Irony of ironies! No sooner do I speak dismissively of all the gossip about political also-ran John Edwards (you know, that guy I dismissed as a phony a year ago), but the guy steps out of the shadows and makes all that trashy, painful personal stuff a news story by talking publicly about it.
The spin cycle enthusiasts will have a field day with this, no doubt. Go ahead, y’all — yak away!
Related Posts
I just saw some guy on Fox News with the most gut-wrenching challenge of the day [didn’t catch his name but he was speaking with a blonde (of course) reporter @ around 5-ish].
He challenged the “MEDIA” to come clean with all of their closet stowaways — and THEN go after John Edwards.
Pathetic – this public flogging.
I would be more worried about the murderers and psychos running free and wild, with no consequences — than about what is going on in John Edwards’ marriage.
Of course Edwards is sorry about the affair: Sorry that he got caught!
To take the Karen McLeod Lead-in:
***And Edwards’ dalliance is news, why?***
WHO CARES ABOUT IT?!? At least, who cares about it enough to have it covered on every freaking cable channel simultaneously?!?
The question about John Edwards is how smart is he/or how dumb is he?
No need to go into all the things that he did wrong in this situation.
As it turned out, he was not presidential material. Or was he?
Some politicians seem to play the Hollywood game. Some seem to play the game of “I am smarter than the ones that will catch me fooling around…Or we can just see it for what it is and that is sex is what drives the male ego”. Not all men want to play that game but those that do take the risk.
Let us flip the coin to the women that play around. I have read that there is almost as many married women that play the sex games as there are men.
Is this about the times in which all we see on TV and in the movies is about sex and violence?
I am not trying to give a pass to John Edwards because he seems to the type that would only regret that he got caught.
We can only hope that the pendulum will swing back to a time when people had more pride in themselves than to put their reputation and their family in jeopardy because of letting a moment of indiscretion blow away all in life that is precious to man and woman in a loving relationship and a loving family.
Will we ever learn this lesson?
All I know is:
Mitt Romney, as US VP or US President (!) will never be giving us this scene. He is as squeaky-clean as he looks. And that is squeaky. And that is clean. Clean is good. Boring is good. Romney is good.
***Mitt Romney 2008***
***VP or Pres.***whichever comes first***
🙂
You know, Mr. Warthen, I think this proves John Edwards is a phony, so you can say “I told you so.”
Congratulations.
It worked out a lot better than the Tommy Moore endorsement, at least.
… or the Thomas Ravenel endorsement, as long as you’re rubbing it in…
You know P.M., if you’re going to say that John Edwards is a phony because he cheated on his wife, then you have to apply that to ALL spouses who cheat on their significant others. With that context, are they too all “phony?” He may have done an awful thing, but that doesn’t discredit his message? There are still two America’s in this country and it’s time that this nation’s leadership stand up and start doing something about it. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class will soon cease to exist.
I agree with Mary, yeah, he made a bad decision but what he said was still true about the state of this country. And I’m still not convinced that he’s “phony.” He came from poor upbringings and is living the American dream-a rags to riches story. So yeah if he wants to have a big ass house and own some big ass land making an ass amount of money, who’s to tell him no? At least when he became rich he still gave back to the community, unlike some of these rich Republicans in office. You don’t always have to be poor to know the importance of succeeding.
Well, I disagree with Mr. Warthen more often than I agree, but he was spot-on with his take on Edwards. When I first forwarded that article to my sister in Raleigh who has had dealing with him, she said then that Brad must had known him well. Even if he had he not run for president/vice pres in 04, he would never be re-elected in NC. He was not even a good sleazy politician.
Did he tell his wife/family everything 2 years ago? Oh HELL no!! I can’t believe anyone actually supported him; well, yeah I can…
And yes Brad; you were right about Tommy Moore and Ravenel. I almost expect a politician to use drugs and/or alcohol to excess, but adultery is way too much, especially if you’re so stupid you get caught.
