John and Elizabeth Edwards's Mistake Was Not a Big Deal

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 16:00


I don't think voters really care about infidelity.  In 1992, Bill Clinton won the Presidential election despite obvious infidelities.  This is an ad from 2005, when Jon Corzine ran for Governor of New Jersey (I worked on this campaign and kept all the commercials).  His ex-wife was featured in attack ads against him, and he ended up crushing his opponent by ten points because voters didn't care.  Voters are not stupid or puritanical, and if John Edwards' wife forgave him the voters probably would too.  So I don't think that a revelation of an affair would have mattered if Edwards were the nominee.

Now, that's not to say that it's not a horribly embarrassing situation.  It is, and I feel for their whole family, especially Elizabeth, who has been nothing but wonderful to us in the netroots.  But the reaction among this so-called liberal community makes me genuinely uncomfortable.  Elizabeth Edwards put up a statement on Dailykos about the whole episode, with 1600 laudatory comments discussing her 'pure' heart, an outpouring blessing her virginal soul.  I know there are a lot of Elizabeth Edwards fans out there, so it's worth looking at the politics of what she said.  Here's the gist.

Matt Stoller :: John and Elizabeth Edwards's Mistake Was Not a Big Deal
John made a terrible mistake in 2006.  The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007.  This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well.  Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.  

The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.

Lots of people are furious about John Edwards having an affair, and I hear two basic arguments.  The first is that he betrayed his family, and one should not have respect for such a man.  I believe that this is private matter and I have no right to judge.  Marriages are complicated and so is cancer, and if Elizabeth Edwards has said that this is a private matter, that's enough for me.  

The second argument is that it is unforgiveable that Edwards created such risk and betrayed his supporters and his cause by putting his candidacy in such jeopardy.  He could have been the Democratic nominee, so says this crew.  Now, I don't buy this, I said above, but there's no evidence and can be no evidence either way.  Realize though that Elizabeth Edwards knew about this affair in 2006, and they jointly decided he would run for President.  So if there's a political sin, it belongs to both of them.  Now, I don't necessarily think it's the smartest thing in the world to have an affair and then run for President, but it's also not necessarily a career killer.  If Edwards were the nominee and this came out, depending on how it came out, he could probably handle it.  That's what political campaigns are about - managing the flow of information - both good and bad - coming out about you and your opponent.

So anyway, one frustrating part of this whole situation is how the cult of personality piece is playing out in an extremely misogynistic and invasive way, how Elizabeth Edwards is seen as the wounded woman deserving of chivalrous praise while John Edwards is considered the betraying scornful husband.  That is just lame.  She's not a possession, and he's not a manly saint.  If she asks for privacy and a non-judgmental pose, then give it to them.  They worked this out, or at least that's what she says.  So let them deal with their marriage.  And politically, if he betrayed their followers, she betrayed their followers as well, so hold them both accountable if you feel so strongly about his bad judgment.  Anything less is just residual sexism.  


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is the most sensible commentary I've seen on this matter (4.00 / 4)
since the story broke.

if you want to run for president after having had an affair, (4.00 / 1)
you'd better have the silver tongue and political skills and the connections of Bill Clinton if you want to have a prayer of getting away with it. Edwards has none of that.

Clinton got away with it before the election because he successfully denied it, as far as I remember. It was only after his election that the lawsuits and the real accusations started to fly.

The love-child aspect would have made it extremely explosive had Edwards been the nominee, and had it come out at the wrong time--like just a month before the election--it might have depressed turnout sufficiently to lose the election.

However, since Edwards never had a chance, I'm not terribly worried about this revelation.


You remember wrong (4.00 / 2)
Clinton denied sleeping with G. Flowers, but he basically admitted during the 1992 campaign that he had cheated on Hillary.  

[ Parent ]
People remember facts the way those "facts" will fit into their (0.00 / 0)
narrative.

[ Parent ]
Many many frustrating things about this situation BUT (4.00 / 3)
What part of this final sentence of E. Edwards don't you understand?

give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

I think that is a polite way of saying STFU


My take on Elizabeth's diary on dkos... (0.00 / 0)
Quit the voyeurism, sfu, and leave us alone.

