Having ignored the story for months, the press descends with barely contained glee on the John Edwards confession. Far be it from me to moralise (let him without sin...) but the episode surely takes a prominent place in the annals of male insanity. It's not the affair; it's not even the fact that his wife was ill. These aspects are unremarkable. It's the fact that he was running for president and his marriage was the larger part of his campaign. His rock-solid decades-long partnership with Elizabeth was the essential antidote to his boyish good looks and aw-shucks southern charm. And didn't he know it. He kept his marriage in voters' faces all through his fight for the nomination. Now this. Incredible.
I will be interested to see how the hypocrisy angle plays out. You remember the exultation over the downfall of Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. "It's not what he did," said column after column, "it's the hypocrisy." In early coverage of the Edwards case, the regretful "it's an inexplicable tragedy" motif seems to be far outdistancing the "what an outrageous hypocrite" line--with a particular affectation of sympathy for Elizabeth. Maybe that's right. Maybe it would have been right in the Larry Craig case too. (He has a wife.) Some kinds of hypocrisy, it seems, are easier to put up with than others.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Do good looks and charm require an antidote? Don't you mean counterbalance?
Larry Craig was a gay basher, and was caught trying to get what he had(has) been condemning for years. Edwards has not preached to others about sanctity of marriage (other than that statement about Bill Clinton). There's a difference.
The worst of it is that he was in contention (at least in theory, and in his mind) to be the nominee. If he really cares about the issues he claims to - poverty, for instance - and unless he's a dullard, he should have recognized that
A) if he became the nominee, this affair would without a doubt have been found out by the right-wing;
B) they would have used it to destroy him, and John McCain would have a free ticket to the White House.
Nothing mobilizes the right-wing like self-righteousness, and adultery in a Democratic candidate - that's like throwing a raw steak into the piranha tank.
That's a pathetic excuse for a comparison, Crook - Larry Craig has spent years actively making life miserable for gay people, making a career out of launching verbal and legislative attacks against an already persecuted, under-represented minority - all the while, participating in the very same lifestyle he condemned in others. Edwards is a rotten, good-for-nothing liar (and a world-class hypocrite), but he's always been an advocate for the politically and economically disadvantaged. It's only reasonable that the public at large would cut Edwards a bit more slack.
No, ronbailey, no slack for Edwards - see my above comment, and I elaborate on it more at my own site - but look, striving to become the nominee for president, that puts you in a position to either be elected, and act on the platform (change for the disadvantaged) - or to have some right-winger find his Achilles Heel, expose it three weeks before the election, and send McCain to the White House. That's not being an advocate for the disadvantaged. Championing someone else from the start - Obama, Clinton, whomever - that actually could get to the White House, not having that affair in the closet - now that would be advocating for the poor.
The right-wing may like self-righteousness in sexual matters, but the left-wing loves self-righteousness in socio-economic matters. Edwards impugned the morality of those with whom he disagreed economically.
Indeed, obviating economic theory and empirical fact, Edwards railed against NAFTA by engaging in ad hominem argumentation: those who were for NAFTA were either callous or corrupt.
Furthermore, it was Edwards who asked a staffer call local WalMart store to get a Sony Play-Station 3 for his son, effectively trying to cut in line. This was a day after Edwards criticized the company.
I take no pleasure of what has transpired; nor in what is going to ensue given that his public mea culpa may contain lies. When Edwards questioned my morality, my family and I did not have to endure what befallen his household.
However, I find it ironic that when Edwards gave a speech on economics he said, "The great moral test that all of us have as Americans, is to make certain that our children have a better life than we have."
The right-wing may like self-righteousness in sexual matters, but the left-wing loves self-righteousness in socio-economic matters. Edwards impugned the morality of those with whom he disagreed economically.
Indeed, obviating economic theory and empirical fact, Edwards railed against NAFTA by engaging in ad hominem argumentation: those who were for NAFTA were either callous or corrupt.
Furthermore, it was Edwards who asked a staffer call local WalMart store to get a Sony Play-Station 3 for his son, effectively trying to cut in line. This was a day after Edwards criticized the company.