Brian
Are spouses who cheat on their wives phonies?
Dadgummit, I hate to say it, but I think that depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Of course spouses who cheat on their wives are phonies. They took vows. They broke them clandestinely. They live one life openly and another life secretly. That fits the definition of “phony” about as well as anything could.
As to Edwards’ phoniness discrediting his message, well, of course it does, because it’s altogether too easy to say there are two Americas, the one John Edwards told his wife about, and the one he didn’t.
Besides, it was alway true that there are two USAs — the one where people try to better themselves, and the one where people don’t, and making that distinction is a far more valid viewpoint than Edwards’ trying to make political hay with his phony “two Americas” spiel about the haves and have-nots. Ironically, his own rags-to-riches story invalidates his message to a large extent.
Really, there are as many Americas as there are Americans, because no two people, even twins, face exactly the same situation. Even in a socialist state — especially in a socialist state — there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
All this means is that John Edwards is a bold face liar. He can look one in the eye, and lie. Some folks like to reduce this to sex, then excuse it. But it is about the lie.
How this relates to politics is that the liars will lie about anything…including the facts, figures and situations that allow them to governing in a manner best suited for their purposes.
Most problematic is that this was not a closed secret. Man y people have known for a long time now, and the major media has known it too. But they choose not to print it, even though it clearly was within the right of the public to know of this man’s hypocrisy and prevarications. It is safe to say that had John Edwards been a republican this story would have been printed long ago.
This is not a shot at the State, but the media in this country is behind the curve, and has lost its footings. We can only hope that the 4th estate, a foundation of this country, realizes its importance to the very survival of our country, and rights itself. The public needs more unbiased information about the matters of the day, and less fluff.
I posted a few minutes ago, then I spent a some more time looking at Elizabeth Edward’s statements about this affair, and I must say it is repulsive. She is “spinning”, and apparently without shame.
We have a class of pariah that lives and works at the top of our government, both state and local. They barter our liberty, treasury and future for personal fame, power, ego, and yes, sometimes, the creation of their personal fortune. The Edwards clan is a perfect example of people without morals, but with appealing personalities and quick wits, that seek to rule our country.
It has long been said that we get the government we deserve. I hope this is not always true, and that we remove these shameless adventurers from our mist, and find those that seek to serve, not to master. America deserves better than this…
Edwards is fortunate that he’s got good friends that can help clean up the mess he left. Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron did his part:
And what a help he was:
Edwards was right. there are two Americas: a public one where one projects whatever one wants others to believe, the other where reality is know to a select few.
Mr. Barron’s story is just another lie from the “ruling class” of money and politics.
A lie knows no partisan politics. Republican leaders, Democrat leaders, Libertarian leaders…you name them and they will lie to us.
The worst lie is the one they tell themselves…the one that says ” I tell this story to the public so that I can be elected, and the public will benefit from my election”. This lie, told to oneself, is insidious and enabling, and ruinous.
The death of “integrity” in public life was not noted in the press, nor discussed in the media or around the dinner table. There is not a date certain or a place where the event took place. But it did happen, and we suffer as a people becasue of it.
Now that you bring up lies and the ruling class, there’s some suspicion that the mainstream media (MSM) devoted few resources to the Edwards affair because he is, like they are, liberal Democrats. For the past week or two over at National Review Online Byron York has been mulling this over. He writes in one of his reports:
The LA Times banned its reporters from mentioning anything about the Edwards affair on its blogs. When the story finally broke, they assigned an intern to cover it.
York does note that The State’s sister newspaper, the Charlotte Observer did have a reporter or two out trying to get the facts, arguing that Edwards needs to “publicly address” the “love child” matter if he is to have a prominent role in the Democratic convention.
The only good thing that came out of all the information provided to the public about his affair was that he was either shooting blanks or the gun was not loaded.
He dodged that bullet/or did she dodge his bullet and wound up with a bullet from Andrew Young?