Think about it.  He wasn't in public service then, and he isn't now.  Two years ago, Edwards had an affair when he was out of office and NOT running for any office.  One year later, he told his wife, she got cancer, and they reconnected - again all while he was out of office and public life.  One year AFTER that, he/they decide(s) to run for President; and the backseat pundits say he is an asshole because they didn't hide under a rock or introduce him as an adulterer.   "Hi, I'm John Edwards.  I am running for President, and I had an affair two years ago when it was truly none of your business. "  They owe no one anything.  This is a couple thing.

No tin foil hats allowed because it destroys dkos credibility but raw unbridled emotion is perfectly OK.   If the so called reality based progressives can't even deal with this without outpourings of anger, resentment and platitudes to "saint" Elizabeth, it is no wonder that 59 million people could be so dumb.


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
truth is only two people know what went down (4.00 / 2)
and to sit here and speculate is an invasion of privacy

[ Parent ]
Nothing to say, except: excellent diary. ITA 100% (4.00 / 1)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

i could care less about the edwards' personal lives.... (4.00 / 2)
they both committed political malpractice by running and denying the stories for months; even john himself acknowledges as much.  

each campaign is different -- clinton and cornyn won despite their personal lives; on the other hand, gary hart got destroyed due to his affair with donna rice.  but you are right: ultimately, we can't know how things would have played out had edwards been the nominee.  that said, i'm glad we are talking about mccain's new weak-tea, false 'celebrity' ad as opposed to what would undoubtedly be an onslaught of republican ads about edwards' 'untrustworthiness.'      

i didn't read the comments in elizabeth's diary yesterday -- i imagined many of them would be weird in the way you describe.  a lot of what you say about sexism makes sense to me.  

people project a lot onto other peoples' relationships -- their projections say more about them than about those they are talking about.  


corzine, not cornyn... (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
And if Republicans ran those ads... (4.00 / 1)
Off the top of my head, we've got ads of:
1. Republican Senators applauding David Vitter when he returned to Congress.
2. Larry Craig.
3. Mark Foley.
4. John McCain.

and that's just in the first 10 seconds.  There's no way to know, of course, what would have occurred, but I really don't get this doom and gloom scenario that so many are so sure would have come to pass.

And how did they commit political malpractice?  Were they asked about this while Edwards was running?  I truly don't recall that, but could be wrong.  And even if they were and denied it, since when does a politician lying constitute political malpractice?  I mean, it's in their nature...


[ Parent ]
they were asked about it, as were their staffers. (4.00 / 2)
edwards said it was 'tabloid trash,' and according to his communications guy, who was on countdown last night, all the staffers were told that the stories were entirely untrue.  these staffers then conveyed this info to the press.    

sure, we could counterpunch with ads about mccain, but he is the nasty 'maverick' who everyone already knows has a 2nd wife who is too young for him, and an ex-wife who he ditched while she was sick, but who nevertheless seems to support his campaign.  edwards, on the other hand, was the squeaky-clean family man, who stood by his wife as she suffered through cancer... despite the sexist underpinnings of the narratives that get built up around these candidates, these are the narratives that we would have had to work with....

edwards would have definitely taken a hit in the polls over this.  i'm not saying that i can predict how much, or whether he would have been able to recover, i'm just saying that i'm glad we don't have to find out.    


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I disagree (4.00 / 4)
This election is too important and we can't afford to be deceived by our candidates in this way. We're all very fortunate that Edwards didn't win the nomination.

Bill Clinton did it too is not a good enough excuse, especially for those of us who were turned off by Hillary's campaign because of Bill Clinton's baggage.

We can't afford to lose the White House this year because of the Edwards' ambition.

That said, I've grown tired of this. 24 hours was enough to get my frustration out and I just don't think we should talk about it anymore, especially in the liberal blogosphere. Elizabeth asked for some space, let's give it to them.


Every candidate we have is imperfect so your argument seems confused to me (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Great post, Matt and I agree that Elizabeth said it well, (0.00 / 0)
in asking for privacy..., but, your post Potus2020, what are you talking about?

If it was so important that we cannot be deceived by our candidates, what about running in the primary against FISA, then as soon as you get Hillary out of the way, dumping on the constitution..., yes, your guy is sooo perfect.

