I'm so sick of this crap. Just hideous on any number of levels.
If there's no actual law being broken, can we just go back to ignoring people's personal lives? Seriously … I just don't want to know any more.
Update: Edwards issues a statement. Not really much to say.
Please share widely!
bob-neer says
Really that is the most incredible thing. I mean, should it really matter if he loved her or not?
<
p>Right behind that in the absurdity sweepstakes:
<
p>
<
p>That makes it OK?
<
p>Hand wringing aside, this is part of our culture. Edwards knew it. He shouldn’t be surprised.
<
p>I’m not impressed.
fairdeal says
he embarrassed my gender with a gratuitous callow comment like that.
<
p>
libby-rural says
You wouldn’t deprive us of a chance to hammer those “hypocritical” Democrats would you?
<
p>You wouldn’t want a cheating louse of a husband as President would you? Oh you had a couple already…
<
p>and don’t throw Johnny Mac under that bus bacause you know it doesn’t compare.
<
p>You wouldn’t want a former disciple of black liberation theology for President would you?
<
p>We must know about people’s lives (you know, Bush and his oil connections, Cheney and Haliburton)
<
p>I mean BMG had a couple of months worth of posts about Ted Haggard and Larry Craig! Haggard wasn’t even an elected official!!!!!!!
<
p>Just tell Laurel to update her Hypocritical Dem list when she finds time.
kirth says
Refresh my memory – I seem to have forgotten Edwards pushing stronger punishment for adulterers, the way Larry Craig et al pushed for restricting the rights of gay people. I’m afraid JE just doesn’t qualify for their Hypocrite Club. Haggard does get in, because of his fire&brimstone condemnations of people for doing things he himself enjoyed.
<
p>I really did like it better when I wasn’t privy to any of the above, though.
centralmassdad says
I do recall Edwards relying pretty heavily on his wife and her condition for campaign purposes. A significant chunk of his campaign, relative to the other candidates, was “Mr. Family Man.”
mcrd says
There is more to this and it will eventually rise to the surface. This preposterous story that his “friend” and political aid is the father of the baby is even more remarkable. Was this another John F. and Bobby Kenedy deal? Who is supporting this woman? Where is the money coming from? Were campaign funds used for the liasons?
<
p>This whole thing stinks and Edwards has been lieing through his teeth. What else is he lieing about?
laurel says
to have all the elements of a made-for-tv movie, doesn’t it?
charley-on-the-mta says
Johnny Mac? Didn’t he manage the Sox in 86?
<
p>Bush’s oil connections are relevant, since that’s his business experience; his drinking, not so much. Anyway, I’m not sure there’s a bright line.
<
p>And if you’re saying I’d react differently if it were a Republican, you’re probably right. I endorsed Edwards. David and I met him. I’m disappointed. I guess I’ll trade you not knowing about Vitter and Craig for Edwards. 🙁
<
p>Bleah.
ryepower12 says
because that can get in the way of the job.
<
p>Affairs? 50% of men have them. How spouses deal with it, when they find out, is up to them. IE affairs = personal problem.
eaboclipper says
Where exactly do you get your statistics? 50 % of men have affairs? care to source that?
ryepower12 says
google. you should try it sometime.
eaboclipper says
I’m not your google monkey. If you make a preposterous statement such as the one you just make it would be good to back it up with a link.
charley-on-the-mta says
Include your own links, please.
they says
People should be able to make general assertions like this without having to provide a source for everything. If someone thinks it matters enough to want to see a source, then either ask for one or provide a link yourself. I think it is kind of annoying to ask someone to look up sources as if merely asking somehow invalidated their point.
<
p>As to this one, Kinsey’s studies are where the 50% figure comes from. I’d suspect it is at least 100% today. And if someone claims to have not had an affair, I’d like them to prove it, with a link.
<
p>I don’t know how credible “Dear Peggy” is, but it is a self-professed “Extramarital Affairs Research Center“, and it’s the kind of source one finds when googling. Does it prove anything?
kirth says
I’d suspect it is at least 100% today.