I understand that the child is a girl. The mother could nickname her “Bullet” and apply for Medicaid since Edwards is not the daddy and will not support the baby. Or, will the attorney continue to support the party’s concerned?
Somebody better hurry up and write a book about this mess because truth is stranger than fiction.
Glenn Reynolds asks this:
Many of Edwards’ supporters are understandably quite upset at learning the truth and about the cover-up.
Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus worries that Our National Edwards Nightmare may not be over.
slugger –
Have you fallen for a slick lawyer trick? Russ Vaughn’s wife, a certified legal assistant in the employ of numerous trial lawyers for thirty years, clued him in on the emptiness of the offer.
She and the child are safely ensconced in a $3 million Santa Barbara home, the “admitted” father is nearby in a $4 million pad, so who’s going to complain as long as there’s a roof above and food on the table?
Besides, who knows what the real sequence of events was? There’s a bit of confusion, leading Donald Sensing to write: “Edwards denies being the father of Rielle’s baby. If true (coff), then while Edwards was cheating on Elizabeth, Rielle was cheating on him. You just can’t make this stuff up.”
That Barron has shelled out 7 million dollars (plus living expenses) for people he did not know, or knew only in passing, is all you need to know that the truth has still not been told. John and Elizabeth Edwards are in this together, and there is no lie that they will not tell to stop the damage to the Edwards brand.
I was recently in the New York with some very liberal friends…and I mean VERY liberal. These guys are truly clued in to the inside of the leftist movement in America at the highest levels. They are very concerned about the “back story” of Barak Obama. Now, I do not want to even begin to repeat the stuff I was told, but suffice it to say these people were very concerned. I came away with the impression that the Edwards things, which they all knew about and filled me in on it in detail before the Edwards confession, was a bell weather event for them, and that if it broke in the mainstream media then Obama might be toast.
So, the importance of the Edwards saga is not what it does to Edwards, but to Obama. And never forget who benefits most if dirt on Obama comes out…Hillary. And man, would I hate to be Obama if Hillary does have the goods on him!
Mike, what on Earth do you mean, “cover-up?” If you mean Edwards’ own coverup, fine. But surely you’re not repeating the nonsensical rantings of the right-wing blogosphere that there was a media coverup in this case. You’re too thoughtful a person to do that.
Who, other than Edwards and his associates, covered what up? We’re talking about a guy I haven’t given a moment’s thought to in months. I was vaguely aware that people were throwing rumors around about him, but what did I care about that?
Do you actually think it is the role of the MSM to report mere rumors about has-been politicians.
Yesterday, of course, the thing became news. The man himself made the rumor fact by admitting it, and admitting to a timeline that showed he lied about it in the past.
Of course, I’m still not interested in writing about it, because it’s none of my business now. If such rumors had been transformed to known fact when he was a contender, I might have taken interest, because things that bear on candidates’ characters are legitimate topics of commentary.
I suppose anyone out there who took this guy seriously at any point might want to share his thoughts at this juncture, but I’m 180 degrees from that. After all the crapola I took last year for my NOT taking the guy seriously, I am more than satisfied that I’ve said what I need to say, and said it long ago. Dwelling on the guy’s continued self-destruction interests me not in the slightest.
Why do Democratic politicians who are lawyers have problems with their zippers?
Bill Clinton
Elliot Spitzer (ex-NY Governor, former NY Attorney General): hired a prostitute, crossing state lines
John Edwards (ambulance chaser, former US Senator of NC, wanna-be President)
Brad –
You busted me. “Cover-up” was the wrong word to use for the MSM’s role. I should have used “avoidance” or “silence” or something indicating a passive role. The LA Times, however, is a special case because there’s evidence that its reporters were banned from mentioning the “rumors or salacious speculations” relating to Edwards on its blogs. And when the story broke, they assigned an intern…
I’ve always known that Edwards was a phony, but he was still in the running for a spot in the Obama administration — Attorney General — if not on the ticket as the VP. He’s the kind of guy who doesn’t deserve that, and I do wonder if Kerry’s choice of him as a running-mate four years ago was a type of assassin insurance.