I take no pleasure of what has transpired; nor in what is going to ensue given that his public mea culpa may contain lies. When Edwards questioned my morality, my family and I did not have to endure what befallen his household.
However, I find it ironic that when Edwards gave a speech on economics he said, "The great moral test that all of us have as Americans, is to make certain that our children have a better life than we have."
Isn't it a bit odd that the media finally decided to cover this story as Obama's vice-presidential nominee decision nears?
I can't understand why anyone would want to compare the egregiousness of Larry Craig's and John Edwards's hypocrisy. What I can understand is the need to bring back the tarring and feathering of public officials. And I don't mean the metaphorical kind that exists through information bombardment. I mean the kind that caused physical pain as well as abject humiliation.
The so-called liberal media never covered this story till Edwards put out a press release confirming it. Fox News and the National Review yammered incessantly about this fact. I believe that had the cuckolding culprit been Mitt Romney, the story would have been treated conversely by the respective news outlets.
As for hypocritical egregiousness, Edwards made his family life a central part of his campaign--feel free to check his website--while Craig made homophobia central to his. I find it
ironic, that solely on this issue, liberals are arguing against moral equivalence.
However, it is clear-cut that the media has expressed an overwhelming sense of empathy for Edwards, a man who fell from grace due to self-love, but not for Craig, a man who fell due to self-hate.
The so-called liberal media never covered this story till Edwards put out a press release confirming it. Fox News and the National Review yammered incessantly about this fact. I believe that had the cuckolding culprit been Mitt Romney, the story would have been treated conversely by the respective news outlets.
As for hypocritical egregiousness, Edwards made his family life a central part of his campaign--feel free to check his website--while Craig made homophobia central to his. I find it
ironic, that solely on this issue, liberals are arguing against moral equivalence.
However, it is clear-cut that the media has expressed an overwhelming sense of empathy for Edwards, a man who fell from grace due to self-love, but not for Craig, a man who fell due to self-hate.
Edwards sort of bragged about his family life but he didn't really attack other people for not having a similar family life (accepting clinton's affair which happened years before his affair) now if he attacked McCain for being the kind of scumbag who left his injured wife for another woman he would be a hypocrite.
I have no love and little sympathy for John Edwards and I don't think that his transaction was less bad than craig's. I first of all think that his affair is less hypocritical because persecuting those who were unfaithful spouses was not a big part of his campaign. More importantly Edwards' affair is less interesting than Craig picking up dudes in a restroom.
"The so-called liberal media never covered this story till Edwards put out a press release confirming it."
Yep. Anyone remember the ferocity with which the mainstream media covered the alleged affair between George W. Bush and Condi Rice that was reported by the National Enquirer? I am still reeling from the subsequent impeachment threat.
http://wonkette.com/182711/the-bush-condi-rumors-an-update
MSM, leave the right-wing alooooooooone
I'm thrilled that John Edwards got his comeuppance with this scandal. He showed enormous hubris by waiting until the last possible nanosecond to endorse Obama. If he had endorsed Obama earler, Hillary might have dropped out sooner.
But Noooo. John had to feed his colossal ego and he acted like he was the Pope. Hillary and Obama had to make a pilgrimage to his home and kiss his ring.
It's very sad that Elizabeth Edwards acted as an enabler for her rotten husband. By covering up for John, she put her own interests ahead of the interests of the Democratic Party and of the country.
Shame on John and Elizabeth Edwards for their narcissim and selfishness.
Foody:
Careful, your argument is based on two false and libelous assertions.
McCain did not leave his first wife under the terms you outlined. In a recent interview McCain's first wife said the accident, "wasn't the reason for my divorce." Nonetheless, as part of the divorce settlement she stated that McCain committed to, "pay her medical costs for life." Thus, in harmony with your false assertion, she endorsed McCain for president.
I make you aware of this because I am sure that, just like me, you would find it hypocritical to condemn those that spread lies about Obama's faith, but spread lies about McCain's marriage.
As for Craig persecuting gays, this is an exaggeration. Craig may have sought to deprive American Gays from pursuing happiness, vis a vis marriage, but he never sought to deprive gays from life and liberty.
And Foody, given that Obama concurs with Craig on gay marriage, you don't want to hurl stones in the bath houses.
