Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
The Edwards confession
August 8, 2008
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.
I always felt that there was something phony about Edwards, which is why I have been an Obama supporter from the start. Of course, there is nothing like 20/20 hindsight.
Posted by: algasema | August 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm | Report this commentIt is disgusting the way personal matters are thrust to the forefront in American politics. A sign of an immature collective psychology.
The real hypocrites in this story (of which I now read about for the first time) are the American people. It is they who insist on a Hollywood fairy-tale persona for their elected representatives. Instead of competent political leaders, they want Hollywood actors to run their country; they want to live a Hollywood fairy-tale. This is a truly immature public.
Were American politics to separate the private and public spheres (as is customary in Europe), there would be no need for this nonsense from US politicians.
Posted by: RCS | August 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am | Report this commentAt one time, RCS, American presidents were more in what Gideon Rachman might call the European social model. FDR and Eisenhower both had long standing extramarital affairs, which were ignored by the media at the time.
JFK has so many affairs that he probably would have made Bill Clinton look like a monk by comparison. They were not made public until years after his death, when Jackie became so infuriated at learning the full truth that she reportedly had “Kennedy” legally struck from her name.
But Edwards’ case is particularly disgusting, even to loyal Democrats like myself, because he tried to use his proclaimed devotion to his cancer stricken wife as a centerpiece of his campaign. It is not the affair itself that has so many people annoyed, but his repeated lies and hypocrisy.
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Report this commentMore recent Republican presidents, on the other hand, seem to have been much better at keeping their sex drives under control, to the extent that such drives existed at all.
At this risk have having this comment removed by Clive Crook, I will repeat the old joke about Richard Nixon. His wife Pat, as the story goes, used to wish that he would only do to her what he was doing to the rest of the country.
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentOne further comment: Even though Barack Obama, of course, had nothing to do with Edwards’ affair and is far, far too intelligent ever to be involved in one of his own, his sexuality is a very real and deep undercurrent in this campaign, and he will very likely be hurt by the publicity surrounding Edwards.
Some people over in Europe or Israel may ask: What can sexuality have to do with the Obama campaign, since he has a spotless family life? Answer: Barack Obama is black, remember, and this is America. It would be almost impossible to find any Americans who do not understand the real meaning of McCain’s ad linking Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
A Republican ad in the 2006 Tennessee Senate campaign featuring a white woman inviting the black Democratic candidate to join her for some fun was enough to sink his candidacy.
The irony is that McCain himself was defeated in 2000 by a pro-Bush campaign in South Carolina insinuating that McCain had fathered a black child (the truth being that he adopted a Bangladeshi daughter, whom we no longer see on the campaign trail alongside her parents). It seems John McCain has learned his lesson well.
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this commentI am not fond of John Edwards, but for reasons having nothing to do with matters like this.
It is sad that private personal matters play such a role in national American politics.
This news item touches a number of political matters.
First is the fact that the press is featuring it so highly. It is near the top of the New York Times site this morning, just for one.
This brings to mind the ridiculous claim, repeated so many times by Neanderthal Republicans that it is credited by many, about the press in America having a liberal bias.
The charge, for anyone of a liberal spirit familiar with the American press, has always been laughable.
The revelation and playing up of these personal affairs seem always to be selective.
John McCain actually has some much shabbier activities in his background, and the national press has not dealt with them. His activities - on a number of occasions - are more far serious reflections on his ethics than an affair.
George Bush has a long series of shabby personnal activities through his life, which while receiving some attention earlier, never received the investigation they merited. These, too, were more serious in terms of ethics than having an affair.
The only purpose in featuring this story is to cast a shadow over Democrats, as well as removing Edwards from any possible role in the campaign.
The only important significance of this event for me is one more demonstration of what a confused place America is.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | August 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentJohn Chuckman is absolutely right about Bush and McCain, who have far more serious, and almost completely ignored, skeletons in their closets, but the media love nothing better than a good sex scandal, even when Republicans are involved. Anyone ever heard of Senator Larry Craig?
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
If the American public were not so ridiculously demanding of their elected representatives, that they run lives like a Holywood yarn, that in effect they play out the public’s own romantic fantasies of bourgeoisie family life, then unscrupulous politicians like Edwards would never reach the national stage. All these Edwards-Thomson types are actors, not political leaders with proven competencies. And yes, I would include Obama in that showman-actor category.
It is sad sad, very sad that McCain has to hide his Bangladeshi daughter. Adopting a poor orphan from a third-world country is a wonderful thing to have done — I would vote for McCain twice (or for Cindy) just for having adopted their daughter.
Posted by: RCS | August 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm | Report this commentYes, RCS, I agree about McCain’s adoption. It was a wonderful and courageous thing to have done. The problem is that there are two John McCains. One is the independent and principled fighter for immigrant rights, campaign financing reform and justice for Guantanamo detainees and other victims of Bush/Cheney torture.
The other is the presidential candidate we see today, who has abandoned his principles in order to ingratiate himself with the Republican right and the Bush/Cheney plutocrats.
There is, unfortunately, also a third John McCain, one who has “adopted” many more shady lobbyists than he ever has children, and who continues to do so. Which John McCain would you vote for?
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
Which Obama would you vote for? The principled neo-liberal from the early stages of the primary campaign, or the born-again right-of-centre candidate of the past weeks?
Posted by: RCS | August 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm | Report this commentRCS, granted, Obama’s rightward move is not encouraging, but he still has a lot of territory in that direction to cover, and many more lobbyists to cozy up to before he starts to resemble McBush. In 2000, there was a widespread myth that Gore and Bush were not all that far apart either. We all found out differently.