I gotta confess that part of me is repulsed by this whole mess but deep down in what would otherwise be the darkness of my soul burns a raging fire of jealousy because I’ve never had and will never have a head of hair like his.
Brad –
And another thing. I’m no big fan of McCain, but what the heck was the New York Times doing other than engaging in rumors or salacious speculations when it published this?
The paper’s public editor had this to say:
To counter the article, McCain held a press conference that lasted until every last question reporters could come up with was answered.
The only good thing to come out of that episode was Michael Kinsley’s penetrating analysis:
Is that clear?
Edwards should have taken the DNA test to disqualify himself as the father of the baby before appearing at the “I am guilty and please forgive me because I am a rich SOB and I will eventually pay my way out of this situation” and presented the fact that he was not the father before confessing to the relationship.
I would never hire him for a lawyer if he was not smart enough to present proof that he was not the daddy at the confession of the relationship.
What the people want to know is he the daddy. Since he did not come out of the gate with this information maybe he thinks that we are dumb enough to believe that Andrew Young is the guilty party.
John Edwards wanted to close the door to any further inquiry by admitting the affair when he should have presented the proof that he was not the daddy.
Stranger yet is the fact that he made his millions defending women against doctors that he said caused harm to their infant at delivery
Nothing to see here, move along now, the party’s over, let’s just call it a day. From tomorrow’s WaPo comes this:
The guy with the big heart who apparently spent something north of $7M to relocated Ms. Hunter and the admitted dad to Santa Barbara was featured in a 2004 article in National Review. He has certainly done well during hard times.
Case closed.
How is John Edwards’ affair any different from John McCain’s(Other than being twenty(?) years apart)?
Red Bank Bar –
Both involve infidelity, have their sordid details, and hurt a loving and by all accounts loyal spouse. The main difference is that Edwards’ is quite recent and he was running for our nation’s highest office, showing a poor regard for timing and propriety. Donald Sensng puts it this way:
Mike, you bring up that bunch of pooge that the NYT did on McCain, which leads me to make this point: The MSM ignoring the Edwards rumors was appropriate. That absurd non-expose of McCain by the NYT was inappropriate — in fact, it was just plain lame. I see no parallel between the two. One was the press NOT doing something it shouldn’t; the other involved DOING something it shouldn’t.
By the way, here’s what I wrote about that at the time.
I thought I had said something about Clark Hoyt’s piece on that — but I must have been thinking about what I said about Clark’s piece on that execrable MoveOn.org ad.
Brad – Fair enough, my complaint was not about you, but about the MSM in general, and was the MSM correct in ignoring Edwards?
Okay, a tabloid had some stories, but was there a fire that caused its smoke? Where’s the aggressive reporting that made some newspaper’s great? Tim Rutten wrote about the dethroned MSM today (emphasis added):
Your sister paper in Charlotte did press a bit, but the rest of the MSM was missing in action. I agree that until it had something other than hearsay to report, no MSM outlet should have said much of anything, but there’s not much indication that any of them tried.
Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that many media outlets are in trouble — they don’t seem to try as hard as they used to. Another big reason is that they’re perceived as being biased in one way or another.
John Edwards is a no-good, lying, slimy snake. His infidelity to a wife with cancer and to whom he’d been married for decades proves it. His utter lack of morality and honor has really been reflected all along in his professional life and in his political posings, this episode simply crystallizes them.
The exposure of his dark soul and lack of character with this groupie effectively ends his political career (such as it was).
That is a good thing.
David
And besides, who really cares?
Do NOT cry for John Edwards. He based his entire political arc upon convincing dopey voters that there are “two Americas”…meaning the haves and the have-nots. He was tireless in his attempts to demonize the “haves” and to incite the “nots” to revolt. His whole thing was that the “nots” could never become “haves” without government help and wealth redistribution.
