Let's Burn John Edwards At the Stake

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 17:11


Ok, so John Edwards is a dishonest politician who had an affair.  This must be a new experience for a lot of you, because there seems to be a vicious desire to have him stoned to death or something.  Here's an example from scaryice in the comments.
Matt Stoller :: Let's Burn John Edwards At the Stake
Wow, what an asshole

I'm so glad I didn't vote for him.

BTW, I have lost respect for Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers for their behavior on this issue. If this was a Republican, you would not brush it off by saying "this has never happened before." Not to mention the "wanker" post yesterday which now looks ridiculous.

So not only is John Edwards an asshole, but Chris and I must think that and shout from the rooftops that we think he is an asshole or we are totally undeserving of respect.  In fact, it's not just me and Chris, but all people with any voice in politics must of course condemn said politician or else we clearly condone his behavior, which is the worst possible behavior by any politician ever.

I don't get this.  I really don't.  Is this the flip side of worshiping at the cult of personality, that when said personality disappoints, the disappointment turns into a desire to burn the witch?  I never liked John Edwards, I ignored him for most of the primary because he sucked at organizing and messaging, and because I heard of several cases where he was in rooms with hedge fund guys and told them he would turn to the center in the general.  I'm glad he lost the primary, he deserved to lose it, and it's political malpractice to be fooling around and lying about it.  

But on a personal level, it's a marriage.  You and I have no idea how he and Elizabeth Edwards relate to each other, how they dealt with this, how they dealt with cancer, etc.  If you've ever had a relationship that is minimally mature, you'd know that these things can be complicated and personal.

So why the rush to vilify him as the worst person ever?  And why the rush to condemn all those who refuse to think of John Edwards as the anti-Christ?  His political career is over.  He's just a rich dude who had an affair.  I don't get it.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Let's Burn John Edwards At the Stake | 111 comments
You guys seem very defensive about this. (4.00 / 5)

maybe that's because the last democratic president was subjected to an 8 year witchhunt (4.00 / 6)
and the whole episode is still misframed - the problem was not the infidelity but potential obstruction of justice and workplace labor relations.  You can't sleep with the interns.

Come on...can't we at least pretend to be grown ups today when everyone else is not? I mean Pakistan's government is impeaching Musharraf, Russia invaded Georgia, a taxi driver in New York got shot, and there's a Presidential election going on in the United States.  a lot of other important things are happening in the world right now besides John Edwards revealing that he had an affair.

Where is moveon when you need them :)

[ Parent ]
What do these Presidents have in common (0.00 / 0)
Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, William J Clinton. Can you name any more?  
They... (4.00 / 1)
They were all Democrats...
[ Parent ]
Ike, too (4.00 / 1)
had an affair, but not (so far as I know) while he was President. And then there was Warren G. Harding, whose mistress was actually able to extort money from the Republican Party to keep the affair secret. They sent her to Japan.

It's not conduct, in other words, limited to Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Edwards was not president (4.00 / 6)
So no, he doesn't fit into those groups.

John McCain and John Edwards were both adulterers. They both lied about it. And yet one is getting a total pass.

I don't think Edwards should "burn at the stake". He screwed up and was wrong to run for president with this in his background. Now that his gov. career is over we can move on to other things.

[ Parent ]
good point (0.00 / 0)
I mean, can't this be a pivot to examine the marital backgrounds of the actual candidates? That should be favorable for us.

Or are we too afraid the "many white conquests from Harvard" line will turn out to be true. :)

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
Wait for this (4.00 / 1)
HARDBALL tonight.
Consensus was that the Edwards story would "force" the media to ask Obama whether he cheated on his wife ever.

There was no mention of John Mccain who we KNOW is a serial cheater.
None.

Don't expect any miracles. It will be another way for the Republicans to raise yet another stereotype about black male sexuality while the old dude will keep his creepy sex life safely under wraps

[ Parent ]
Then Obama should answer honestly (4.00 / 1)
and then demand that the press treat the other guy in the exact same way.
[ Parent ]
that's insane (4.00 / 1)
it would be insane for an american politician not to cover up an affair with one or more other consenting adults- particularly with the morality brigade out in force for the last 30 years.  i would feel the right to demand that he tell the truth to me (as opposed to his wife) if it's something that actually matters (for example, if he had had secret liasons with oil company executives).  everything else is their business.  

what if they have an open marriage?

[ Parent ]
actually maybe you're right (0.00 / 0)
it's hard to tell when american politicians (or really any public figure in the u.s.) should act like an adult and when they need to kowtow to a very childish sense of public morality that's been introduced.
[ Parent ]
Well, if this is a tally (4.00 / 1)
Google "George H.W. Bush" and "Jennifer Fitzgerald."

Bonus points for Constitutionally-restricted Arnold "eating isn't cheating" Schwarzenegger.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but mightn't this just be an inevitable byproduct of the type of personality that becomes a national political figure?

[ Parent ]
Hmm... (0.00 / 0)
I was actually being a smart ass.  He was going for the "They all had affairs while President" line... I was giving the other obvious smart ass answer... They were all Dems.
[ Parent ]
because (4.00 / 20)
He ran for the nomination of our party, knowing full well this could blow up at any time and totally fuck us over in November.

In fact, he never really took his name out of consideration for V.P. So he was being a selfish dick up until today.