Get over it!

A Hillary supporter.

They are all imperfect.


[ Parent ]
Great post (4.00 / 2)
Thank you for writing this; as another commenter said, it's the most sensible thing I've read.

The attacks on Edwards from supposed progressives have been really silly. The first line of attack - that Edwards is an bad man for doing this to his wife - is one that none of us is in a position to make. A married couple's sex life is an intensely private matter, and different people feel different ways about various things. We simply have no idea.

As for the notion that Edwards somehow betrayed the Democratic Party, it is worth noting that there is no clear pattern in recent American political history showing that extramarital affair = political failure. The current GOP nominee cheated on his wife, nobody cares. Nobody cared about Clinton. Nobody cared about Rudy Giuliani's infidelity, really - certainly it did not disqualify him from running (Bernie K. did that), and he not only cheated on his wife, he left his wife for his mistress. There's just no evidence that it matters at all. Frankly, I think it's not implausible that it actually helps some candidates - reassures the populace of their machismo, perhaps.

Furthermore, what on Earth makes people think that the other Democratic candidates are/were squeaky clean? Are you all really so confident that Barack Obama has never strayed? I don't mean to convey any kind of innuendo; obviously there has never been any suggestion that he has. But it's certainly not impossible. Same for Richardson (about whom there have been whispers), Biden, Dodd. Men tend to cheat, especially when they have the opportunity presented to them on a regular basis, which politicians generally do. So Edwards didn't necessarily have any reason to think that he was any more vulnerable on this front than any of the other candidates.


interesting that you say nothing of h. clinton. (0.00 / 0)
it indicates the double standard at work here, as does your comment about 'machismo.'  had hillary clinton admitted to an affair, her support would have tanked.  

furthermore, i'm actually pretty confident that obama has never 'strayed.'  you think he doesn't realize that would be a game-ender for a black male candidate?  he is nothing if not strategically careful.  

now, with respect to the white dudes in the pack, i have no real opinion.  

richardson, incidentally, doesn't have a chance at the VP nod in large part because of sexual harassment 'whispers.'  those are different, and actually worse (both in my book, and objectively, i would think), than whispers about affairs.  


[ Parent ]
Agree about the double standard (0.00 / 0)
The effect of infidelity on the part of a female candidate would be unpredictable at the very least. Obviously we live in a country where female infidelity (and sexuality in general) is punished much more harshly. So yeah.

Everybody says that Obama would never have an affair because he is too disciplined and careful. I'm not sure where they are getting that. It is reminiscent of what many people said about Clinton when the Lewinsky affair first hit - he would never be that stupid, they said. I think it should be obvious by now that most men do a lot of thinking with the wrong head. A lot of men are "strategically careful" in their professional lives, not so much in their sex lives. But even this overstates things a bit, because the fact of the matter is, extramarital affairs simply are not that risky for a politician. The last major politician to be felled by one was Gary Hart, if I'm not mistaken. (I may be forgetting somebody, and I'm obviously not counting affairs that involved another man, the exchange of money, etc.)


[ Parent ]
in a way, your final point supports my argument (0.00 / 0)
you first say that men are irrational when it comes to sex, but then later say that it is, in a certain sense, rational (or at least not too irrational) for a male candidate to have an affair, because when was the last time that mattered to their success anyway.

so you admit that there is a certain amount of calculation that goes into making a decision to have an affair.  

what i was saying in my post was just that, with obama, the calculus would be different.  he would have virtually no chance of winning if he admitted to an affair, because he is a black man, and there is a double standard in this country when it comes to black male sexuality.



[ Parent ]
No double standards... (0.00 / 0)
Statistics show that men are more likely to wander than women.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I think Obama is squeaky clean in this matter (0.00 / 0)
simply because there is no way Michelle would ever put up with it. A woman of her race and education would probably give him five minutes to get out the door and that would be generous. It's a cultural thing.

She would never put up with what Hillary put up with. Elizabeth is a different person altogether. And who knows with cancer and treatments and medication, she may have been grateful he had someone to go to after she found out. It hasn't been easy for him either. And she is well aware of that.