<
p>Is there something you want to tell us, they?
they says
My family did just get interesting news though. We found out that my father has a 92 year old half-sister, that my grandfather apparently unknowingly fathered while he was conscripted into the British Infantry in WWI while visiting his father in 1915 (he had emigrated to America, married my grandmother and had two children, but was still a British citizen and so was drafted). His English child and her mother had always thought he had died in France, but he in fact returned to his wife in America in 1920 after healing from shrapnel wounds and had my father and another daughter. Her daughter in England unearthed this when the WWI service records were put online recently, and she discovered he had been enlisted as married with children in America and was able to use that info to make contact and learn about her grandfather’s life in America. I’d think it was some sort of scam, but her photo looks so much like my dad.
<
p>According to her daughter, she was always sad that she didn’t have a father and it wasn’t an easy life for her mother, so I feel rather cheap to just think it is all very neat and interesting to have scandals like other families. My parents are going on 58 years of embarrassingly faithful marriage, so it’s helpful for us kids to have a relief valve.
mcrd says
ryepower12 says
What’s EaBo going to do with it? How does it advance the conversation? If he thinks my claims are so preposterous – he’s free to show me up on the forum, which is probably one of his favorite things to do. I, quite frankly, choose not to waste my time. If it was something that would improve the discussion, sure, but EaBo’s not here to do that.
ryepower12 says
go find yourself a link that proves my statement preposterous.
<
p>Beleive me when I say this, I’m not going to waste my time on you finding stuff that’s been written on and researched since probably before the internet.
geo999 says
…on account of the statistics. Didn’t you get the memo?
<
p>Looky looky n’all that…
mike-from-norwell says
will be interesting seeing how this plays out, with many going after Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife in the middle of her cancer battle. Guess the scales have tipped (and never, ever, put your hopes behind a pretty boy southern trial lawyer).
ryepower12 says
did I pin all my hopes on Edwards? He was my early pick for pres, only because Gore and Feingold never ran. If I knew then what I know now, he still would have been my early pick over Hillary and Obama. I have never cared about affairs in government – that’s a personal thing. Note how I’ve never – not once in my life – posted about Newt and his affair.
mike-from-norwell says
you were an Edwards supporter; at times wish we had the French vous equivalent in English.
<
p>But I will reiterate: never trust a trial lawyer. Slimiest people on earth and will say and do anything. When one of them wins some big old landmark case and does it pro bono, then I’ll reconsider. Otherwise its the dollar signs (and a $5 coupon for the class action plaintiffs) that motivate their actions.
amberpaw says
Like you, I met Edwards, liked him endorsed him, and donated more than I could really afford.
<
p>He was the only candidate talking about issues I care about, like the increasing concentration of wealth in this country, and the need to pay serious attention to poverty issues, such as incarceration sucking up more money then higher education.
<
p>Like you I am disappointed. I second your “bleah”.
<
p>NOW who is talking about child welfare, the New Gilded Age, and the culture of “me me me” and everyone else can go flush themselves? I suppose in Eurpope no one would care – look at President Sarkozy of France who divorced and remarried while in office with nary a ripple.
<
p>I suppose how I feel and what I see with regard to JRE committing adultery and being reported to have said what is in this thread will distill into a poem, which sometimes occurs quickly and other times, slowly.
<
p>It will also matter what he does with himself going forward. Not one of us can change the past.
laurel says
Add him to the hypocrites list, I mean. After all, he “wasn’t there yet” on marriage equality. That is the nice way of saying you’re a “family values” person. And clearly he is not.
politicaljunkie says
This isn’t a Democrat/Republican thing. It is disappointing, and it doesn’t matter if the offending party has a D or an R next to his or her name. Edwards has let lots of people down here, his wife and family most of all. Very, very sad.
libby-rural says
And you know it. The entire mainstream media buried this story and are hypocrites because of it.
<
p>I can’t wait to hear Barak spin this one..
johnk says
smadin says
You keep using that word, “hypocrite.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why would the former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister of Israel have anything to say about this?
irishfury says
picked up on the Princess Bride quote? “My name is Barack Obama, you’re derailing my campaign. Prepare to die.”
dweir says
politicaljunkie says
I never said a thing about the MSM waiting to run with the story. All I did was state my opinion that this type of behavior from a political figure (or anyone) is disheartening, no matter what.