But he is our candidate. (0.00 / 0)
So get off it. what do you think of JFK? or Bill Clinton?
[ Parent ]
"But he is our candidate." (4.00 / 2)
He is?
[ Parent ]
On a personal level... (4.00 / 7)
I think JFK and Clinton are both a bit scummy to be honest... and stupid.  Any sitting President having an affair is doing the country a disservice.   He opens himself up for extortion or black mail.   Do I think they should be shot or impeached? No... but they should exercise better judgement.
[ Parent ]
Stupid (0.00 / 0)
Clinton may have been stupid for this, but JFK obviously was not.  Back then, powerful men got away with it far more often.
[ Parent ]
So... (0.00 / 0)
That doesn't make it less irresponsible or stupid.  That's like saying that it was more ok to kill someone in the wild west just because of the time period.  Murder is still murder and cheating is still cheating.  Just because it was an unspoken acceptibility years ago and he never got caught doesn't make it right.  
[ Parent ]
Not Stupid <> Okay (0.00 / 0)
Who made "not stupid" a synonym with "morally correct"?  What Clinton did was both immoral and stupid.  Immoral for all the obvious reasons and stupid because it hurt his presidency, reputation, Gore and the Democrats.  Same with Edwards.  But JFK lived at a different time.  The immorality was the same, but that doesn't make it stupid in the same way.

For some reason some people want to make every positive word synonymous with every other positive word and the same with words with negative connotations.  But really, there are more than two meanings out there.  Many more.

[ Parent ]
Here is what Edwards said of Bill Clinton (4.00 / 7)
Back in 1999:
I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

I should note that John McCain, who cheated on his wife and dumped her, also condemned Bill Clinton AND voted to convict.
[ Parent ]
Edwards (4.00 / 3)
I did lose a lot of personal respect for the man... I feel the same way about Bill Clinton.... In fact Bill's trangression was worse because it opened him up to a lot of bad things such as extortion and blackmail.  That being said, I don't think he is the worst human in Politics (That honor is shared by Cheney and Rove) or anythings and really couldn't care less how you or Chris feel.  However you do is your opinion and that is that.
I would like to see (4.00 / 7)
a post where you were ever critical of Edwards? you guys loved him.  

I agree with the other commenter.  The anger is that he ran knowing this could easily blow up, never took his name out of VP consideration.  Extreamly selfish!

To be fair... (0.00 / 0)
He said he wasn't seeking the VP slot... and we have NO IDEA what was told to Obama in the vetting process.  They might have known... I mean look at the fact that Elizabeth but not John was asked to speak.
[ Parent ]
oh my god, he killed naivete! (4.00 / 3)
you bastards!

:)

[ Parent ]
This seems like a lame criticism (4.00 / 1)
Do you really think the Obama people didn't know about the Enquirer story? Edwards didn't have to take his name out of consideration; the story did it for him.
[ Parent ]
Are you at all open to constructive criticism? (4.00 / 1)
Yes, anger at political aspect... (4.00 / 2)
Matt, your first response was of the type of "who cares", as if it didn't matter that a guy who was running for the most public and scrutinized position in the world had what would obviously be an automatic loser in the general election had it come out when he were the nominee.  My anger resides mostly with that political aspect (with a small amount with the obvious disappointment that someone I liked had an affair), and my sadness lies mostly with Elizabeth.

That said, I agree with you about the "burn at the stakes" mentality.  It is a marriage, and the act of cheating is obviously something that is deeply personal to the people involved.  It's the fact that he decided to go ahead with his presidential run anyway, working to get people to believe in him and his candidacy, that makes me so angry about it.  A lot of people worked for him, supported him, voted for him (or were going to vote for him, as I was close to doing in IL if not for him dropping out), etc... and it was all such a massive and selfish gamble on his part.

Cult of personality (4.00 / 6)
"Is this the flip side of worshiping at the cult of personality, that when said personality disappoints, the disappointment turns into a desire to burn the witch?"

Yes. That's why it's best not to do that. Helps keep things in perspective.

Yes (4.00 / 4)
Actually, you do seem to get it:

Is this the flip side of worshiping at the cult of personality, that when said personality disappoints, the disappointment turns into a desire to burn the witch?

Yes.

Some of the most hated people out there are ex's from relationships that broke up.  Yes, this is exactly what you are seeing.

But I wouldn't excuse the behavior like you do, either.  This is a horrible mistake for someone who was running for the presidency; just imagine had he actually won.

For myself, it just confirms that my first impression of Edwards as the used-car-salesman was correct.

And yes, he is an asshole for this.  Pretty much the definition of the term as applied to a person, actually.

As a counterexample, though, (0.00 / 0)
when Obama disappointed on FISA, many people were disillusioned about him, but people didn't suddenly start hating him. So I guess there is a matter of magnitude involved.
[ Parent ]
Matt, come on (4.00 / 16)
At least address the ACTUAL criticism that is coming at you.

Very simply - Edwards campaigned - and could have won - the Democratic nomination for President, and this would have been an October surprise of the worst sort.

not that your point is wrong - in that powerful men cheat.

But Edwards KNEW the current political situation, and taste in the MSM for outing it.

Edwards talked - and talked, and talked - about his moral stances, about integrity, about telling the truth, etc.

You really need to address that - address not his cheating, but address his campaigning for president, even though he was cheating.

Turn off the outrage (4.00 / 1)
John Edwards was never going to get the nomination. It just wasn't going to happen no matter how many fanboys thought so. So, his hiding this didn't really matter.

I agree completely with Matt. We have no idea what goes on in his marriage. He admitted the affair to his wife and they've dealt with it. These public upheavals over private misgivings by human beings are just another opportunity for people to turn on their outrage-o-meter. Calm the fuck down!