I realize that in Israel, there may be some nervousness about Obama and that McCain may be perceived as a tried and true friend. But whether “bomb, bomb, bomb” is really more in Israel’s interests than “talk, talk, talk” (which even George Bush is now doing), is a question that needs to be thought about very carefully.
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pm | Report this commentI think one of the major drivers infuriating the Left over President Bush is the fact that he overcame his abuse problems, admitted what he did, and went on to embrace Methodism and went about his job with those personal problems behind him.
One of the drivers that infuriates the Right over the Edwards story is his repeated denial of any issues of his own marital fidelity, the lectures to his lessers in some sort of “father of the year” persona, and the effect of keeping the story out of the mainstream press for 8 months.
I am not all that concerned with John Edwards mojo (or George Bush’s drinking for that matter), but the reaction of the two individuals and the press that supposedly covers them is quite telling.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | August 9th, 2008 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
“bomb, bomb, bomb” is in no one’s interests, but “talk, talk, talk” is a very good characterisation of Obama: he is all talk. Thank you for bringing that out.
Secondly, I object to your insinuation that my opinion of Obama is informed solely by how I perceive Israel’s interests. Would it be fair if I suggested you support Obama because you are a die-hard Democrat and Obama is the Democratic nominee? (especially since he has now distanced himself from your ideological positions).
Posted by: RCS | August 9th, 2008 at 8:47 pm | Report this commentRCS, I did not mean to suggest that you were only concerned with Israel’s interests. I would assume however, that anyone living in Israel would be concerned about its survival, as indeed I am and, I would hope, all other Americans of good will, regardless of our views about Israel’s internal politics (which I know little enough about anyway).
And your description of my reasons for supporting Obama is about 99% accurate.
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 9:58 pm | Report this commentMaybe I should change my percentages on my last post. Let us say that I am for Obama two thirds because I am a Democrat, and one third because he is one of the greatest candidates, in terms of intelligence, articulateness, courage and integrity, who has run for president of the US since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
However, if Obama keeps taking the advice of his foolish, craven campaign managers and doing McCain-like flip-flops on major issues, naturally my opinion of him will go down until it gets almost as low as my opinion of McBush.
That would take quite a few more Obama flip-flops - many, many more of them.
Posted by: algasema | August 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm | Report this commentIt took Barbara Walters to come clean with her affair. I wonder how many reporters knew about it but did not report it.
I also wonder how many more members of the “MEDIA” have had “SEX” with an elected official or a member of their staff. ???
They love to point fingers at McCain or other Republicans but when it comes to the Democ”rats” they turn a blind eye until cannot anymore.
Is that because the are in “BED” with many Deomoc”rats ???
VJ Machiavelli
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | August 11th, 2008 at 1:21 am | Report this commenthttp://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
Here’s a point of view you will not see discussed in the media: the complicity of the wife who, if it’s true that he had disclosed the affair to her in 1996, knew or should have known that this could come out if he were the nominee, effectively ending the candidacy of the nominee, either by forced resignation or guaranteed loss of the election, thus handing the presidency over to the republicans. Alternatively, if she didn’t know in 1996, then she is complicit in perpetuating the lie.
Posted by: claudia | August 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentwhat the hell do you expect from a socialist that lives in a mansion with a MOAT around it? give me a break. the guy is a hypocritical ambulance chaser- i bet you ANYTHING the baby is his too. that would mean he was continuing the affair after elizabeth was re-diagnosed and it would also mean (SHOCKER) that he lied in his current interview. Aw shucks.
Posted by: yubi | August 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentI think many of you are missing the larger picture. It is not about thrusting the sex lives of our politicans into the limelight. Mr Edwards could have very well been chosen as your Democratic candidate’s running mate (could have been the candidate himself). Mr Edwards thinking he is politically immortal enough to keep this from US press during such a tumulous Presidential race is mad. If Barack Obama were to have chosen Mr Edwards, Mr Edwards would have jeapordized his entire race to the Whitehouse. And that’s the big deal. His lack of moral decency and principle among other things.
Posted by: NYsUES | August 11th, 2008 at 7:02 pm | Report this commentNYsUES,
Yes, one must always remember that one’s actions could effect Sen. Obama. You should not brush your teeth in the morning without considering how it could effect Sen. Obama.
Never mind the effect on suffering wives, the morally decent must support Sen. Obama without error. To slip up could jeopardize the $300 Million that Sen. Obama has spent on buying the election so far.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | August 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentThere is another, far more shocking story out about the campaign that makes the Edwards sex scandal look like the tempest in a teapot that it is essentially is (especially bearing in mind that Edwards does not happen to be a candidate for anything at the moment, and will never be one again).
The story I am referring to is about Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager, who, in a leaked campaign memo, apparently urged her to attack Obama as someone whose “values” were not fundamentally “American”, allegedly because he had lived in Indonesia as a child.
Of course, no one seriously thinks that Indonesia really had much to do with this. It was just another way of attacking Obama for being black. Evidently, Hillary rejected this despicable advice, which would have made Karl Rove look like a model of ethical politics by comparison.
The truth is that not even John Powers would be able to challenge Obama’s 100% American credentials. According to JBP, Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. How American can you get?
Posted by: algasema | August 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentJBP
Pay close attention to when I say, “your Democratic candidate’s.”
I’m clearly not an Obama supporter, so you’re wasting your satirical lecture on the wrong voter.
Posted by: NYsUES | August 13th, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this comment