The only reason I think candidates have to be careful in this religious climate is because of the right wing noise machine. As far as their sexual infidelities, that is completely personal and I don't care. (Neither did Jackie. She even found women for JFK as she knew his type.) I mean, really, can anyone imagine Jackie lying around all day waiting for JFK to come to her as in a harem. He seems to have had that kind of appetite. BTW Saudi men are known for this: frequently and fast. And anyone who has had back problems understands that kundalini energy travels up the spine constantly. Sorry if anyone thinks this is kooky.


[ Parent ]
You are dead wrong Guiliani (0.00 / 0)
There is no question the story about him visiting the Hamptons to cheat on his wife badly hurt him.  If you go back and look when the stories came out in the post, and then look at the polling, you can trace his descent to those stories.

[ Parent ]
Disagree (0.00 / 0)
So if there's a political sin, it belongs to both of them

She, as I understand it, knew he had an affair in 2006. I haven't seen any evidence she knew the idiot was still seeing her.

Bullshit. (4.00 / 3)
Wow! What a load! And after posting this yesterday -

..................................................
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.
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
..................................................

You can say whatever you want about how absurd the existing puritanical (and one sided puritanism) climate is for politics in America but that ignores the fact that it is, in fact, a fact. A fact that John Edwards ignored. It might have been a risk he and his wife were willing to take but it wasn't one they shared with his supporters, other than the risk part. So your poo pooing of commonly accepted sensibilities is weak.

You've also accepted the "2006" scenario as, how shall I put it, gospel. The 2006 line seems like another load, which understandably Elizabeth is going along with (what are her options on that?). But considering that he spent a few hours with his "former" paramour that he hasn't fathered a child with though he hasn't taken a paternity test - oh shit, I don't give a shit about Edwards fathering a grade school graduating class. I only care that he took the support he had and ran with it when it was easily open to be dumped in a huge pile of shit of his making. OK. I got side tracked in dealing with the bullshit you've posted. The story put out by the Edwards is weak. He, John, was likely porking said miss all along. But even if only occasionally, what's the dif? The 2006 crap is along the line of, "I've sinned, but I'm a saint now." That's another of the bull points you've accepted as gospel.

As for any disclosure of this type not being significant had Edwards been the nominee, really, what planet are you on? This is a guy who made his wife's recurrence of cancer a major point of focus as his campaign was failing. And he was very likely cheating on her at the time. A self centered opportunist? And that's not just between him and his family. He was using family relationships to push his candidacy. A monumental phony. Oh. I forgot. He stopped schtupping said other woman in 2006. He just wanted some consoling at 3AM in a hotel last month in a moment of weakness.

Forget Edwards. He's done and not worth the consideration. If you're so upset about the imbalance in media coverage - how Republicans all seem to be Teflon coated adulterous, toilet tap dancing pedophiles but only Democrats get called on transgressions, then it's time to push for politicians that will go after the media. And not just tsk tsking. For example, ABCNews, after pushing Pravada-esque crap about Iraqi anthrax killing Americans as they walk down the street, shouldn't be allowed to slide with 'It was an honest mistake' crap. Their public broadcast license should be challenged. If that might be seen as over the top, good. Put the fear of crossing Democrats where it is with Republicans. Have the con men that pervade the media talk fests get fired for saying boo about a Democrat. Fking play hardball like the Tom Delay - Karl Rove Republicans. And it's not the same bad behavior as Republicans. It's fighting for truth in the public dialog.

So cut the crap about Edwards. Again, he's done and should be. You don't go into a game with stupid rules that you break and then complain that the rules are stupid. Not when there's so much more to be lost than your own public moral stature.


and there was hush money (0.00 / 0)
Just to add to good points above, how was Edwards going to spin his way out of payments to Hunter made by his campaign finance chairman? His campaign ops paid her but he knew nothing about it?  He's not the dad but another campaign aid is?  That's a story waiting for more tabloid action.

