Who cares? He's out of the limelight, and his wife is dying of cancer. What benefit did the public get out of knowing this that outweighed the anguish they're putting Elizabeth Edwards through in what are probably her last few years of life? I'm not excusing Edwards, who seems to have behaved like a first class scumbag, but this story seems like sheer prurience to me.
On a related note, props to Publius for his public apology to Mickey Kaus.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
You have a point, MM, but say the tables were turned, and one of the losing Republican primary candidates, say, Mitt Romney, had had an affair. Would you make the same argument?
-He will be out of the limelight because he had the affair. Before the Enquirer's story he was a leading contender to be the vice-presidential nominee, and he was almost guaranteed a position in an Obama presidency. In the same week as the first Enquirer story, PBS ran the program "John Edward's War on Poverty".
-Is the dying wife's veto similar the the heckler's veto? Would this story have been more publishable if his wife didn't have cancer? Is that what the media bases their publishing decisions on?
-He paid over $100,000 to Hunter to make a campaign video nobody's seen. The public has a low opinion of politicians but I'm sure not many of them funnel campaign money to their mistresses.
-Many progressives are now mad at Edwards for putting the whole party's chances in jeopardy because he ran for president knowing that the shoe can drop at any time. Yet according to Elizabeth she knew about the affair two years ago and still let him run for president. What was she thinking? From the progressive standpoint, why would she put the entire progressive cause in jeopardy just so his cheating husband can be president?
-And this is somewhat unrelated to Megan's post, but the last point calls into question whether what the Edwards are saying now is true. If you don't think it's plausible that Elizabeth let her husband run for president even though she already knew about the affair in 2006, then a plausible alternative is that the affair took place well into 2007 and she didn't know about it until later. But since Edwards said it ended in 2006 so that he couldn't possibly be the father, Elizabeth had to lie to make their stories match.
I think the fascination is more than just prurience. I think it's shock. A lot of people, media folk included, really want the democrats to win this time. And are deathly afraid it won't happen. These people can't believe that Edwards put the election in potential jeopardy in the way he did. Plus there is the disgust that he did this to a dying woman.
And I feel sad for Elizabeth, I really do. But she is married to a politician. She gave up her right to privacy a long time ago. I don't see how having cancer mitigates that right. Her husband is the scumbag, not only because he cheated on her, but because he cheated on her knowing he's a public figure and what this could do to her and her family. Don't lay this on the press.
"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen." - John Edwards on Bill Clinton, 1999
Hahaha! Embracing "family-values" pablum or whatever politically expedient position there is is the staple of this veteran ambulance chaser! I am so immensely pleased and filled with schadenfreude I might be accused of preening.
"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen." - John Edwards on Bill Clinton, 1999
Hahaha! Embracing "family-values" pablum or whatever politically expedient position there is is the staple of this veteran ambulance chaser! I am so immensely pleased and filled with schadenfreude I might be accused of preening.
What purpose does it serve? It points up an important truth: though people who run for office think they are acting in the public interest, and though they want us to think they will act in the public interest, politicians will lie to us if they think the truth will lose them votes.
This is useful to know when someone earnestly tells us that a windfall profits tax on big oil will result in a one thousand dollar gift to all of us from the federal government or that we are winning the "war on drugs."
The Edwards story is prurient. That's why people will remember it--and maybe take a lesson from it.
I think the press can be disgusting. I will even allow that the paparazzi are probably almost always in the wrong. But politicians are the biggest media whores there are. No one forced Edwards to chase cameras with more stamina than Paris Hilton.
Also, can we please stop with all the 5 cent psychiatry about Edward's "motivation" for cheating on his wife? This isn't some isolated cultural phenomenon that only plagues the rich, famous and powerful. It happens just as much, if not more, in trailer parks and suburbs across our great nation. Let's all stop trying to create fantastical, Shakespearean motives for this and come to the conclusion that Edwards, like millions of other men, just wanted to blow a load. He's a scumbag, but not a special scumbag.
You're playing the Elizabeth card...
But ELIZABETH too was at fault here if she knew about this in 2006. She also LIED (or at least encouraged her husband to lie) and let her husband take a huge risk by running for President.