John Edwards is and always was a human being with failings. He also, like most of us I assume, has genitalia. This combination caused him to do something that many would determine to be improper, disrespectful, and wrong. But it's not like no one else has done it in the past or the present - right or wrong.

It's not like he's trolling for gammy in public restrooms or engaging in improper post-natal care fantasies with paid prostitutes while denouncing sodomy and the godless homosexual agenda. The guy had an affair. Big fucking deal!

Half of Congress is probably having affairs as we speak. Hell, John McCain's slept with more lobbyists than Vicki Iseman (get a reporter on that story).

C'mon Paul let's all revive the Vicki Iseman story (4.00 / 1)
McBush is a bigger hypocrit than anyone...you got Mike "Plagerist uber Catholic"Barnacle screaming his outrage about hypocricy...with NO MENTION of McCain's affairS! on Hardball
[ Parent ]
Well, the issue (0.00 / 0)
is that he knowingly risked destroying Dem chances to take back the White House. If one had never heard him speak, the obvious explanation would be that he's stupid. But we know he's not. So this was the same kind of risky arrogance we saw with Clinton, Hart, and a bunch more. I voted for him, but he let us down.

That said, he'll pay a heavy price in his career, his reputation, his family. None of that is any of our business. So I find the opportunistic hysteria almost as repulsive as Edwards's dishonesty. How much of a price must be paid to seek power in a nation of pre-adolescents. In grownup countries all this gossip would have barely made it to the back pages of the paper and there would be no reason to feel the need to lie about it. But in kiddylandt lying about who you screwed gets you shut out of the political process, while lying about why you killed a million humans gets you reelected because that ain't important. But I guess power-seekers unfortunate enough to live here are obligated to pander to the purile handjob fantasies of the great American family.

[ Parent ]
ummm (4.00 / 7)
never liked John Edwards, I ignored him for most of the primary because he sucked at organizing and messaging, and because I heard of several cases where he was in rooms with hedge fund guys and told them he would turn to the center in the general.

This would have been nice to hear during all the hyperventilation about Obama saying "crises", or all the other petty stuff you critsized him for?

You forgot all the anti-Obama leaks Joe Trippi (4.00 / 1)
was giving to Open Left, and we being posted daily!

What they are doing to Edwards now is just awful.....I understand people are upset, but come on all....let's fight back and talk about McSame's AFFAIRS!

[ Parent ]
Are there any current ones? (0.00 / 0)
Else, there's no story.  McCain has already admitted to being young, foolish and selfish.  That's a shield against the kind of attack you're proposing.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Problem is that this has never been (0.00 / 0)
aired out.  The media never covered it.  I think everyone needs to know what he did and his rational.
[ Parent ]
Here's what has happened (4.00 / 5)
You and Chris, and many posters, ignorantly assumed all NE stories are alien-based. You ignored evidence to the contrary. You assumed up front that this story was false. Then, when it was proven to be false, you poo-pooed it. Then when it was pointed out that the story is important in some sense, you created a strawman version of events in which some posters supposedly want to stone Edwards to death and say you and Chris are required to think the same thing. Neither of which have occurred.

(To your credit, along the way, good points were made about media hypocricy and Democratic response strategy. However, as far as I can tell, none of these were denied by those of us in the other camp.)

Here's the exec summary on this issue: you were wrong and continue to be wrong.

National Enquirer (0.00 / 0)
I applaud everyone who didn't but into the NE bullshit. It is not a reputable source. I hope we are all wise enough to ingore it in the future.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Except for all the times they're right n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (4.00 / 1)
but you know what they say.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
[ Parent ]
What happens when it's right (0.00 / 0)
20 times a day? That's the question.

Sure, they get stories wrong, they get sued, all of that. But they occasionally break big stories like this via one of the oldest tricks in the book: payola.

We're glad that we learned about Rush's pill addiction, aren't we? Wouldn't have happened without the NE.

[ Parent ]
What, we can't wait a week or two? (0.00 / 0)
Until a more reputable source verifies their claims? I would rather be patient than made the fool.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
You mean something really solid (0.00 / 0)
like John Edwards publicly admitting it? Is that what we have to wait for?
[ Parent ]
Look at this cover... (0.00 / 0)
http://popbytes.com/img/necove...

You want to take this shit seriously? Be my guest. Just don't be surprised when others laugh when you try to quote a supermarket tabloid.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Listen (0.00 / 0)
I have no dog in that fight. I don't think the article as published in October was worth using as toilet paper because it provided zero proof for their assertions.
The July 22nd story made me start to doubt because, while it was still without concrete proof, it did provide surprisingly detailed account that made me think Edwards should respond.
When he didn't, I knew they were telling the truth.

But the onus should be on THEM to provide proof for their stories or at least enough circumstancial evidence it sounds plausible. Most of their stories often don't and it would be irresponsible to take what they say at face value knowing their standards are lower than they should be.

As I said before, I am glad the story was ignored in October when there was zero proof. The denial of progressives of the likelihood the story was true the second time around when details were provided seems shameful to me, even though I understand the MSM felt they needed a photo or some kind of smoking gun before they touched on such a delicate story.

[ Parent ]
I Am Dismissive Of The NE, Not Because It Can't Be Right (4.00 / 2)
but because it has no ethos or commitment to being right.

As they say in the trade, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."  My attitude was never that they couldn't be right, but simply that they couldn't be trusted, and shouldn't be dignified.  And I stand by that 100%, regardless of the fact that they were right this time.