<
p>What the press does with it is an entirely different story. Please don’t spin what I wrote to suit your own needs.
smadin says
You’re quite right. Edwards’s affair that lasted less than a year is totally different from McCain’s divorcing his former swimsuit model wife who’d been disfigured by a life-threatening car crash and marrying a much younger woman with a politically well-connected multimillionaire father a whole month later.
mcrd says
How did McCain get dragged into this? How about Clinton, JFK, RFK, Uncle Ted or whomever? Does anyone think for a minute that half of congress isn’t guilty of multiple adultries (men and women)? The absurdity of the entire matter is that somehow having intercourse with another person is somehow akin to being on the level of the Rosenberg’s. The true hypocrisy is the lies, cover-ups, and the pontificating of righteousness when in reality he’s no different from the next man or woman. Likely the reason why I find “politicians” of any stripe so offensive.
joes says
<
p>Johnny Mac apparently got away with it.
eaboclipper says
ABC News is reporting
<
p>
<
p>That to me seems like it would be borderline unethical if not illegal. Was the payment really for documentaries or was it “hush money”? So a law may have been broken. Hopefully the FEC will investigate.
david says
that those payments look, at best, incredibly sleazy. I don’t know enough about the relevant rules to know whether there could be any lawbreaking involved, but I do know that anyone who donated to the One America Committee thinking they were helping combat poverty must be pretty pissed right now.
charley-on-the-mta says
bleah bleah bleah
<
p>I feel like someone who just bought Whole Foods ground beef.
david says
I hadn’t heard about that!
mcrd says
Of all the politicians that I would trust the least, even with state secrets would be the Clinton’s. There is something organically malevolent about those two. John Edwards only crime (so to speak) was acting like a pompous ass and embarrassing and betraying his wife.
charley-on-the-mta says
I don’t trust Bush and Cheney with the Constitution, which is out in the open. YMMV, etc.
z says
I was really looking forward to AG Edwards…
gary says
Clearly, he’s fighting poverty one, poor, attractive, blonde chick at a time.
charley-on-the-mta says
that one hit a rib on the way in.
laurel says
who just spent his last metaphorical dime selling out his queer brothers and sisters. Wow, does he reaaaly want the veepship. And, no doubt, the ardent following of the McCain-crazy Log Cabinettes. If he is not chosen, how long ya suppose it’ll take for he and his
heterosexual stage propfiance to “part amicably”?eaboclipper says
What gives you the right to out someone? Now that’s hypocrisy!
laurel says
but ducked back under as his political career gained steam. it’s all his own doing. nice try, tho. and hey, i agreed above that edwards is a hypocrite. how many mccain points do i get for that? i’m hoping to have the honor of you delivering the certificate to me personally.
david says
cambridge_paul says
Link.
laurel says
you’re down with Crist vocally supporting Florida’s anti-equality marriage amendment? Why?
christopher says
…is to your cynicism. I actually have no clue as to his record and views on marriage equality, so for the sake of argument I’ll take your word for it. My 4 rating was for the dripping contempt and aspersions you are casting on someone regarding something as personal as sexual orientation which I assume you have no reason to have personal knowledge of. At least I assume you are responding to my rating since I did not actually comment.
laurel says
has a right to attack others civil rights based on sexual orientation, then expect to have their own privacy protected. of course i am cynical of his miracle whirlwind marriage coming at a time when he needs to look solidly heterosexual to the gop. of course my comment drips with contempt. what kind of scumbag works to prevent others from access to civil rights, then plans to access that civil right themselves in a blatantly crass political move? do your homework – learn a little bit about crist and the situation before attacking my comment for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the situation.
christopher says
…in this context I don’t care about Crist’s position on marriage equality. He has every right to get married. I understand the timing is suspect, but do you have Crist on tape saying to his fiancee, “Honey, we need to get married right away so I can have a shot at VP”, or to John McCain, “Don’t worry Senator, I’ll take care of my bachelorhood status in time for the convention.”? What about recorded evidence or testimony from a male lover that would expose him as gay? THAT would be hypocrisy, but I’m guessing you are not aware of such evidence. I’m not holding my breath for the GOP to have a VP candidate who favors marriage equality and unfortunately even the Democrats will find that problematic. I really do favor your goal of marriage equality for everyone. I just don’t believe in throwing a temper tantrum about it.
stomv says
You’re diverting attention from this thread.