What if Edwards had won the nomination and then this came out. The Democrats would have lost their chance to get the white house simply because John AND Elizabeth Edwards cared about their own ambition as opposed to the causes the Democratic party is supposed to be for.
Guess what justification Edwards gave in his defense -- he basically says that he knew McCain had done it, so he thought he could get away with it. So in addition to being a creep, he's also prescient? He knew way back in 2006 that McCain was gonna be the Republican nominee? What if the nominee had been Romney?
I dislike people who lie when they try to alleviate a lie.
THank goodness this guy wasn't our nominee.
The story is only of interest in regards to the media's lack on interest in reporting it, even when Edwards was still a viable candidate for office. Why were they reluctant?
I second Ms. McArdle's sentiments. There's nothing important to the people about this and most of the interest seems to be part of our habitual rush to point out how much contempt we have for the people whom we might vote into office.
The media spent a lot of time during the primaries (and before) painting a picture of the Edwards' perfect marriage. That was a valuable part of John Edwards' political persona and one justification for his presidential candidacy: as a southerner with a strong family he could supposedly win over voters who are normally wary of the Democratic Party.
So the media now has a responsibility to set the record straight and tell the truth about John Edwards. It doesn't make sense to refrain from doing so simply because it seems mean or salacious.
I sympathize with Elizabeth Edwards, just like I sympathize with Silda Spitzer, Suzanne Craig, etc. But you can't refuse to cover the news simply because the truth harms sympathetic people.
As others have noted, Edwards dropped out of the public eye because of the scandal; this isn't being dug up to humiliate a person who had voluntarily left public life. He could have had a cabinet-level position in a Democratic administration, and he ran for president knowing that, had he been nominated, this scandal could have deep-sixed his own party. I think it's important that everyone who was told a false story about John Edwards has an opportunity to know the truth.
Edwards was worst sort of nanny state scold, who thought nothing of intruding government into every aspect of life. His policy prescriptions showed that he didn't give a damn about my privacy. Why should I give a damn about his.
Megan, of course you miss the point. He can screw whomever he wants, but how dare he put himself up for the nomination of the Democratic Party knowing he has this skeleton on the closet. (Remember Thomas Eagleton?) Think about what would be happening now had this little jerk won the nomination. He would have to step down, virtually guaranteeing the Presidency to the opposition party. And with all due respect to Mrs. Edwards, for whom I feel terrible, she knew about this in 2006. She should not have participated in his campaign.No one would have questioned her.
At this point in time with Georgia and Russia in the middle of a new war in the world I cannot help but find it a trivial matter. But I also find the reluctance to deal with it irritating. "Its a scumbag move," that phrase should remind everyone that there are moral standards we should expect people to follow. While infidelity may not be new, it has never been regarded with the sort of "this is personal business" attitude that prevails these days. What does it say of someone male or female when they can't keep their pants on? What kind of piss poor self-control do you have to have to not find yourself walking a girl to your Hotel room? Yes there are more important things but this is not so trivial that it should be dismissed and forgotten in a few weeks.
He claims the affair is over, yet he was just caught in her hotel room. Her family has requested he follow thru with the paternity test. This will catch him in another lie. The MSM was well aware this VP candidate was caught red handed, but choose to bury in the interests of their party. Yet the NYT went full blast vs McCain with innuendo and inference. Finally, if you believed Schrum's anecdote re Edwards pimping his deceased child to Kerry this does not surprise. He is scum. Elizabeth was an acknowledged enabler, assisting in foisting Edward's fraudulent candidacy upon the party/country. She is in no way due the respect and sympathy of Silda Silver and the like.
I'm glad Edwards was finally outed. But it was almost like Al Capone succumbing to income tax evasion.
Edwards was one of the worst political con artists out there. How could a guy decry health care costs while his own wealth came from massive jury awards raising malpractice insurance costs in his home state by four fold? And much of these eye-popping awards were based on weak science linking cerebral palsy to birth malpractice.
Of course people who cause damages to others should be made to pay compensation and even, at times, punitive damages. But not in sums that rival lottery winnings.
