do their dirty work…they were thrilled to have a subservient, energetic young man run their errands and wipe their butts.  I think they were perfectly willing to let him take the blame for the paternity of Hunter’s child.  No, victimization is the last thing I would attribute to the Edwards.

As for Young, he is not a sympathy inducing character either.  He was more ambitious than intelligent and he put his own family through unnecessary grief just to get ahead in politics.  To be honest, as I’ve read the story about the Edwards/Young saga the thought came to me that if these were poor people of no national renown  we would chalk the whole affair up to being white trash antics.  Both sides need to shut up and try to salvage some pride and dignity.