 


[ Parent ]
AMEN! (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (4.00 / 1)
The very idea that Elizabeth Edwards somehow contributed to betraying supporters is what is actually sexist and totally and completely absurd. I can't believe such a ridiculous idea is actually posted here at my most favorite site!  Look- she made the best of a bad situation, by forgiving and moving on to the more important things in life.  I agree that the hysteria around these affairs is misplaced, and that it is not a personal betrayal of supporters, but rather a complex family matter between the two people.  However, to suggest in anyway that she is an equal partner in any of the bad decision-making is astounding.  Yes, she may have said "lets not let this interfere with our dream of what we can contribute to the country" or something like that, but to imply that this is equal to his own bad decision-making is absurd.  Please reconsider your thinking on this.  Please.  Utterly ridiculous view.

i think the point matt is making is that we can conceptually distinguish (4.00 / 4)
the affair itself from the edwards' mutual decision to run for president.  

if anything, matt was not endorsing the view that elizabeth was guilty of political malpractice, but instead challenging those of us who yesterday said john edwards had betrayed the party to at least be intellectually consistent, and condemn elizabeth as well.  

if it is in fact true that john told her of the affair before they decided to run for office, then i say she is also to blame for the decision to run, which i think was a reckless one.  she is a grown up, and she could have said no, for the good of the party, and the country.  


[ Parent ]
I understand the point (4.00 / 4)
I understand Matt's point but I completely disagree.  To suggest that she should have been the one to say no, lets not, for the good of the country and the party, is to once again suggest that women must clean up the mess men make.  He had the affair and he chose to run.  She may have hoped that if it came out, they could deal with it, and she may have thought that they still had much to contribute, but this is hardly a betrayal of supporters.  And, I think we are fogetting that "sexism", like racism is not the individual bad behavior of men or women, or the judgment of that behavior, but rather the institutional use of power and privilege to keep others out of power.  Looked at through that lens, there is NO WAY to make the leap that those not condemning both of the Edwards is sexism.  Lets see- male privilege= getting to be the one to run for the Presidency.  Sexism= blaming the wife when the decision proves to be a bad one.  

[ Parent ]
i'm saying she is a party to the decision to run, not that she is (4.00 / 1)
primarily responsible.  therefore, your conclusion is totally unfair when applied to my comment.    

[ Parent ]
They are making an emotional judgment (4.00 / 1)
about Edwards. To then include his wife in that calculus breaks the chain of emotiona causality. In other words, to include Elizabeth defeats the purpose of claiming John Edwards is evil. We are suppose to be falsely indignant by ignoring all facts that don't fit the simple moral construct- cheating husband, aggrieved wife. Cheating means evil. That 50 percent of americans cheat should be ignored. The calculus is simple moral constructions, not complexity such as you are advocating or that which Matt is arguing.

[ Parent ]
A complicated issue (0.00 / 0)
I think Matt's point is that;

1.  Elizabeth, as both a wife and an important political figure herself, could have prevented John Edwards from running for President successfully.
2.  All indications lead us to think that neither John nor Elizabeth believed this affair should prevent them from running for president.
3.  So individuals online that accuse John of making an unforgivable mistake in judgment - John did not believe this affair should prevent him from running for President - must also accuse Elizabeth of making the same mistake in judgment; Elizabeth did not believe this affair should prevent him from running for president.

I think that Matt's point is totally irrespective of sex.  We can say that, if we knew some Edwards staffers knew of the affair in 2006, then they made the same judgment that John and Elizabeth made and the list of individuals making "unforgivable mistakes" keeps growing.  Maybe a half a dozen loyal Democratic staffers, Ms. Hunter herself (probably a loyal Democrat), anyone she told, maybe the Edwards' daughter, they all knew .  Matt's point can be extended to say, hey, enough people knew about this, enough Democrats knew about this, and no one else decided that this should prevent the run.  The reason he chose Elizabeth to illustrate the point isn't because she is the wife and the one "expected to clean up the mess", but simply because she most perfectly illustrates the point:

We know she knew (instead of having to guess about other individuals), we know she could have stopped the Presidential run (instead of having to guess that about other individuals), and we know she is loved online (no one has heard of the staffers).  She most perfectly the logical inconsistency that "kicking John out of the party", which some people in the dKos comments have practically suggested, extends to multiple individuals, at least one of whom is a practical saint.  