Instead of Edwards, we could use tort reform that caps indemnity by basing it on real accountable costs, adopts the rules of "loser pays," restricts class action suits, and limits contingency fees.
Having a whole industry based on extorting astronomical sums from enterprise is the real, lasting sin.
Agree with much that has been said here. You may not care about this story, but the thousands (millions?) who voted for Edwards, trusted him, believed him, campaigned for him, gave him money -- they might have a stake in knowing this.
"This story seems like sheer prurience to me."
The more interesting meta-story is the media's transition from not covering this at all, even when the evidence was fairly damning, to covering it 24/7 after he issued his apology.
Were journalists simply wary of reporting potentially incorrect information, or was something else at play?
John Edwards ought to reimburse all his campaign contributers and staff for the time and money they wasted on his campaign. He has the money and it wouldn't hurt him a bit financially. I doubt he'll do it though.
There's an elephant in the room which everyone chooses to ignore.
Rielle Hunter is about 1 million times more attractive than Elizabeth Edwards.
Why can't anyone simply acknowledge this immutable fact?
Rielle Hunter is much closer to Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Siena Miller, and Amy Adams on her worst day than Elizabeth Edwards on her best day, end of story.
Even though I can see the appeal of Rielle Hunter (once you get past her stupid first name), I'm very, very glad that John Edwards got caught.
Edwards could have helped Obama wrap up this nomination much sooner by endorsing him when it really counted.
Instead, Edwards forced Obama and Clinton to grovel before him and then waited until the last possible second to endorse Obama.
The second comment has it right on. He's been a possible Vice Presidential pick, a possible AG, and (most absurdly) a possible Supreme Court Justice nominee. But no more, thanks to the great reporters over at the National Enquirer.
And, unlike the crappy reporters and editors over at the NY Times (see that paper's airing of evidence-free rumors regarding an alleged McCain affair earlier this year), the National Enquirer didn't commit to publication until they had the goods.
I just might subscribe to that paper, as a patriotic duty.
so i like your blog, but this post is beyond stupid. edwards was in play as part of a potential obama administration. edwards has now proven that, like many others, he lacks judgment and can't be trusted not to do something really stupid where he doesn't have to (somewhere more discreet, maybe, or send the drive to pick her up, hello?).
but this is mainly important because it proves, beyond a doubt, how much the MSM is completely, utterly behind the democrats, no matter what. believe me, i'm not a conspiracy theorist. but there's no other way to read this. the MSM rushes to take down any republican they can, but has little interest in stories that might hurt democrats, then covers them only grudgingly when they have to. it's embarassing watching people who should know better prove again and again that they don't live up to just about anything they espouse and presume to know what should and shouldn't be disseminated to the ignorant masses. thank god for the web.
so, please, don't pretend this isn't news on any real grounds, mere prurience, etc. instead, why not consider whether you've been wholly co-opted by your new DC journo set, can't bear to side with the enquirer, etc.
Yea, what everyone else said. The actual relationship is not huge. Infidelity is everywhere, from politicians to people on this board to athletes winning medals.
However, when you are in politics, you have to remain aware that there are only two options: have your affairs and be honest about them right off and take your hits, OR, don't have affairs.
Here Edwards had a chance to be part of an administration and now that opportunity is gone for the immediate future. Further, the press showed a frightening ability to be selective in an important matter.
What you don't want is Edwards as VP or Secretary of State or something, and him having to fight off blackmail attempts or the circus that such charges create. It's called vetting.
This was sad.
Well, it has had the undoubted effect of confirming that the media's in the tank for the left, which is certainly something. I mean, we knew already, but from now on it gets harder to argue that every piece isn't an in-kind contribution to the Obama campaign, doesn't it?
Maybe it is because the NYT ran front pages stories about McCain's totally non-existent affair with Iseman - yet the entire media was entirely incurious about Edwards' affair? Maybe because we now know that John and Elizabeth Edwards have been flat out lying to the people for the last two years, and they seeemed remarkably comfortable doing it?
While I think this is a legitimate story, I don't think there is any obligation of McArdle to dwell on it. Plenty of people to take that beat now.
she didn't say she wasn't going to dwell on it, she said it's a non-story. that's inane.