Mark:
That you are thrilled at what has befallen John Edwards and that you accuse Elizabeth Edwards of narcissim "sic" and selfishness speaks volume of your character. No doubt you must be the product of a loving mother.
The voters seemed to sense what I sensed: Edwards' tinge of phoniness. In my eyes he could never escape his trial lawyer smarminess. He seemed sincere on some worthwhile issues (and one that doesn't have a deep-pocketed constituency), but one wonders now whether he really was.
John Edwards thought he was God by waiting an eternity before endorsing Obama.
If Edwards had endorsed Obama as soon as he dropped out, he might have been able to help Obama win Ohio and Texas and get Hillary out of the race sooner.
Time Magazine's Mark Halperin told Barbara Walters in an interview that Edwards was reluctant to endorse Obama because he thought he was a p####. Who the heck is John Edwards to judge Obama's character when he was sitting on a ticking time bomb all this time?
So, yes I'm very pleased that an egomaniac like John Edwards has been publicly disgraced. Maybe now he'll keep his big mouth shut and stop pretending he's morally superior to every other politician.
luis d valle: you're criticizing everybody on all sides. What's your point? Is there a point? Based on all your other comments, I'd have thought you would have agreed with Mark, but instead you criticize him? What is the correct stance on all issues, pray tell?
BTW: I'm with Mark. Knowing how critical the Democrats think this election is, and knowing what a distraction this would be were he the nominee, either he should have 'fessed up before running, or he shouldn't have run at all.
He always struck me as a preening narcissitic jerk.
What makes Edwards interesting to me is that he had this affair, and lived with the knowledge that rumors were already circulating, while running actively for president and later while being viewed as a possible VP candidate.
What could he possibly have been thinking? That this would never come to light? Betrayal of his wife is between the two of them. No comment from me about that, ever. But betraying all his supporters, and other Democrats, by putting the whole election at jeopardy in this way?
That he confessed to his wife and tried to move on, but didn't have the modicum of common sense and decency required to also withdraw from the campaign and support someone who was not a walking time bomb of a candidate -- THAT is what is, to me, totally unforgivable.
thanks
Luis, McCain did cheat on his wife and left her while she was injured. I did not say that he left her because she was injured. Nor did I comment at all on whether McCain's wife endorsed him for president. So I didn't say anything untrue and certainly not libelous. I took a cheap shot at McCain because what he did sort of parallels what Edwards did.
Yes I don't like when people call Obama a Muslim and I don't like it when people who insinuate that McCain's adopted daughter is his illegitimate daughter. I don't like these things because they aren't true. But McCain DID cheat on his first wife and me pointing it out was a cheap shot and joke but it wasn't libel. I have no idea what you read.
Elizabeth:
I realize that we are the victims of the bipolar logic of the times, in where, "you are either with me or against me," but my positions are fairly simple:
John Edwards is guilty of hypocrisy. Senator Craig is guilty of hypocrisy. I do not get any pleasure on what has befallen Edwards or Craig.
If I have confused you because both men share the same indictment even though they have disparate political ideologies, I apologize.
Foody:
Why mention the fact that she was injured if you did not desire to infer that this was the reason he left her?
Again, in a recent interview McCain's first wife said the accident, "wasn't the reason for my divorce." The ex-wife has endorsed McCain for president.
Now, if you think that there is a big difference between libel and a cheap shot, if you think that what you wrote was a joke, then you should pursue a career at the Huffington Post.
At any rate, I noticed that you failed to retort to your other libelous claim: Craig's pursuit--excuse me--persecution of gays.
For once again: Obama concurs with Craig on gay marriage, and on FISA--the law that was shredding the Constitution.
And Foody: Obama's campaign is about "Change you can believe in." You don't want to turn it into, "Change he needs to explain."
Mark:
Edwards failed to endorse Obama as fast you would have liked, thus you are happy as to what has happened to him. You know I may never know your last name, anonymity is your refuge, but trust me I know how old you are.
"Why mention the fact that she was injured if you did not desire to infer that this was the reason he left her?"
Simple because 1. It sort of paralells edwards behavior of cheating on his wife with cancer and 2. It is generally considered worse to cheat on some one when they are already going through a great difficulty.