[ Parent ]
I agree with Matt that the attitudes towards EE reek of sexism (4.00 / 3)
and paternalism. But it's beyond me how this stuff could describe this stuff as "misogynistic." I see no women-hating here, only the unwillingness to view women as equal agents.

It's an aside, but sexism and misogyny are not interchangeable terms. It's odd to me how often they are used as such (by men, in every case that I can remember) in the netroots.  


[ Parent ]
Missing an important conversation (4.00 / 7)
There is a conversation that should be had about the irresponsible sexual behavior of men in power.  I don't mean this from a moralistic, anti sex perspective.  I mean it from the perspective of a gender analysis.  I don't mean that monagamy should be the standard, or the way everyone should live, or that women don't engage in such conduct as well.    I do mean that men in power often seem to believe that their behavior has no consequences.  The woman often is the one left to pick up the pieces (as the wife) or left in ruins (as the girlfriend).  The man prays about it or whatever else he does, is forgiven and the pattern repeats itself again in the public eye.   This is a gender issue, and one that men who believe in equality should be concerned about.  Looking not at politics but at the arts, Woody Allen comes to mind.  He is admired by men even though he lets see- slept with and then married his wife's adopted daughter.  Those speaking out against his behavior are the ones being condemned as judgmental.  Something is wrong with this picture, and in the very long run it hurts men as much as women.  That may be beyond this narrow discussion of the political decision to run for office with such a damaging secret, but its an important larger conversation.

[ Parent ]
Long ago I took EST with Werner (0.00 / 0)
and his way was just to tell everything. Edwards could have done that. Obama did that in his books. His drugs were probably much more than Clinton and yet what a stink the "I didn't inhale thing" produced.

Too bad he didn't inhale, and a lot. He could have gotten all the blow jobs he ever dreamed of and gotten that out of his system.


[ Parent ]
Good point. (0.00 / 0)
We'll know we have arrived when we are one day having a conversation about a woman in power who has an affair.

Can you even imagine? Because I can't.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
Part of the reason we are seeing more sympathy and affection for Elizabeth is because Elizabeth is not the one who lied to reporters and had an affair. Of course, this reaction has nothing to do with misogyny or sexism. It's simply because John is the one who made the big mistake here.

Another major reason is that the netroots know Elizabeth on more of a personal level than we know John. She is a blogger, he isn't. We've spent time with her online and offline in many cases. I think it's only natural to feel more compassion for someone you know than one who is basically a stranger.

As far as playing the "if" game or being angry that they didn't tell us about this affair before he announced, I think in both cases, that's unrealistic.

When I signed up to support the Edwards campaign, I did not assume that John Edwards had revealed every intimate detail of his life nor did I assume he was perfect without a single flaw in his background.

I chose to take a gamble on his campaign, knowing there were risks involved. Anyone who fails to understand there are always risks involved when you put your support into a campaign or candidate, is being naive.

I went on to volunteer hundreds of hours, travelled and maxed out on both the primary and general donations.

So, as a long term Edwards supporter, I can honestly say today, I have no regrets. Admittedly, I was disappointed to hear this news, mostly sad for Elizabeth for having to deal with this, but John was right when he said in that recent interview, there are boundaries and privacy issues involved here.

John and Elizabeth Edwards are good people. Mistakes and all.  


[ Parent ]
The issue is the Brand (4.00 / 1)
I am sad about this because Edwards has damaged his Brand -- a brand that took 8 years to build. But I don't think he has totally destroyed his Brand.  He can & should continue to work to improve his image. He owes it to his family, if nothing else, to earn the public's forgiveness. People have come back from much worse. It's all up to him and how hard he's willing to work to set things right.


Agree that this is pretty sensible and reasonable commentary, (4.00 / 1)
though I do think you understate the danger of this coming out during a hypothetical Edwards-is-the-nominee campaign.  Yeah, maybe in August or May it might have been manageable, but it also could have come out in October, or he might have made an overly strong denial that destroys his credibility, or something.  He was taking all of us for a ride that might or might not have ended well.  (Personally, I think the odds that it ends poorly are pretty damn high.)

And yes, while it wasn't Elizabeth's choice to put his campaign in such peril, it was her choice to greenlight it and go ahead with the campaign anyway.  I hadn't thought of that, and it's a good point.

