My initial reaction to John Edwards' admission of an extramarital affair was extreme disappointment. I really wanted the tabloid reports to be false. Whatever you think of their politics, there was something very special -- and inspirational -- in how John and Elizabeth Edwards conducted themselves during the presidential campaign.
But since he's no longer a presidential candidate, is this really any of our business?
On one level, the admission of an affair is an intensely private matter and the public does not deserve many details. The helicopters flying over the Edwards home and the reporters camped in their driveway should leave. And to those who want to judge either John or Elizabeth on how they choose to handle this, it's impossible to put yourself in their place. It's their relationship and their business.
However, news of the affair is still very much a public matter -- and not just because Edwards was under consideration to be Sen. Barack Obama's running mate or possibly a future member of his cabinet. The issue most troubling is the timing of the affair and the intense efforts made to cover it up.
Edwards said the affair took place just as he began his presidential bid in late 2006 and he told his wife and family shortly thereafter. Nonetheless, he lied repeatedly to keep news of the affair private. Since Edwards wasn't lying to keep the news from his wife, his sole purpose in lying was to maintain his political viability.
Edwards knew his public appeal was enhanced by his relationship with Elizabeth. He knew that many would never volunteer or donate to his campaign if he admitted to having an affair. Just like a corporation that fudges its accounting to stay attractive to investors, Edwards committed a terribly unethical act by withholding information very material to his candidacy. Millions of dollars were invested in Edwards without supporters knowing his real viability as a candidate.
Edwards broke much more than a trust with his wife. He broke a trust with the public.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
If it matters that Edwards cheated on his wife and lied about it, does it matter that McCain did the same thing?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,5924926,full.story
Posted by: Robert
| August 9, 2008 4:51 PM
Spot on.
Also, there is a fallacy to those theories like above which seek to equate what Edwards did with what McCain did. The two are noting alike. For better or worse, McCain's affair was a long time ago comparatively and is not 'news'. And no one is going near that one, because McCain would call out a 'tar and feather' campaign and he would be right. John Edwards lying -- and to an extent Elizabeth Edwards maintaining quiet -- had only one goal, which was to preserve John Edwards' political viability. It wasn't to protect Elizabeth, but simply to WIN. It's a shame he would have risked the Democratic Party's chances for something like this. None of that applies to McCain.
Posted by: AntonX2
| August 9, 2008 5:53 PM
Presidential mistresses and the Suffragettes
I admire Elizabeth Edwards for standing by her man. Thanks to the suffragettes, women have choices in their lives. She doesn't have to stay - she wants to stay.
Politicians will be politicians!
Betcha don't know which president had a love child while running for office, and how that helped women win the vote.
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.
Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.
"The Privilege of Voting" is a new e-mail series that follows eight women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.
Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.
There is a ton of heartache, and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.
Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes discovering history fast and FUN!
Each exciting episode is about 10 minutes - perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html
Posted by: Virginia Harris
| August 9, 2008 6:05 PM
The fact that McCain's affairs were a long time ago does not mean they mean nothing to this campaign. This was not one youthful indiscretion -- McCain was 42 years old when he met Cindy and he had many affairs by his own admission. He has lied during this campaign about the affair with Cindy that led him to leave his children and wife.
If his actions during that time are not relevant to this campaign, then let's quit hearing about his military service. That was even longer ago.
But it seems republican voters only care about infidelity when it is a democratic candidate or office holder. I'm certainly not defending Edwards. I'm just sick of the double standard. I didn't see any republican outrage over Gingrich's affair or the fact that Vitter was calling prostitutes from the Senate floor.
I'd also like to know why the press has decided that Cindy McCain's felonies and John McCain's use of position to get her off is none of our business. This was done while he held office. The voters have a right to know.
McCain has made it our business. He says we should vote for him because he has more experience. If he wants to run based on his record of experience then why is the press not writing about all of his experience and all of his record?
Posted by: eve
| August 9, 2008 10:35 PM
"Since Edwards wasn't lying to keep the news from his wife, his sole purpose in lying was to maintain his political viability."
Or he wanted to spare his wife the nationally televised shame. Or both. I don't know. Do you, really?
This discussion lends itself to nothing but speculation.
Posted by: daniel
| August 10, 2008 9:59 AM
The McCain infidelity was almost thirty years ago BUT it was part of a pattern of behavior and runs completely contrary to his general political narrative.
Edwards' tumble is a good story because of his Ken-doll style and personal magnetism. But if the conversation on talk shows and the blogosphere turns from him, himself and he to 'infidelity' as a concept, watch out McCain.
Recall during the Lewinsky thing how many segments were produced detailing the statistics of adultery. If that starts happening again, we'll get more than a whiff of McCain's character problem.
Posted by: bill kapra
| August 10, 2008 11:10 AM
There are a number of blogs now speculating that the media didn't go after this story because they wanted Edwards to take votes from Hillary, giving the nomination to Obama. I'm not big on conspiracies, but it sounds pretty plausible to me!
Posted by: davenp35
| August 10, 2008 9:35 PM
The Edwards affair points out an interesting dichotomy between the mainstream media and the tabloid press. These two worlds are explored in my novel, "The Corcoran Affair," which exposes the different standards for the "regular" press and the tabloid press. (the book involves a president, as opposed to a presidential candidate, and the tabloid press).
The basic reason the mainstream media didn't report the Edwards affair was simply that it had no one saying, on the record, that the affair was taking place. And unless one of the two principals admit the affair--or reporters virtually see them in the act (a la Gary Hart and Donna Rice), the mainstream media is going to keep it's distance...
Phil
Posted by: Phil
| August 11, 2008 10:40 AM
The willingness of the supporters of Obama to use this as some sort of attack on McCain tells me alot about the values of voters. This is a very sad situation for the family, the other woman and especially the children. Do you think using this to bash McCain is really something Obama would approve of? We have serious problems in this country, get out of the tabloid mentality. Nothing will change in this country until everyone becomes the change they want to see.
Posted by: wrensis
| August 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Post A Comment