How many hundreds of bogus stories have they run?  Well, the small-time alternative paper I work for has never run a single one.  People may disagree with our POV, and they may not like that we adhere to a 19th-Century model of advocacy journalism.  But that damn sure know that we don't just make shit up.*   And that is a monumental difference between us on the one hand, and Faux News and the Enquirer on the other.

* Well, there was that one story about selling blood to balance the California budget--but we TOLD folks it was satire.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You should have made that perfectly reasonable (0.00 / 0)
argument in the wanker thread, rather than equating the story with alien fiction.

Here's the deal: I don't like the NE. But it's not because they're bad at what they do but because they're good at it. They break scandals, usually by means of payola, that we really shouldn't as a society care about.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
Bogus isn't totally the right word.  They have won a heck of a lot more libel cases than lost.  There is usually a grain of truth in the stories, OR rumors are reported as facts... yeah its not right, but I wouldn't call it intentionally biased, just irresponsible.  My big issue with them is that they pay sources for information which I think is wrong.
[ Parent ]
I don't think you should lump Chris in. (4.00 / 1)
As far as I can tell, this is all that he's written:

Mostly, I am just surprised that the National Enquirer was right about something. I was wrong, and some other commenters were right.

I don't see anything remotely objectionable there.

[ Parent ]
He created an entire (0.00 / 0)
thread the other day on the premise that the story had to be correct because it was coming from the NE.
[ Parent ]
I remember that. (0.00 / 0)
And I think he's pretty much correct.

Basically, just because the Enquirer says something doesn't mean that it's false, but the Enquirer saying it shouldn't in itself be evidence in favor of it being true. Unless Edwards is lying again (possible), they were wrong about the "love child".

There needs to be at least some other evidence besides just the Enquirer before a story gets taken seriously. In this case, it was Edwards's complete silence about the issue after the second story broke which made me uneasy.

Anyways, while continuing to be an asshole about it even after Edwards's admission is egregious, being highly sceptical of the Enquirer's credibility beforehand, but admitting you were wrong after it turns out that you were, is, I think, an entirely reasonable position to take -- and pretty closely matches my own.

[ Parent ]
Nobody here, including me, assumed NE was right (0.00 / 0)
We said things like, I think this might have legs or I'm not convinced he didn't do it.

It was the denialists who tautologically assumed this story was wrong because they assumed the NE is always wrong.

[ Parent ]
Seriously? (4.00 / 1)
You're upset that the NE doesn't get enough respect? That's your issue? Seriously?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Uhh...no... (0.00 / 0)
Where did I say NE should get more respect? My point is that assuming up front that anything from the NE is automatically wrong is ignorant and denialist because the NE fairly regularly breaks real scandals (for dubious reasons via dubious means.)

I don't like the NE but not as much as I dislike bullshit arguments.

[ Parent ]
I say burn him... (4.00 / 10)
...not for his own indiscretions or his hypocrisy or his moral shortcomings - I don't really care about that - but he deserves full blame for putting the Party at risk. That's the only thing that upsets me.

He is not just a rich dude who had an affair. He is a former Democratic Senator, two-time former nominee for the presidency and former Vice-Presidential candidate of our party. All of this in very recent memory, and all of this as a very high profile Democrat.
He was also the most outspoken politician on the issue of poverty. And up until today he was still a politician.

None of this will damage the party, or our prospects in Novemember. But it could have, and Edwards knew this, and for that he deserves blame.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

Basically where I am (4.00 / 5)

 Well, I guess Edwards found a way to get media coverage at last.

 I don't particularly care about the affair per se -- that's between him and Elizabeth, who's the truly tragic figure here -- but I am more than a little annoyed that (a) he really thought he was going to be able to hide this all through a potential presidential campaign (he must have been in a coma from 1993 to 2001), and (b) we've lost one of our most effective advocates for the poor (one of our only advocates for the poor).

  And yes, of course there's a double standard in the media given McCain's similar proclivities. But why do Democrats remain so destructively unaware of this? If you're a Democrat, you have to be a choirboy. It's not fair. But it's reality.

 Edwards is human. He screwed up. We all do it. I don't make excuses for him. But I just wonder what the hell he was thinking, and if THIS is a peek into his judgment, then we should thank our lucky stars he's not our nominee.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
"he deserves full blame for putting the Party at risk" (4.00 / 1)
Exactly why I'm pissed.  You're running for president (and he has been since 2004) then keep it in your pants.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008
[ Parent ]
I thought Ezra Klein has a pretty good note about this: (4.00 / 9)
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b...

No one forces you to devote your life to national advocacy of important issues. But if you decide to do follow that path, with all the plaudits and moments of roaring applause it entails, you have to make certain sacrifices, and shoulder certain realities. Among them is that if you falter, you can harm all that you're advocating and deny help to all whom you claim to represent. I don't know if it's true that Edwards' affair started and ended in 2006, but if so, that's actually the most morally unforgivable of possible timelines. If Edwards had won in Iowa and captured the nomination, this could easily have lost him the election, and thus destroyed the country's chance at health reform, withdrawing from Iraq, and so forth. This reaches back and recasts his candidacy as an act of extraordinary selfishness. That's not to say it was conscious -- we all contain multitudes and we all compartmentalize mercilessly -- but it was gambling with the fates of the very people Edwards was running to help.