We do also have to admit that we don't really know that the official public story is the story; John has said that Elizabeth didn't know he was visiting Rielle back in February or whatever, so there's an obvious red flag there: was he still sleeping with her, was he trying to buy her off, did she tip off the Enquirer to that meeting, etc.  The public story is clearly not complete until this is accounted for.

But, my personal interest in digging into the matter is exhausted.  If I come across the rest of the story, I'd be interested, but I'm sure not going to go look for it.  Digging into the details of this is becoming unpalatable.  


I certainly agree that it shouldn't be a big concern (4.00 / 1)
And I agree that the voters might not in the long run care.

I disagree that this wouldn't have been a big problem because the MSM would have blanketed it for several weeks. It would have made it even more problematic than usual to cut through the Hawthornian moralist fat to the meat and potatoes of the issues.


So Edwards is human - so what? (4.00 / 1)
Personally, I don't really care about what consenting adults do in the privacy of a bedroom. Edwards' affair was his and Elizabeth's business and no one else's. The public needs to get its nose out of the bedrooms of political candidates (and everyone else)!

The failure of Edwards to keep his private affairs private in no way diminishes the validity of his positions on healthcare, his concern for the poor and middle classes nor his other political opinions.

My opinion of Edwards is only diminished in the respect that he participated in denouncing Bill Clinton at the end of the Clinton witch hunt.



you forgot about the person he had the relationship with (0.00 / 0)
"Edwards' affair was his and Elizabeth's business and no one else's."

It's her business too.


[ Parent ]
Edwards voted to acquit Bill Clinton (0.00 / 0)
And, he defended Bill Clinton during Bill's impeachment process.

One quote, out of context (I am assuming that is what you are referring to), does not tell the whole story.  


[ Parent ]
sexisim or manicheanism (0.00 / 0)
I think the deeper problem in the liberal blogosphere, and perhaps in the blogosphere generally, is a Manichaean approach to argument. Where everyone is an angel or a daemon, a hero or a goat. I don't know how much of that is inherent in the medium and how much is an artifact of the white, male, libertarian cultural history of the Internet.

This combines with a puritan American culture, and pervasively sexist online culture, to create the disturbing and revealing thread you see on DailyKos.

As progressives we really need to figure out how to change that culture, starting with the liberal blogosphere.


Like Matt's post (4.00 / 1)
which accuses those who disagree with him as practitioners in a cult of personality and says they are "so called liberals".

The post, typical in liberal blogsphere, spends significant time insulting those with whom the writer disagrees with.


[ Parent ]
public cost is not hypothetical (0.00 / 0)
There's more to the betrayal of public trust at work than the hypotheticals on how this would have affected him as the nominee.  Before August 8, Edwards was still a major figure in the 2008 campaign, and he's damaged that standing at a real cost to liberals, "so-called" as well as true blue.  

Edwards left the primaries as the liberal standard bearer and he was set to reinforce that standing at the convention where he could have spoken effectively on an anti-corporate, pro-worker agenda.  He also could have stumped for Obama in North Carolina and Virginia and everywhere else. He  would have been in the administration in some way.  He might have run again for Senate in N.C.  At the very least he would have raised more money for his anti-poverty PAC. All of that's jeopardized as is his larger utility as a progressive leader.

This makes Edwards' ability to spin his way back into good standing a real, not hypothetical, exercise.  We get to see in real time how he handles the media environment, and we get to see how much actual damage this does to the Democratic brand in the 08 elections.  

Would that Matt were right about it being "no big deal."


If Elizabeth wanted it to be a private matter (0.00 / 0)
she should have dissuaded John from running for the most public freaking office on the planet!

this is like celebrities who want all the benefits of being famous but none of the side effects. The Edwards knew the game, they should stop whining, its nobody's fault but theirs.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


If you want privacy, you should not run for President. (0.00 / 0)
The Edwards' argument - which - they both use is that their privacy should be respected. I believe in the right to privacy. However, this is similar to celebrities complaining about paparazzi.

If you want privacy, you should avoid movie-stardom and running for the Presidency.


Donate to Open Left








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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search