But conjecture is a waste of time at this point.  I'm more interested in the angle that he might have deliberately had an affect on the primaries and specifically, Hillary's chances.

Looks to me like the worst is yet to come, and that's a shame for those who shouldn't have to suffer for his narcissism and hubris.

As for what would have happened if Edwards had never been in the race, I'm of two minds on it.  On the one hand, maybe it would have meant that Hillary Clinton would now be the nominee, but on the other hand...I think the dynamic that existed with Edwards in it until after South Carolina forced Clinton to be a better candidate in so many ways, and wonder whether she would be that candidate had she gotten the nomination without the struggle.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4091841

It is a valuable piece of work by a lawyerly mind, argued well with the more logical evidence that takes us back to the time when Edwards was outed -- not the later timeframe used by so many lesser bloggers with their biases and agendas.

Of course, as you say, "what ifs" are as useless now as an Edwards for President button.  Or even an Edwards for Dogcatcher button, with the ongoing revelations.  But those who disparage and dismiss "what ifs" do not want to see that is exactly how political analysis (and history) can be useful and at all predictive for those planning campaigns in future.  All factors must be assessed to best attempt to anticipate and then succeed.  Or not.

I am not convinced that Hillary would have won if Edwards had not run or been destroyed by this scandal. A significant number of Edwards supporters were anybody-but-Clinton. Some would have gone with Hillary, but many would have preferred Obama or a second-tier candidate.

Maybe Biden or Richardson would have been viable in more precincts, and Obama still would have beaten Clinton. In my precinct, possibly both Biden and Richardson would have had enough support to cross the 15 percent threshold without Edwards in the mix.

When we talk about the impact of the debates, I think we're talking moreso about the national storyline and the way it was impacted.  Iowa voters aren't necessarily as affected by the national storyline as by the way they see the campaign unfold locally.

We know Obama was more than willing to go after Hillary hard.  ("She'll say anything and do anything")  I'm sure it was handy for him to have an attack dog so he could remain above the fray, but in the absence of Edwards, wouldn't he just have gone after Hillary a little bit sooner?  Are people really confident that the media would have called him out for it and abandoned the "Obama is running such a positive campaign" meme?  I am not.  We see how the media behaved.

That Barack Obama's campaign benefited substantively from Edwards' presence in the Iowa caucuses is quite obvious, but it is no longer of any concern to me. Obama is our nominee now, and it serves no useful purpose to discuss potential hypotheticals from eight months ago. All it does is cause me to lose focus by rekindling my own anger over what subsequently happened to Hillary Clinton.

There was room for 3 in the top tier - what if the third had been Dodd instead of Edwards? I think he would have been a candidate that could have flourished with more oxygen.

Obama has a pattern of being involved in campaigns where the press is used to reveal the bedroom secrets of his opponents.  This has been well documented on three separate occasions...Axelrod has conections to all the players involved...at some point reasonable people are able to connect the dots.

On this last occasion, however, we have a probable violation of the law [attempted blackmail] and RICO statutes covers this type of crime...which is a felony...which of course is impeachable.

This has been making the rounds, but as of yet nobody has made any counter factual claims:

"...No description of Obama's relationship with the Chicago press can ignore the benefits of Obama's ties to local strategist David Axelrod, a former reporter for the Tribune, a frequent source for local reporters, and on good terms with most of the paper's editors. Fortuitously for Obama, Axelrod began the 2004 Senate primary cycle by engaging in early discussions with Obama's best-funded rival, Blair Hull. Those discussions included Axelrod asking Hull to confirm or deny rumors of spousal abuse; Axelrod told Mendell that Hull offered a "glacial" and evasive answer. Unsurprisingly, Axelrod lost interest in Hull shortly after that.

As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama's rivals handed Tribune reporter Mendell a packet of opposition research on Hull -- the documents noted that he had been divorced three times, and that his second wife had been granted a court order of protection from him.

That prompted the Chicago media to demand Hull unseal his divorce records, and his campaign ultimately showed them to Mendell. The contents were devastating -- allegations of abuse and threats.

....Oddly, within a few months, dogged efforts on the part of the local press would eliminate another Obama rival, this time in the general election. Republican Jack Ryan seemed to be out of central casting -- handsome, independently wealthy, sharing the name of a Tom Clancy hero.

But once again, the Tribune and a local television station launched a crusade to unseal the candidate's divorce records. Ryan, his ex-wife (actress Jeri Ryan, best known for playing a cybernetic bombshell on Star Trek: Voyager), and his supporters argued that his nine-year-old son ought to be spared the messy details of his contentious divorce. A California judge ordered the records unsealed, and the entire political world heard accusations that the candidate urged his unwilling wife to have public sex in clubs in New York and Paris. Ryan denied the allegations, but no candidacy could survive a revelation like that."

____________-

The fans can debate about how an election would have turned out if, if, if ....  Just like military historians can debate, simulate and argue over whether Lee and Pickett would have won at Gettysburg had Pickett not charged or whether Chamberlain's leadership of the 20th Maine made the difference.  Just like they debate what would have happened had Hitler not stopped his Panzers above Dunkirk to allow Goering's Luftwaffe to finish off the British, only to see them fail and the Brits get away.

It goes on and on.  I've spent enough time and effort on simulations of those types to tell you one thing about every re-run of history - no matter the fine details, run them enough times and in the end they all come out pretty much the same as actual history did.  

And, in this election, the one thing the Establishment did not want - and was willing to go to any lengths to prevent - was a HRC candidacy.  Otherwise, why did the TradMed not pick up on the Edwards story when the Enquirer and blogs had it in November?  They ran pretty quickly when they had the WJC stories.

So, the Enquirer and TradMedia wait until Obama goes on vacation and his campaign goes on hiatus to spring an old story on us.  And Democratic activists are navel-gazing about what might have been.  Rather, of course, than concentrating on winning the coming election.  Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney are creating another international crisis (in Georgia), just like his dad and Cheney did in 1990 with Iraq.  All of which is designed to drive the average US voter back into the arms of Daddy The Republican who will keep you safe and warm.

I was and still am a huge Edwards supporter - for the things he espoused as important in American politics.

But I'm spending my time trying to keep John McCain from being elected and I think re-hashing what may or may not have happened because of Edwards and this affair and when we knew and when we didn't and is he the father and on and on, doesn't help.

If the goal is not to keep McCain from being elected, let me know and I'll come back after the election.