There is a bigger picture here... (4.00 / 2)
Blogging is the full of the most self-important people I have ever come across IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. Sure, I like to go on once and awhile to get a sense of what people with similar political beliefs think. But, as far as I'm concerned, the blogs are a place for people to go who are holy progressive rollers who like to think that government can be 100% progressive and anything less than that is a sell-out or a failure. Back during the primaries, I read COUNTLESS threads about how much of a sell-out Obama was and how great of a person Edwards. Now all the sudden every single person with a keyboard and a mouse is jumping on the "I told you so" bandwagon about Edwards. Worse, the same people who worshiped at his alter are saying they never saw it coming, that they're so dissapointed. Eliot Spitzer? No one saw that coming. John Edwards? Are you f***ing kidding me? That guy would steal the shirt off your back if it meant he could be president. (Sidenote: read Bob Shrum's "No Excuses" if you want a little inside perspective on JRE).

This kind of Monday Morning QBing is worthless. "O M G What if he was the nominee????" Well, he isn't. And like Matt said, that's because his campaign sucked (I worked on a certain campaign that will remain nameless in iowa).

He cheated on his wife and, considering who his wife is and what she has been through, thats a low move. But regardless of whether you're trying to tar and feather him or you're crying over it, it isn't worth your time or, to be quite frank, the time of the media. A war started today, two wars are going on that we are involved in, and we have an election to win.

At best JRE might have been AG. At worst, his career was over. So it goes....

Thanks (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't aware of any of these wars. I didn't care about any of them. The only thing I care about is the sex life of politicians. You really got me there.
[ Parent ]
Here's my other problem with JE on this (0.00 / 0)
He has proven to be a phony, after all -- his word is now worth less than that of the National Enquirer.  
what? (4.00 / 1)
wait the fact that he's a rich guy claiming to represent poor people in an undemocratic institution didn't tip you off?

cmon, dude, he's a politician.  And still one of the better ones (at least on policy...clearly his day-to-day political judgement is a bit lacking :)

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, none of this should be shocking but I don't think that's entirely inconsistent with my primary general argument over the last few days: that the story very well might be true.

If sliminess is the default setting for a politician then why was this so hard to believe?

[ Parent ]
it wasn't ;) (0.00 / 0)
but it's not sliminess here - i think it's that edwards image was very much of a "pretty boy" and his wife makes an impression as a strong woman - you add to that less-than-critical adulation, and you'll get some hurt feelings by supporters.

so he let people down.  big deal.  bigger question is who is blowing this out of proportion?  why is it being blown out of proportion?  as opposed to the fact that there's a food crisis, a new war the SAME DAY as this announcement, a presidential campaign going on, etc.

dunno - maybe election season diverts people's attention from gossip about celebrities to gossip about political celebrities.

[ Parent ]
John Edwards (4.00 / 3)
John Edwards asked us to entrust the future of the country and of the progressive movement to him, knowing full-well it was only a matter of time before his candidacy was destroyed.
He was willing to risk our entire movement out of narcissism.
It is loathsome.

He can fuck whoever he wants. But he can't ask me to rest my hopes and aspirations on him knowing full well that not only he would never have been able to carry them to the White House but he could actually have set us back eight years on the road to progressive ideals.

And I am disappointed in progressive bloggers for behaving like Republicans in this case. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing loudly NAH NAH NAH CANT HEAR YOU is not the way to deal with the failings of progressive leaders. Denial, blind following and hypocrisy is the way they do it.
It should not be the way you do it.

Put it this way: (4.00 / 4)
I don't care if John Edwards lied to Elizabeth Edwards.  It's a little gross, but utterly not my business.

But he lied to 99% of the people who sent him money, in any amount, when he represented himself to them as someone who could win the presidency.  He lied to me when he represented himself as a credible progressive candidate who could take my priorities to the White House.  He lied to every single donor who thought he could become a successful president.

And they have the right to be pissed about that.

Unless he had a credible plan for keeping this story quiet for ten years.  I suppose, with the power of the presidency, he might have.  (Why is the story coming out now, anyway?  Did he fall behind in payments, or just get caught by reporters?  Or did he fail to buy off the Enquirer?  Can one do that successfully?)

But assuming that one can't actually hide this kind of thing for ten years (Clinton couldn't), then he lied to all his supporters and risked the destruction of much of what they cared about, in the form of throwing the election to McCain.

And that, people have a right to be angry about.

[ Parent ]
I guess the debate with Rove is off (4.00 / 2)
Wow, way to straw-man your critics. (4.00 / 10)
You already said the one thing that matters, and the one thing that most of the angry people in the previous thread were saying:
it's political malpractice to be fooling around and lying about it.

It's an especially severe case of political malpractice to try to be your party's nominee for president, at a time when your party has Got To Win, when you're carrying around this particular time-bomb.  No one made John Edwards run for president, and had he won the nomination, and imploded right around now, he would have done immense damage to the real lives of millions and millions of people, here and overseas.  

Is it that hard to see that?  Is it that hard to see why people would criticize him for doing that?  I don't want to burn him at the stake, but man, that's a shitty thing to do.

Politics actually is about real people's lives.  It's not just about ego and strategy and my team beating your team, and living off the spoils.  If John Edwards, Democratic Nominee had self-destructed, he'd have done real, consequential damage to a lot of people.  The fact that he was willing to risk that, and run for president anyway, (assuming he was intending to win), doesn't say very good things about him in my book.

To be fair (0.00 / 0)
Nothing in Edward's past ever showed that he deserved that trust.  He is as stoller said just some rich dude who ran purely for his own self interest and his history always showed that.  

Naturally though people who have been cheated on will vilify him as is their right.  