I think there is a huge difference between libel and a cheap shot. A cheap shot can be TRUE.
I think it is unreasonable to conflate Obama's stance on gay issues with Craig's. While Obama opposes gay marriage he is also against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He voted against including gays in hate crime legislation. The HRC rated Craig a zero. You took one issue where the two politicians happened to agree and used that to falsely color the entire debate. I guess that was libel by your incredibly loose definition.
The big reason the Larry Craig thing got so much coverage is because it was far stranger than a typical politician's affair. Spitzer got lots of attention too for being an anti corruption crusader who got caught with a high priced call girl. I don't think it is media bias at play.
Froody:
If you are comfortable with the notion that a cheap shot and libel are antonyms, fine. If you are comfortable that your arguments are based on a self-described "cheap shot," fine. However, I find it ironic that although you believe that Edward’s affair “sort of parallels,” McCain’s affair, Edward’s affair is nonetheless “less hypocritical” and “less interesting,” than Senator Craig’s affair. No doubt you must believe that objectivity means different things to different people.
As for it being unreasonable to conflate Obama's stance on gay issues with Craig's, I agree. I don’t need the HRC, what ever organization that is, to tell me so. I never did such a thing—yet another libelous charge, Froody. I simply stated that Craig’s stance on gay marriage “sort of parallels” Obama’s. Actually, it more than parallels, it is the same dam line.
I made this point to support my argument that Craig’s pursuit--excuse me--persecution of gays, is libelous. Craig may have sought to deprive American Gays from pursuing happiness vis a vis marriage—just like Obama--but he never sought to deprive gays from life and liberty, elements that would constitute “persecution.” No. Instead of conflating Obama’s stances, I was deflating your exaggeration.
I must state that you employ the Straw Man fallacy a lot, in where you retort an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. This fallacious argument “sort of parallels” the false dilemma argument Elizabeth employed, which is commonly known as the, “you are either for us or against us fallacy.”
These are days of bipolar logic.
Finally, the Craig affair was first reported by a liberal news outlet. The Spitzer affair was first reported by conservative news outlet. McCain’s infidelity was first reported by a liberal news outlet. Edward’s affair was kept alive by conservative news outlets. I grant you that correlation does not entail causation, but this phenomenon is as coincidental as your belief that that Edward’s affair “sort of parallels,” McCain’s affair, but Edward’s affair is “less hypocritical” and “less interesting,” than Senator Craig’s affair.
Cheap shot and libel are not opposites, they are however different words with different meanings. You can't just use them interchangeably. I never claimed that they were antonyms. Since it would seem you aren't arguing with me but rather some other person who said things that are different from what I said I guess I'll bow out of this argument.
Foody:
According to the International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict:
"People who are involved in a conflict and secretly know they are wrong will often not admit that they are wrong because they don’t want to admit they made a mistake. They therefore continue the conflict, just to avoid the embarrassment of looking bad."
"To avoid this problem, it is important to allow one’s opponents to make concessions gracefully, without having to admit that they made a mistake or backed down. Often a simple change in wording, or an exchange of concessions will help negotiators maintain a positive image, even when they are actually giving in very substantially."
With this in mind I submit:
Webster defines libel as a written defamatory statement that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression. Meanwhile, webster defines a cheap shot as a critical statement that takes unfair advantage of a known weakness of the target.
So it clear to see that even though you asserted that there is a "huge difference between" the two words, you never categorically stated that they were antonyms. Accordingly, there may be a huge difference between night and day, but dusk and dawn are not antonyms.
Moreover, libel and cheap shot do not "sort of paralell," each other even though Webster has the word "unfair" in one definition " and the word "unjust" in the other. These two synonyms put in the proper context of your argument enjoy a "huge difference between" them.
My apologies, Foody: bow out with your head held high.
I am sorry Foody but but just one more point.
You stated that Edwards "didn't really attack other people for not having a similar family life (accepting clinton's "sic" affair which happened years before his affair)"
However, on Feruary 12, 1999 on the Clinton Lewinski scandal Edwards said:
"I think this President (Clinton) 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."
Hypocrisy.