<
p>Does Crist deserve his own diary? For sure. But don’t derail this one with the classic “Hey! Look over here!” tactic made famous around here by folks like MRCD.
laurel says
because he’s just another sexual hypocrite, like it appears John Edwards is. And both stories broke today and both are VP strivers. Sure, it’s hyperbole to say the GOP* is behind today’s Edwards story, but the rest is right on target.
<
p>*more like the Dems wanted to break it on a friday right before the olympics, as already mentioned above.
gary says
<
p>This has been in the blogs and tabloids for nearly a month, but the MSM refused to pick it up. I guess I don’t understand news.
<
p>1: Sources: John Edwards had an affair. Here’s evidence.
Not news.
<
p>2: John Edwards: I had an affair.
News.
stomv says
at least according to news.google.com at the time of the posting.
<
p>Even if Crist does make today’s hypocrisy news, it’s still “look over there!” instead of “yip, he’s a stooge” and sure smells like an attempt at distraction.
laurel says
i’m certainly not trying to distract from the edwards thing. if i was, why would i have chimed in early on in the thread to agree that he is a sexual hypocrite? i think people are more than capable of reading my comment about crist without totally getting distracted from the edwards story. give the readers some credit. and please, do give me another zero for daring to bring in related discussion.
mcrd says
Really. I never realized that. I must be more attentive to not diverting attention.
<
p>What was that about Crist?
discernente says
Personally I really enjoy seeing politicians of any stripe being exposed for what they are–creeps.
<
p>When politicians start respecting my own personal choices and stop being so controlling. Then and only then I’ll start respecting their personal lives.
johnk says
He must have known something was coming out and wanted to make it public first. I don’t think he did it because he wanted to come clean to the public. There must be more ….
smadin says
That it’s a Friday afternoon, and most of the news coverage for the next two weeks will be of the Olympics, probably figured into the decision.
they says
That’s the ethical thing to do. Keep it in the clubhouse. Why did he think it needed to be revealed, unless he thinks he’s the father or she was still asking for more money and his donations dried up? I guess now that it was his own money, things changed?
tblade says
…is that the father of the child in question is former UN Ambassador (and married man himself) Andrew Young. Or so it is claimed, there is no father listed on the birth certificate.
<
p>And the $100,000 in payments have to be vetted, either to clear Edwards or to make a bad situation right; I don’t think donors to Edwards’ PAC intended their funds to go to hush money or some baby momma drama.
<
p>I’m disappointed; this seems to nix John Edwards for an appointment in a potential Obama administration. Shame on him for screwing that up and shame on him for jeopardizing the presidential race had he been the nominee.
<
p>I personally don’t care who screws whom as long as it is a.) consensual and b.) they aren’t out railing against the “family values” of others. I’m looking forward to the day that it is acceptable for politicians to be divorced or single and not trot out the picture-perfect spouse and 2.3 kids with perfect smiles and subject the family to the forced faux normalcy of Norman Rockwell-like stage craft; normalcy in today’s America is anything but normal.
<
p>On the flip side, married powerful men need to stop sleeping with and impregnating women that are not their wives. I know it’s not always easy to say “no” to new, er, experiences, but anyone that finds its that hard to stay faithful needs to consider divorce or at least separation.
amidthefallingsnow says
that there’s a going to be a call for paternity testing, and Young is eventually going to have to submit to it.
davemb says
The wikipedia article you quote never mentions that Ambassador Young was ever a campaign aide to Edwards. This situation is screwed up enough, please don’t add to it with sloppiness. (Hint: When you look up someone with a common name on wikipedia, you may not get the right one.)
tblade says
…my tail is between my legs. 🙁
<
p>For whatever reason, when I was reading about this story months ago, I got it in my head that it was Ambassador Young and never bothered to double check this time around. It’s not as if that it is that fantastical to believe that Ambassador Young is capable of such thing, because in his biography, he admits to infidelities.