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
A) I disagree with Matt here B) I still completely respect him and Chris (0.00 / 0)
A)
He's just a rich dude who had an affair.  I don't get it.

Matt how about sheer recklessness? He would have been our nominee and it would have sunk him. Normal people can have normal affairs. When politicians cheat they cheat on their policies, their values, their party, and their country. He is so much more than some rich dude and I think you know that Matt.

B)
Matt and Chris always tell us what they think--and they have been equally critical and praising of all the major candidates. And in terms of that 'wanker' comment-- that comment is poor taste. The post stands on its merits- it was a criticism of National Enquirer. And on a side point JE threw everyone who stood up for him under the bus on this one.

C) Which connects my two points: When a politician lies he or she throws everyone under the bus--and that is why he is not just some rich dude Matt. He is someone we believed in.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

Woodrow Wilson (0.00 / 0)
Since there's some discussion how affairs would or would not destroy a candidacy in the past, I suddenly remembered that Wilson had an affair and there were rumors about it.  But Teddy Roosevelt said that no one would believe a man like Wilson could have an affair, so he didn't pursue it.  At least, that's what a book I read recently said.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
yeah and james buchanan was probably gay (0.00 / 0)
and his partner was probably a former vice president.  who cares, aside from curiosity?
[ Parent ]
well, historical parallels (0.00 / 0)
are always of interest to me.  If you don't care, don't comment.  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
sorry i should have written that differently (0.00 / 0)
i meant, what is the relevance? :)  But apologies.
[ Parent ]
For a site dedicated (4.00 / 3)
to activism, you don't seem to understand it very well.

You cannot divorce the political from the personal.  When you work for a candidate, you are not just supporting his/her ideas.  You are supporting who they are.  Maybe in a different world it is only about issues and the candiate doesn't matter, but in this world who that candidate is matters a hell of a lot.

You cannot phone for someone you don't believe in.  You cannot go door to door for someone you don't believe in.  Activism requires leaders you can believe in.  

Now all of this is easy if you never actually talk to a stranger on the phone and try and convince them to support your candidate.  But if you do pick up the phone or the clipboard, at some level you have to  believe in the candidate.  And that belief cannot be sustained simply be reading a list of issues papers.  

cult of personality (4.00 / 3)
But if you do pick up the phone or the clipboard, at some level you have to  believe in the candidate.  

I have volunteered for a lot of candidates, and I see them all as flawed people.  I support them because of the outrage I feel about where the country has gone, not because they are saints.

It's weird to me that people don't expect this kind of behavior.

[ Parent ]
I don't understand (4.00 / 2)
I don't understand how someone can be so committed to strong ideals for our society and be so cynical about human nature at the same time.

But I guess that explains why you don't respond very well to Obama and his message.
But you can be realistic and still like to dream, you know.
 

[ Parent ]
ha ha (0.00 / 0)
That's a great encapsulation of how I see politics.
[ Parent ]
i was thinkning a lot about this comment (0.00 / 0)
in fact it, among others, inspired me to write a whole diary :)

I wanted to say that it's not cynical to believe that people are human beings who are imperfect creatures.  It's a call to udnersatnd that the system of morality that the right has expanded on and revereted is really problematic.  All this stuff about right and wrong, punishing people and rewarding others, deserving and non deserving people - all of this ties together, and you see it crystallized in a moment like this.  

For a second setting aside whatever political implications there are or might have been from this (which I think are also overblown given that the guy didn't win or come close to it after Iowa)--this is really about emotions, about how we deal with each other and how we deal with public figures.

On the one hand, they deserve respect and empathy - as all people do.  They deserve, as Elizabeth Edwards has now requested - that we refrain from "voyeurism."  On the other hand, they don't deserve hero-worship or too much deference.  John Edwards has revealed, and Barack Obama will, and Hillary Clinton would have - that they're people just like you and me.  And just because they have more power, that doesn't mean that we should look to them for a top-down solution to the problems we all face.  If anything, this shows the enormnous risks people take in appointing someone as their messiah - it's a lot of burden for one person to bear and not necessarily the most effective social justice strategy in a political and social system like the U.S.

All of which is to say - there are millions - billions of people invovled in struggles for better lives.  There are people like Elvira Arellano and Bhairavi Desai and Debbie Almontaser that you've probably never heard of but are or have done real work and in real ways.  And there are people like Chris and Matt and Paul and others who are doing their parts.  And there are people like me and you.  And THIS is what a movement is and this is why a movement reflects power dynamics and social structures and all else - it's not a politician leading us - it's them accepting they have a role to play and we have our different roles to play, the same way a community organizer and a lawyer respect their different roles, the way electoral campaigners and issue-based campaigners respect their different roles.

So all of the ideals that you're talking about - freedom, equality, justice, dignity, liberation - these are aspirations for all of us, and one politician's marital relationship's developments shouldn't cause us to question them.  The only way for that not to happen is to understand that that politician is a person too - not a hero or a devil, a madonna or a whore.  This is simply how it is, from my experience.

If I happen to run across someone deeply deeply influential and amazing, I will let you know, but I doubt they'll be running for national office, looking at stepping stones, conning people into believing they're a savior.  What kind of person seeks a lot of power and says a lot of things they don't really believe?  Not a hero in my book :)

So it's not cynicism - it's skepticism, and we should always use it.  I even use it on skeptics! :)

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
maybe I would expect a candidate for President to not risk the very ideals they pretend to support.

And there is no doubt that he did.  

It's not like we're asking for the moon here.