Nope, don’t shed a tear for Edwards. He resides very comfortably in the “haves” group.
He got his. He deserves no sympathy.
David
Robert,
Re: “…never forget who benefits most if dirt on Obama comes out…Hillary. And man, would I hate to be Obama if Hillary does have the goods on him!”
I HOPE THAT’S WHAT SHE’S BEEN WORKING ON ALL THIS TIME since she was cheated out of her rightful place in this election. And I hope she’s got a staff of seventy-gazillion Hillacrats getting all those little duckies in a row. And that somebody can come up with a way to SLAM BAMY. I am sick of him!!! He can’t take a joke. He can’t make a joke. He has to be coddled. He can’t be real. He CAN’T BE OUR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!
Reader –
Chill! You need to relax, take a deep breath, and accept what everybody else has. Hillary had her chance, put on the good fight, and lost. Heck, she’s the one that ran the 3:00 AM phone call ad, and that didn’t help her. Unfortunately for her, the timing was off.
Now that Georgia’s blowed up real good, we know that Obama’s response to the 3:00 AM phone call would be: breakfast, and make it waffles. Too bad that McCain’s going to be the one to take advantage of Obama’s lack of sense and experience; it’s too late for Hillary.
Mike, not so fast. The Russians believe they have a legitimate grievance with the Georgian’s in connection with 2 break-away republics that border Georgia. The Russians also believe their security is threatened by steps to admit Georgia to NATO. Apparently U.S. meddling has played some role in this conflict. It’s time to disband NATO. It’s a relic of the cold war that serves no useful purpose now.
Apparently the U.S. is allied with the Georgians because they have an oil pipeline running through the country. Seems like oil is at the root of everything that goes on in that region of the world. This underscores yet again how foolish it is to continue pushing for a continuation of the oil-based economy. The only way we can reduce our dependence on FOREIGN oil is to reduce our dependence on OIL. Drilling for more in the U.S. will lead us nowhere. It’s time for more wind, solar and biofuel sources of energy. But first we need to use less. Inflating our tires sounds like a good start. Despite the ridiculing by the GOP Obama is right-on with that suggestion.
No it’s not, Mike-y.
The wool that has been pulled over everybody’s eyes is just beginning to start rotting.
(!)
On taxes, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has concluded that:
“The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income.
“In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.”
This issue is pretty one-sided. McCain wants to give very wealthy people tax cuts and really doesn’t give working class folks anything. Given the likely increase in the federal deficit that will impact prices by reducing the value of the dollar, the working class is likely to suffer a net income cut as a result of the McCain plan. I suggest it is McCain who is fiscally irresponsible when it comes to taxes.
More piling on…
Maureen Dowd of the NY Times is not everybody’s favorite Op-Ed columnist, nor is the NY Times, everybody’s favorite newspaper.
Dowd in her August 9th column in the NY Times, “Keeping It Rielle”, states that John Edwards is a narcissist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?em.
An excerpt from the article:
In the Hunter video titled “Plane Truths,” Edwards is relaxing on his plane, telling the out-of-frame director: “I’ve come to the personal conclusion that I actually want the country to see who I am, who I really am, but I don’t know what the result of that will be. But for me personally, I’d rather be successful or unsuccessful based on who I really am, not based on some plastic Ken doll that you put up in front of audiences.” Ken couldn’t have said it better.
Back in 2002, Edwards sent me a Ken doll dressed in bathing trunks, Rio de Janeiro Ken, with a teasing note, because he didn’t like my reference to him as a Ken doll in a column.
In retrospect, the comparison was not fair — to Ken.
—
I have been unimpressed with John Edwards since March 28, 2003, but for other reasons.
http://obamascrapbook.com/index.htm
Viral this. Now!
Post this address everywhere!
Make Obama human to independants. A great and humanizing introduction to Obama.
This is needed to help inoculate him from the coming onslaught of October swiftboaters. So make it viral, and post it everywhere.