<
p>I appologize for besmirching the man’s name. I’d take the comment down if I could and the Editors are free to do so. Or perhaps it’s best that the post stays up so evidence of my bone-headedness lives in perpetuity.
<
p>~ Resident Dumb-ass,
tblade
davemb says
That was certainly forthright…
tblade says
…as stupid as I look now, it could have been a lot worse if I repeated this or caused others to repeat this here or elsewhere.
mcrd says
tblade says
…I doubt it would be pretty clear as to who the father was if the choices were Edwards and Ambassador Young. D’oh!
johnk says
Why??
<
p>- Did he visit her at the Beverly Hill Hilton last month
<
p>- lived under assumed names in a series of expensive homes in North Carolina and Santa Barbara
<
p>- say that he didn’t pay any money to keep her from going public but it was possible some of his friends may have made payments without telling him so he’ll look into it.
<
p>This is not looking good at all….
joets says
but Newt Gingrich and John Edwards have something in common. Imagine that.
they says
That’s “living a lie” and we all know that it is morally wrong to do that. Divorce isn’t just for closeted gays, misery is misery.
lightiris says
huffy outrage titillation by the sex lives of famous people continues unabated.
swamp-yank says
Russia and Georgia at war. The fleet headed to the Persian Gulf. FBI closes case after blaming dead guy. The White House afloat in scandal. Aren’t you glad that the press got their priorities straight? Sex & Paris, Paris & Sex.
<
p>Tell me why nobody reads the papers…
they says
Start another thread for that boring stuff (and see if it gets 50 comments in about two hours).
swamp-yank says
Even nuclear war is low priority.
<
p>;o)
cannoneo says
He ran for the nomination knowing this could come out. If he won and had to face the GOP, it definitely would have come out. Could have lost the party the election.
laurel says
if you’re gonna cheat on your wife, be sure it’s several years in the past. like mccain. for some reason, contemporary cheating is not so well tolerated (unless you’re david vitter), but earlier cheating is winked at. and yet, it’s all cheating.
cos says
This is a couple of years in the past. The problem isn’t so much when it is, as when it could’ve come out. Knowing he might run for president again starting in 2007, Edwards should’ve let this become public back in 2006 after it happened, so that if he got the nomination in 2008, it would’ve been old news by then.
<
p>That’s mainly the part of this that I’m upset with him for: playing with this country’s future by running for the Democratic nomination knowing he had this weakness uncovered and that it risked coming out shortly before election and giving the White House to a Republican.
geo999 says
I think it could be argued that John Edwards’ mendacity caused, or at the very least contributed to Hillary Clinton’s losing the primary fight.
mcrd says
cos says
kirth says
edgarthearmenian says
I guess that every partisan wants to put her/his favorite on a pedestal. I remember that several people who contribute to this blog were severely disappointed when Edwards dropped out. Is there any one person, party, religion, movement or whatever that has more true virtue than others? Of course not. Both left and right should remember that when these events become public. My only beef is that the MSM is much slower to reveal the foibles of the left than it is of the right.
laurel says
about any politician having an affair if they have not grandstanded on “moral values”, “christian upbringing”, “sanctity of blah blah” etc. but when they do underpin campaigns with that fake morality and then fail to practice what they preach, or worse, work to withhold equal civil rights from minorities based on their supposed “moral values”, i get hoppin mad. and i agree, in such cases, the press should not look at party affiliation. sexual hypocrisy is sexual hypocrisy.
they says
To hold someone else to standards that you don’t even believe in yourself is indeed hypocrisy. But it is you who says you don’t care about affairs, so it’s hypocritical to have a “wall of hypocrites” for people who slip up just because they have standards you don’t. But you know that, you just don’t like the standards and want to break them down, ruin people’s lives and mute their voices if they say there should be standards.
<
p>It is better to “grandstand on moral values” than it is to say that it is OK to have affairs, and it is OK to have sinned provided one is ashamed and upholds that it was a sin. If one dos have an affair, it is better to keep it a secret than let it shape people’s expectations of faithfulness, it is better to carry the burden of shame in ones own heart than it is to reject the shame out of self-righteousness and act proud by admitting it.