Edwards could have had his pick of hot young trim, yet he chooses a 40ish woman. That really flies in the face of the blogosphere's conventional wisdom, according to which women turn into dried-out barren old prunes at age 25.
Who cares? He's out of the limelight, and his wife is dying of cancer.
No, he was a very real candidate for Attorney General and was going to be a speechifying presence at the convention.
He SHOULD have been out of the limelight just because his wife is dying of cancer ... "I am leaving partisan politics for far more important things" ... not to mention all the other stuff.
If he'd had a SINGLE LICK OF SENSE even only as a selfish lying politician he'd have tearily announced his retirement from politics forever to take care of his dying wife and their four children "... eight year old Jack is going to need a full-time dad ..." to bury this story forever and bring mortal shame and disgrace on the Enquirer or anyone else who ever considered digging into it.
His political career was over anyway -- even Bubba Himself couldn't get out of cheating on a dying Hillary (though he secretly might have enjoyed the thought of the challenge at times) much less fathering a kid in the process.
But NO ... Edwards tried to keep his political career going and apparently the affair too(!), judging by their most recent late-night hotel get together.
And he actually ran for President with all this hanging fire! Can we imagine if he'd won the nomination?? (That's an alternate history I'd like to live through just for fun!)
It sure will make me pause before the next time I consider the logic: "It can't be true, because for it to be true that person would have to be unbelievably stupid."
Moreover ... (I don't know what contributes more to me being a cynic about such things, being a long-time husband or long-time lawyer) ... his "but it can't be my kid because of the timing" weasel sure sounds an awful lot to me like the words of a husband who earlier swore to his wife: "Yes, it happened, but not then, it was over by then!".
This is a guy who makes both politicans *and* trial lawyers look bad, some trick! (and I say this as a lawyer, though thankfully not an Edwards-like ambulance chaser.)
BTW, has he said "I'm retired from politics" yet?
BTW, I thought this was a candidate for news headline understatement of the day:
"Edwards' Affair His Most Costly Political Risk"
I agree with most of the comments. Edwards was definitely still a public figure. Possibly Attorney General, maybe VP, or some sort of poverty czar. Also, another future run for the presidency was possible and he made a very public spectacle over endorsing Obama.
But, even if one were to concede that he is no longer a public figure, the fact that he so blatantly lied to the public and to his supporters (who donated time and money to him)when he was a public figure makes this coverage more than acceptable.
Why isn't there any outrage or moral indignation directed towards Elizabeth Edwards? She should not be let off the hook just because she has cancer.
Elizabeth Edwards aided and abetted her husband and gave him cover. She cooperated with him to perpetuate a fraud on all of us.
Elizabeth Edwards is just like Hillary Clinton. They forgive their spouses for cheating on them, treating them like doormats, and humiliating them in public because they lust after the power and prestige of being First Lady. Elizabeth Edwards does not deserve our sympathy.
If Elizabeth Edwards had an ounce of integrity, she would have talked John out of running for president after learning about his affair.
Elizabeth Edwards failed a basic character test by putting her own selfish interests ahead of the interests of the Democratic Party and the American people.
Megan,
Re: the topic of feminism, let's assume for the sake of argument that Rielle wanted a baby, targeted Edwards, realized it wasn't going to work, retargeted someone else.
What's the feminist stance on her targeting Edwards? Shouldn't someone come out and a) give her credit and recognize her power and/or b) blame her for exercising her power that way?
Maybe it is because the NYT ran front pages stories about McCain's totally non-existent affair with Iseman - yet the entire media was entirely incurious about Edwards' affair? Maybe because we now know that John and Elizabeth Edwards have been flat out lying to the people for the last two years, and they seeemed remarkably comfortable doing it?
For the 50,000 time: He's an ambulance chasing politician... what do you expect?
Let me get this straight.
We have a guy who cheated on his sick wife. This makes him ineligible to hold public office.
We have another guy who cheated on his sick wife, and then divorced her to marry his spectacularly rich mistress. He should be president of the United States.
SR, I suppose the difference is that Edwards was hiding the affair, while McCain has been far more open about his marital problems from 28 years ago. In 28 years, Edwards might be able to put this behind him as well.
I don't care for the precise event or the particular politician. But I do see this as an important development and hope that the religious left will realize (A) You can't tell the difference between a truth-teller and a liar by if there is a D, or an R after their name, and (B) someone has to be completely delusional one to believe the crackpot utopian dream about how democracy is so great if only we pick "the right leaders", because we can never be sure whether we are voting for a truth-teller or a liar.
I wonder if Yglesias will ever be standup, since he wailed about Kaus, too.
Glad to see Edwards go down. Now, can we keep him down?
Edwards is the reason I couldn't vote for Kerry/Edwards in '04. (Of course, Bush is the reason I couldn't vote for Bush/Cheney.)
Not that Kerry or Cheney were all that great themselves.
For the record, I'm from Edwards' home state.
I saw John Edwards speak at my law school in 2005. Now I wonder how many of my female classmates he invited up to hotel room after his talk. You know, to give them "career counseling."
Seriously, the affair is supposed to now end John Edwards' career in politics? Hasn't that already happened?
Earlier, I said that one justification for covering this affair was to point up the fact that politicians will lie even when it is not in the best interests of the country. I would now add that it shows they will lie even when it is not in the interest of their party (which some people in politics think is the true sin).
He's my least favorite politician, so there's probably a little bit of gratification I'm trying suppress, but more notably, and nobly I hope, I'm glad he's not going to be AG anymore. Very glad.
Steve Roth - Well, as you describe it, McCain shows a lot more economic judgment and foresight (beer heiress vs new-age hippy chick (ie slut) whom he has to start paying from pretty much day one (oops, I guess that makes her a whore). Now we learn that "friend" Steve Baron was the one making the payments, and for some odd reason the Edwards campaign paid him almost half a mil. If I were an Edwards donor, I'd be pissed - essentially the personally very wealthy candidate has been using your donations to procure a hooker and then pay her blackmail - this is Jessee Jackson level stuff. This guy is making the Clintons look good - at least he didn't (intend) to pay for it.
You stay classy John Edwards.
Maybe I'm alone it this, but I think adultery is so terribly awful as to make a person anathema and is about on par with treason. I mean, I'm cool with dating around, polyamory, open marriages, bigamy, polygamy, keeping a lover openly, group sex and so on, but I will scorn anyone that cheats on their partner(s), especially if they got up and solemnly swore before their spouse, god, and the RCC that they would cleave only to them. Oathbreakers, especially ones that break vows to their most intimate partners, ought not be tolerated in politics or polite society.
He's still involved in politics, and apparently still cheating on his wife. That makes it newsworthy.
McCardle's inability to come up with anything noteworthy about the lying adulterer Edwards trying to make himself the sole defense against a McCain administration is why I seldom read her. Way to go Brian who is subscribing to National Enquirer out of a sense of patriotic duty.
Everything Hei Lun Chan (2nd comment)posts is right on the money. Additionally, in a democracy, people are not required to have high-minded justifications for voting one way or another. If the people allow what they've learned through prurience to affect their vote, it is by definition relevant.
McCardle's inability to come up with anything noteworthy about the lying adulterer Edwards trying to make himself the sole defense against a McCain administration is why I seldom read her. Way to go Brian who is subscribing to National Enquirer out of a sense of patriotic duty.
Everything Hei Lun Chan (2nd comment)posts is right on the money. Additionally, in a democracy, people are not required to have high-minded justifications for voting one way or another. If the people allow what they've learned through prurience to affect their vote, it is by definition relevant.
"...but I will scorn anyone that cheats on their partner(s), especially if they got up and solemnly swore before their spouse, god, and the RCC that they would cleave only to them."
Josh Lyle
For. The. Win
"...but I will scorn anyone that cheats on their partner(s), especially if they got up and solemnly swore before their spouse, god, and the RCC that they would cleave only to them."
Josh Lyle
For. The. Win
"...but I will scorn anyone that cheats on their partner(s), especially if they got up and solemnly swore before their spouse, god, and the RCC that they would cleave only to them."
Josh Lyle
For. The. Win
OK, Jane, you gotta work on this new coment preview thingy.