I find it bizarre in the extreme that you don't see how destructive and narcissistic Edwards behavior is here

[ Parent ]
but (4.00 / 2)
It's weird to me that people don't expect this kind of behavior.

Wouldn't it be weirder if they did?

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

[ Parent ]
I just noticed the title of you post (4.00 / 1)
And I say nonsense to your title Cult of Personality.

Who the candidate is as a person matters.  It is not as black or white as a cult of personality versus only the issues matter as you simplistically suggest.   I don't need to think my candidate is a knight in shining armor.  I DO expect something more from him or her than that they will just vote the way I want them to.

[ Parent ]
Of course, even you said you had never "liked" JE. (0.00 / 0)
It's inevitable that we all have some degree of emotional investment in candidacies that we put our time, $$$, and energy into; let's be honest here.

 

[ Parent ]
This Is An Incredibly Strange Notion To Me (4.00 / 1)
I much prefer issue activism, because I don't have to deal with any of the inevitable contradictions and compromises involved with candidates.  Yes, there are certain sorts of trade-offs that are inevitalbe in issue activism as well, but they largely come out of the nature of things, as opposed to the capriciousness of individuals.

That said, when I do turn my attention to candidate-based activism, I have no illusions at all about what I'm involved with.  To be human is to be flawed.  It comes with the territory.  And I can say from all my experience that it's incredibly easy to go door to door for someone you don't believe in--all you have to do is believe that they're better than who they're running against.

As the bumper stickers in Louisians said during the Edwin Edwards/David Duke election: "Vote for crook!  It's important!"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I don't think hate is (0.00 / 0)
enough for most of the activists I know (though the David Duke is certainly the exception that proves the rule).

[ Parent ]
Eyes On The Prize (4.00 / 1)
I just picked that as an extreme example to put the basic point beyond dispute.  But I have worked in much less extreme examples.  And the reason's pretty damn simple: that first vote in the new legislative session. You know, the one where they vote for the Speaker or Majority Leader, or whatever.

That's why I don't have to have any particular love, or even, when it comes down to it, respect for a candidate in order to work for them.  Though, as I've said repeatedly, I much prefer to work on issues.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
So, um, (0.00 / 0)
how's that SUSA data working out for you now?
[ Parent ]
Edwards supporters shouldn't be blamed (4.00 / 2)
When you work for a candidate, you are not just supporting his/her ideas.  You are supporting who they are.

Agreed.  But in this case, we didn't, and couldn't, know.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

[ Parent ]
Matt, Matt, Matt (4.00 / 1)
Your post seems to confirm a theory I have that you sometimes take intentionally obtuse positions to foment comments and discussion. Because you have to "get it."

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is an act, like Andy Kaufman's. As weird, but not as funny.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


To be perfectly fair (4.00 / 1)
Its what draws attention to the site.  Theres a great penny arcade comic on the subject

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
You mean people come here to ridicule Matt? (0.00 / 0)
I thought that was what in-laws were for.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
??? (4.00 / 1)
Late today, Edwards' former national finance chairman said he had provided assistance to Hunter and others without the knowledge of Edwards.

Did anyone else catch that -- "assistance to Hunter and others"?

Hmmm...

that is disturbing (0.00 / 0)
but let's not get ahead of ourselves, so I won't say anymore.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Details (0.00 / 0)
http://projects.newsobserver.c...

He meant Ms Hunter and the father of the baby, Mr Young.

[ Parent ]
Matt... (4.00 / 1)
As I've posted earlier, we all make the best decisions we can based upon the information we have in front of us.  We cannot see the future, nor what is hidden from us in the present.  The fault here is Edwards', not ours.

Had Edwards still been in the race when my state's primary came up, I would have voted for him, and I say that with pride and without hesitation.  He was advocating what I still think was the best set of positions.

His affair does not mean that you, or I, or millions of others supported his candidacy are somehow morally flawed, are not "worthy" to partake in the electoral process, or should be spurned by those who supported other candidates.  It is not a reflection on our judgment or our character.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

wow (0.00 / 0)
I don't care, I've never cared about what anyone does in their personal lives that doesn't affect their public lives. It is not like he pulled a Kwame Kilpatrick or anything. This just seems to me as another reminder that we simply don't have the language yet to combat the right wing and their smears. People like Vitter, Mccain, Newt, and countless others can have all types of affairs, illegal and otherwise and the right wing won't burn them at the stake and yet Edwards has an affair and everyone just want's to throw him under the bus. Mccain actually is the nominee of the republican party and lies about his affair and nothing comes of it, Edwards didn't even come close and here we are once again going through the outrage game on moral irresponsibility because he could have been the nominee and possibly destroyed(?) the democratic party. We may hold our candidates to higher standards but this is ridiculous.

if frogs had wings, they could fly... who the hell cares what would have happened if he were the nominee.

Maybe, just maybe, (4.00 / 1)
he'd have gotten nominated, this story would have broken, Edwards would have said it was his family's business, and his job was the economy, the environment, and the national securty, and he'd have been elected anyway. And American finally ended its long, grotesque puritan childhood.

Long shot, I'll admit, but maybe worth the risk. We can't survive much more of the killer kid stuff.