<
p>In contrast, someone who doesn’t believe in the rules, but happens to follow them just because that’s what they wanted to do anyway, doesn’t get any points for living by the rules, and negative points if they act proud about their good fortune. Those people are the hypocrites (greek for “actors”) referred to by Jesus, they lived by all the rules but in their hearts didn’t believe in them. What counts is believing in the rules, and therefore agreeing that people (all people) should live by them, whether you happen to manage to or not. If you do sin, don’t admit it, that weakens moral expectations of what most people do. It is now moral to be unfaithful because everyone knows about the Kinsey 50% figure.
mr-lynne says
Holding someone to their own standards isn’t hypocritical. That’s what is happening here. Holding someone to their own standards when you don’t believe in those standards might be described in many opinions, but it’s not hypocritical and the word is misapplied in any opinion that uses it in this situation. If you want to criticize her for holding someone to their own standards, please use the correct vocabulary.
<
p>It’s not hypocritical to expect people to espouse the standards they put forth for others, especially in the political arena.
they says
Not yours, not theirs, but hold other people to standards that other people should have. What else could possibly make sense? Why should some people burden themselves with higher standards than other people, if they don’t have to? Obviously, Edwards’ standards weren’t what he was saying they were. But they were exactly what Laurel thinks people’s standards ought to be, according to her. If she thinks it’s hypocritical for people to say their standards are higher than they are, well, what if that’s what they say that people should say about their standards? Then it’s doing what you say people should do.
<
p>Also note that what Laurel does involves attacking people personally, putting their pictures on her wall, expressly because those people address society generally. She may take personal offense to their statements, but they aren’t directed at her, and it would be nice if she played by those rules too.
mr-lynne says
… for hypocrisy the ‘standard’ standards are not what apply… its the self professed standards of the subject person that define weather or not their actions are hypocritical. This concept is part of the definition of the term. Any analysis of a subjects actions outside the context of their self professed standards, by definition, can not uncover hypocrisy.
<
p>Again, what I’m talking about here is the appropriateness of the term.
they says
is actually very different from the way it is used today by moral crusaders like Laurel. Jesus said don’t be like the hypocrites (actors) who put on sad faces when they fast and pray to be seen praying and reap their reward here, but he didn’t say not to fast and not to pray, in fact, he laid down exactly how to pray in the next verse. And in that prayer, he acknowledged that non-hypocrites sin. But (this is the point): the hypocrites don’t need to sin to be hypocrites, they could be putting on that show of piety 24/7 and never slip up, but they’d still be hypocrites, because they put it on for other people, and so reap their full reward here. It’s not about their actions, the non-hypocrites sin but accept that sin is truly a sin, and the hypocrites don’t sin but don’t believe it matters.
mr-lynne says
… history lesson. Laurel was speaking in the 21st century and therefore 21st century usage applies. Agreement on the meaning of terms is necessary for any conversation or debate, otherwise you’re talking past each other.
they says
and explain it every time if i have to. Of course I know that most people use it wrong and I’ll have to explain it again and again, I don’t mind. You’re welcome (though it’s not history).
<
p>I think even if people now use the word the way you do (someone who isn’t practicing what they preach), they still get the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount and know it is more than just “practice what you preach”. They know, in that sense, hypocrisy isn’t wrong at all, it’s to be forgiven.
irishfury says
did you pull that logic out of? If your comment was an exercise in sarcasm, then my apologies. But if not, you’ve got to be kidding with a quote like:
<
p>Emphasis mine.
<
p>Seriously, my mind is spinning with this moral illogic.
they says
Liberals want everyone to admit to everything they do, because they want it to be fine to do everything they might want to do. And the way morality works is by creating an expectation of what most people would do. The mores of a culture describe what people generally do, currently, they aren’t distant memories of what people used to do. It is now moral to have pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, divorce, cheat, and admit it. In order to restore morality so that affairs and divorce are considered immoral, we have to convince people to shut up about them. This is why “the liberal media” is inherently liberal, including “conservative media”: because it exists to put a spotlight on unusual and shocking things and forces people to admit to them, and thereby tears down moral expectations. Truly conservative media would print a thousand front-page stories every day about all the men that dutifully goes home to their wives, even if they didn’t.
cos says
The problem most of us here have is with hypocrisy: the stronger a politician denounces these sorts of things as immoral, the more powerfully they hitch their political fortunes to “traditional marriage” and bashing gays and all the rest of that stuff, the more relevant it is when their life contradicts their politics.
<
p>In Edwards’ case it’s much milder, however his real weakness on “moral” grounds is that he used his reputation for honesty to deny this and make people believe his denials and those people rightly feel played. And for another example, Eliot Spitzer zealously prosecuted prostitution on a few occasions.
<
p>However, the polar opposite is a case like former Colorado Governor Roemer, who was revealed to be having a longstanding affair with a staffer. He not only didn’t deny it, but he and his wife and his children all told the press basically “yeah, we all know about it, it’s fine, and it’s our business, so go away”. The story died. No hypocrisy, no scandal.
edgarthearmenian says
Laurel,
I agree with you. Best wishes. Edgar
liberalcowgirl says
That I had recently cancelled my cable to save money, and I’m so super glad because today it is saving my mental health.
<
p>I cannot imagine how disgusting this must be on 24 hr news right now. And after seeing Elizibeth’s statement on Kos, detailing the horror of having helicopters over the house, I think I’ll stop trying to imagine because it is making me sick to my stomach.
<
p>This country is going to be so bad off if we don’t get it together and start dealing with things that matter instead of trying to escape in other people’s failure.
kbusch says
I think her statement is very much worth reading:
There’s one tiny sliver of honor in this: unlike Spitzer or Craig or Clinton, Edwards did not drag his wife on stage with him. I agree with Katha Pollitt here:
mr-lynne says
There was an interesting comment on Ezra on this:
<
p>
<
p>Obviously this is horrible. But it did get me thinking. What if (in an imaginary hypothetical never-gunna-happen world) Obama picked him for VP. There would be cries of “but he had an affair” and “he abused the trust of his wonderful wife”. Are these kinds of exclamation the McCain campaign would really want out there given his past?
<
p>Stupid I know, but hypothetical-land is the land of no real consequences and idle speculation. So I indulge 😉
irishfury says
that would be exactly what they would want. It doesn’t take a campaign wizard to see that simply saying “Bill Clinton Clinton Clinton Jon Edwards Edwards Edwards Can’t be trusted trusted trusted BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! affair” over and over again is a good move. Thank God that Edwards wasn’t picked as VP because that would have been the end of the Obama campaign as we know it. Good night.
jconway says
I knew that Edwards was a snake oil salesmen. And to do that while he has two young children and a cancer stricken wife is just plain despicable, especially the way she and him used her disease to gain voters. The fact that she knew for so long and helped him bury it shows that she put her husbands political career before her duty as a wife and mother to either reconcile or punish her husband for what he did. Its just darn shameful and apparently his staff is real angry since they denied it all throughout the campaign.
<
p>Well we now can know for certain that Gov. Patrick will now be the leading candidate for AG and he’ll get the hell out of dodge.
<
p>Also for the record I posted this story months ago and the editors told me to take it down since it was from the enquirer when similar dubious sources were used against Larry Craig and others.
<
p>They are all hypocrites. Sure its bad to denounce gays and turn out to be one but its just as bad to oppose gay marriage, run as a family values candidate, run as the loving husband of a terminally ill wife, and than bang the nearest blonde you can find. And clearly he cared about poor people when he admitted he got off on power and praise. Its simply shameful.
christopher says
…all the vitriol on what I thought was a Democratic blog (which I point out not just for partisan reasons, but because I thought our side was more forgiving generally). It goes without saying that Edwards messed up, but I thought the experience of Bill Clinton taught us to separate personal morality from public service.
<
p>When Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884 he admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock, but he was one of the most honest politicians of his time. His opponents chanted, “Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa!” to which his supporters after victory responded, “Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!” His opponent GOP nominee James Blaine was the opposite, a paragon of personal virtue, but a corrupt politician.
<
p>I do not see Edwards as a hypocrite and the attempt to lump him in with the “family values” crowd is laughable. As far as I know he has never condemned anyone for straying or for being gay. When he was asked during a debate in 2004 whether President Clinton was right for signing DOMA or Senator Kerry was right for opposing it, he sided with Kerry without hesitation. As far as I’m concerned when the wife says leave us alone, that ought to be the last word.
<
p>BTW, did anyone see the late news on channel 7 last night (at midnight to accomodate the Olympics)? This was the lead story, which I don’t think was warranted, but the real offense was Andy Hiller’s “Instinct” in which Mr. Hiller let loose all the cynicism and contempt he could muster. It was an awful example of kicking someone while he is down and seemed more suited to talk radio than local news. I even emailed the station via their website where you can also see the video of the segment to make my objections known.
laurel says
he does so the velvet gloved way by saying we don’t deserve access to the same civil institutions that he does. whether he has done this out of political calculation, personal bigotry or both, it amounts to the same thing in practice: another top-level politician standing between me and the civil institution he has helped himself to.
christopher says
Not going all the way on marriage is NOT the same as calling homosexuality a sin or advocating a general denial of rights. Many of these politicians you are so quick to condemn, such as Edwards or Obama are at the “everything but” stage which is further along than we were just a few years ago. Like I said, he expressed opposition to DOMA when he ran in 2004. I strongly suggest you take a more optimistic outlook and assume that anyone who is not completely against you may be for you rather than the other way around. Time is clearly on your side.
they says
Everything but the word marriage doesn’t work for anybody. Unless there is a significant, fundamental difference that preserves marriage in its essence, it will not work for anyone, and CU’s will not get federal recognition that thousands of couples need right now. Maybe Laurel doesn’t need it right now, but some couples are much older and don’t appreciate this strategy at all. For example, this site EqualityWithoutMarriage.org is by a same-sex couple that is upset with Laurel’s grandstanding, though they too need to come up with a difference in rights to make CU’s politically viable.
christopher says
I actually agree with Laurel on the substance. I believe such unions should be marriages in everything including name. This is ultimately easier for everyone involved anyway. Otherwise we would have to be very particular about what does and does not constitute a civil union. I’ve even suggested to those that insist on marriage being strictly a religious term that we might consider being consistent. In other words, call every such union blessed by a religious institution “marriage” and those validated by a Justice of the Peace “civil unions”. That doesn’t get me very far and I don’t really believe it anyway. I say it just to point out the inconsistency of the marriage=union of one man and one woman=religious ritual argument. I believe DOMA should be repealed and at least for now replaced with a law that says Uncle Sam will recognize any marriage or similar union recognized by a given state. Ultimately I hope the Supreme Court would agree with my assessment that to deny marital rights violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. My beef with Laurel is that she makes Barack Obama and John Edwards sound just as bad as Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and James Dobson. I’m also not sure what Barack Obama could accomplish, other than possibly using the bully pulpit, if he were to line up his views more with hers.
mcrd says
Half of marriages end in divorce, many married people are unhappy and would rather be within anyone than their present mate, and is used by the state to bludgeon one partner or the other into emotion and financial privation.
<
p>I’d just as soon see the state get out of the marriage business. It’s none of the “states” business who is co-habitating with whom as evidenced by the allowance of same sex marriage. It is none of the states business. If churches want to consecrate marriages or unions—that’s their business. It’s none of mine, yours, or anyone elses.
they says
The state protects children, it is the tool of the people to secure rights and freedoms for us and our posterity (future generations). The state therefore is obligated to act in ways to benefit society and cannot just allow people to do whatever they want if some things people would do would be detrimental to society.
<
p>Among these things are protecting children and encouraging people to care for their offspring, and preserving everyone’s individual civil rights to marry and procreate with the person of one’s choice, with the exception of relationships that the state determines would be unethical to allow to conceive together, like siblings, people married to someone else, children, and, now, same-sex couples.
<
p>The state needs to protect the right of every person to marry and every marriage to conceive children using their own genes, no one else will protect that right if the state doesn’t. The state also needs to prohibit attempts at unethical forms of engineered conception that threaten natural conception rights and turn people into science experiments and would create costly entitlements and waste medical resources.
mike-from-norwell says
and obviously was operating in the death wish/or I can’t be caught mode. Not like the Internet and 24 Hour news cycles came into existence in the last two years. If you’re going to run for president, keep your pants zippered. At least Clinton can beg off as a pre Internet adulterer.