[ Parent ]
look for the good not the bad (4.00 / 1)
I don't agree with what Edwards did but he is only human. Most people who have had extra maritial affairs lie about it. Bill Clinton did and so did JFK. Some people like FDR and MLK admit to having an affair. But sometimes we need to look at the good in people and not the bad. Yes, FDR was wrong for having a long time mistress. But he still got us through the Great Depression and WWII. Imagine what our history would have been like with Hoover. Social Security exists because of FDR along with countless govt. programs. MLK admitted to having affairs too. But he still was a great advocate and leader of civil rights, fought against poverty, and fought against Vietnam. JFK repeatedly cheated on Jackie and so did Johnson. Both presidents fought for civil rights and played a huge role in passing the civil rights act. The point is if we used extramaritial affairs as a guideline for being president or lying about it, then FDR, JFK, Johnson and Clinton would have never become President. Imagine what America would be like without the role they played in their presidencies. Where would be in our country if Hoover served an extra term as President? Where would we be with Nixon as President instead of JFK? I doubt Nixon would have passed the civil rights act. And look at MLK, where would our country be without MLK? My mom told me repeatedly that humans are fallible and you should always look for the good in people. If you look at the bad then you will be disappointed often. I think we need to apply this advice to people in politics as they are human too. And if Edwards was the nominee then I would still vote for him. I whether have an adulterer as President with the right ideas for America then a faithful president with the wrong ideas for America. I care more about my country as a whole then the private life of the President.
All I want to say about this is... (4.00 / 3)
just think how this would have played out if it had been a philandering credible woman who had positioned herself to run for President.

Of course, it wouldn't have happened. The ambition to run for President, in a woman, would have dictated NO hanky-panky. That may not be fair, but it is true.

I lose a lot of respect for guys who present themselves as having serious ambitions to lead, in a country that insists for whatever reason on marital fidelity in its leaders, yet can't manage to keep it in their pants.

Can it happen here?

Scary (0.00 / 0)
All people make some bad choices in their personal lives.  When it comes to sex, especially, men make spectacularly bad choices, and status and responsibility doesn't deter them - in fact, it seems that the more status a man has, the more likely he is to damage himself with some boneheaded indiscretion.

Almost everyone who has been President, or run for President, has found himself with a messy divorce or affair - with the possible exception of the two Bushes.  Marital fidelity seems to be their only family virtue.  

What Edwards, Clinton, Craig, Spitzer and the rest did was irresponsible, and put their careers and many people who depend on them at risk, just as is the case with everyone else who cheats.  Usually it's a case of "just" damaging someone's kids and finances - nothing "important" like public office or the future of the country.  

We all struggle with our personal demons, and our commitments.  People who cheat in marriage aren't uniquely evil, or uniquely stupid, but they almost always risk everything - whatever their everything is - for a moment's pleasure.  

Getting mad about it isn't going to change anyone's behavior.  Presidential candidates will continue to be human, and we all will be at risk.  

Can someone provide an explanation for this? (0.00 / 0)
Far be it from me to prolong the agony, but...

John Edwards claims the affair with Rielle Hunter ended in 2006.
John Edwards claims adamantly that the child is not his.
John Edwards admits that he secretly visited Rielle Hunter at a hotel in 2008. (The Enquirer claims her child was also present.)

So if he's no longer having an affair, and the kid is not his, then why the hell?

His stupidity here ensures that the story will continue to draw out. (0.00 / 0)
Either he was brain dead enough to visit the woman now and foment speculation unnecessarily, or the kid is his, and he's still lying.
     These scenarios are not a testament to great political prowess, and it grates that he's willing to let the story draw out this close to the convention.
[ Parent ]
Enough venom for one day (0.00 / 0)
I am glad the John (and Elizabeth and Cate) had the courage to come forward and go public. This is a good thing for the party and for Obama for this whole story to come to an end.

And a very sad day for that family.

They could probably use our prayers.

disclaimer: I rec'd many of the angry posts.

Thank you (0.00 / 0)
Nicely said. I've been a bit pissy in this thread and I hereby resolve to give it a break.

[ Parent ]
Not Just A Rich Dude Who Had An Affair (4.00 / 1)
"He's just a rich dude who had an affair.  I don't get it."

He's not just a rich dude who had an affair. He's a former candidate for whom a lot of people worked very hard. His candidacy failed, but the hope and the effort was there, at least for his volunteers and supporters.

To learn now that he wasn't making 100% sure that he was the best candidate he could possibly be is a sort of betrayal of that effort. It's unfair, but part of being the best candidate you can be is keeping your pen out of the company ink. In a perfect world nobody cares about the sex lives of politicians. In the real world, it can sink a campaign. See: Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, et al.

What if he had won? Wasn't he thinking of that? What if he's the nominee right now? Is four years of President McCain worth some sex?

If you were an Edwards working giving it your all, and you found out that John wasn't giving it his all by keeping his hands off the girls, you might feel disappointed and betrayed too.

Fact of life (0.00 / 0)
When you speak to higher morals you actually have to have higher morals. Unfair as it is, that's just a fact of life. For instance, every charitable organization knows that they are going to be held to a much more strict account for their actions than a for-profit corporation. So why don't politicians who profess to speak to these higher morals know that the consequences of their actions will be held to a different yardstick than their right wing, laizze faire opponents? I don't know. The dog-eat-dog right wing blood hounds feast on their moral depravity while the leaders of the conscientious left founder in their moral relativism. In the meantime, the progressive agenda gets screwed.
In the example you cited, Matt, (0.00 / 0)
I see nothing from scaryice about stoning John Edwards to death, or about burning him at the stake.  

You alluded, twice, to capital punishment demanded from those of us who are outraged at his conduct, but that's an exaggeration on your part.  Progressives can be angry without demanding violence.  

You've mischaracterized us.

Let's Burn John Edwards At the Stake | 111 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox