Democrats Can Show Some Moral Decency by Not Kicking Edwards Under the Bus

The reaction was swift, brutal, and yes hypocritical from Democratic Party big wigs to the public talk about John Edwards love tryst. Dan Fowler, former Democratic National Chair, minced no words and flatly said that if Edwards can't satisfactorily explain his conduct he won't be allowed to deliver a major talk at the Democratic national convention. Fowler punctuated his Edward's slap down with the demand that Edwards meet high moral standards in explaining his conduct.

What gibberish! The Edward's affair has to rank at or near the top of the worst kept secret in any top politician's love life. The National Enquirer had the story a year ago. Every top news dailies had the story. Political gossip wags had the story. And most importantly, Edwards campaign staff, Democratic Party insiders, and probably Republican operatives had the story. Yet, now it's a big deal and the Democrats are hoisting themselves high on their moral high horse and demanding that Edwards do a very profuse penance and very public self-flagellation. One reason for this has much to do with Edwards as potential VP candidate. The other has even more to do with Edwards as the one Democrat who actually talked about and believed that the time was ripe for a return to populism in politics. Neither set well in some very heavy weight public and political circles. To be blunt, Edwards made a lot of friends but he also made a lot of enemies.

He made enemies because he did something that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, nor any other top Democrat dreamed of doing. He made poverty no longer a dirty word in the mouths of many. But Edwards didn't stop there. He relentlessly pushed the envelope on America's next greatest crime and sin, the absolute refusal of the nation to provide decent health care for more than fifty million persons no matter whether poor, working class, middle class and even some with a few bucks to spare. He didn't stop even there. He hammered corporate and special interests for their shameless and unabashed pillage, loot, and rape of American consumers.

Edwards was truly a modern day Jeremiah crying in the wilderness against poverty, corporate greed, and the health care abomination, and predictably was slandered, slurred, and ridiculed, and ultimately marginalized as a bare after thought, a warm up act to Clinton and Obama.

Edward's much needed and almost never heard populist message didn't mark him as a threat. The bare possibility that many Americans actually got his message about poverty and neglect made him a threat. The seeds of the attack were there from the start. He had barely stepped out of the barber salon early in the campaign when the pokes and digs started. He was the butt of laughs and late night TV talk show gags for committing the unpardonable sin of blowing $400 on a haircut.

The barbs and the taunts didn't stop even after he shrugged it off as fun and games stuff. Months later David Letterman took another hair shot at him when he grabbed at his hair and tried to muss it up during his appearance on Letterman's late night show. This slapstick silliness wouldn't have raised an eyebrow since he is a wealthy guy who made millions as a corporate lawyer. But it was the poverty thing that raised the hackles of his rich pals. This was not just a cheap campaign ploy to give him an edge over the other candidates. He made the case that nearly forty million poor people in the world's richest country is an abomination that nobody seemed to want to talk about it, let alone do anything about it. It was irksome enough that the GOP presidents and presidential candidates would stay silent on the plight of the poor. It was downright infuriating that his Democratic opponents would also stay mute on the issue.

His poverty crusade stirred a mild flutter for a couple of months with Obama and Clinton. But again it was only a mild flutter. Any talk of a crusade against poverty disappeared from their campaign lexicon faster than a Houdini disappearing act when he dropped out of the White House hunt.

Edwards became the first Democratic presidential candidate to go where no other Democrat has gone in four decades and talked up poverty, universal health care and economic democracy.

Edwards apologized to his wife, apologized to the party, and did his public mea culpas for a hardly damnation of the ages private misstep. But he also did something else. He bucked history, negative public and political attitudes, and of course ridicule for championing populist causes. If that's not real moral decency, than the term is empty and meaningless. Democrats can show some moral decency by not kicking Edwards under the bus.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[marthlois]

Great post!

Too much coverage about this - given the state of our country & the world.
Anyway, the people who continue to throw stones........were you as verbal
when President Clinton was unfaithful & lied about it? Or were you like me
and others who said that it needed to be between Bill & Hillary? Give it a
rest - the Edwards obviously worked hard on their marriage and renewed
commitment to one another for the past two years. It's almost as though people
want to unravel everything they've worked for together.

[Pherdnut]

Edwards threw gays under the bus and I'm sorry but I don't trust any politician who plays the family values card. I do have sympathy for him and his wife and I think pundits have been awfully holier-than-thou about his indiscretion but I'm glad he's out of the picture. I never trusted him and he has shown terrible judgment and hypocrisy through his actions.

Also, I would hardly say Obama and Hillary neglected to talk about poverty or the need for reform. Edwards played his part but these issues were unavoidable.

[RedSt8r]

"This was not just a cheap campaign ploy to give him an edge over the other candidates."

No, his fidelity to his terminally ill wife was. On both of their parts.

Indefensible.

[Cakey4814]

Yada Yada..if this was Obama Earl the Pearl of wisdom certainly wouldn't be saying this. I like Edwards but this was his doing and to tell people how they should respond to his extra marital affairs is ludicrous!!

[PuppaX]

They're letting Bill talk. What's the difference?

[PumaAnn]

I think Edwards should speak at the convention. :)

In all seriousness, voters will toss Edwards aside. He's welcomed to try again for whatever, but my guess is that he'll be met with lukewarm voter attitude.

[1will]

Dems should show Edwards the same "Moral Decency" that the Pretty Pony showed his cancer stricken wife.

[JimR]

Earl, I've disagreed with you many times, but you hit the nail on the head here. Good post.

[mscriblerus]

It never occurred to me that I should adjust my moral compass to compensate for the political winds. If Edwards and his family are fine with what he did, far be it from me to demand an extra pound of flesh. But I don't think it's fair to expect people to approximate your ethical temperament to be considered reasonable.
Agree with democrats or not, the visceral response to such things is hardly driven by politics. Let alone such a deeply conspiratorial formula of backlash for populist politics.
I think people should give him a break too. But if someone doesn't, I'm loath to relegate them to particulate matter in a holier than thou democratic windstorm. They just take greater umbrage than me. And that's fine. Unlike some other parties, this one is really a big tent.

[CynicalViewer]

Earl calls us to our better selves as Democrats. Earl pinpoints exactly what John Edwards said during the campaign which attracted our family. Logic tells me Earl's observation is true, that the corporate democrats and faux democrats did not like what Edwards was saying, thereby dooming his candidacy. We never got the chance to see if he would live up to his words, but at least he said them.

It is for that exact reason that I have no strong urge to vote for Barak Obama. I do not like the company he privately keeps.

It is for that exact reason that I was never comfortable with Hillary Clinton.

Of course I will not vote for John McCain, but frankly I have given up on the Democratic party. Too many bad votes by Democrat Senators and Congressmen. Too many developers lavishing money on party candidates. Too much manipulation. Too much back room deal making.

[Diogenis]

Do yourself a favor. Simply do not vote.

[neocon666]

Ahem: which party has almost absolute power for the first 6 years of the Bush43 administration? Enron wrote America's energy policy with the blessings of Dick Cheney, resulting in the Enron loophole and $4 a gallon gas. Bush started a war based completely on lies, the most recently brought to light being the forged document linking Saddam to Al Qaeda.

You are either a troll or possess an incredible amount of willfull ignorance, which would make you a republican.

[PuppaX]

Of course there are plenty of whores in both parties, but I'm confused about the "company he privately keeps" comment. I hear this stated as a dismissal over and over again, but it never ceases to amaze me. Chances are you agree a lot more with the views of those whose company he (supposedly) keeps than you think, and certainly more than you agree with the views of any of the lobbyists running McCain's campaign.

[WorkingClass]

This is a great piece of work Earl. Edwards has been, is being and will be punished for confronting our rulers on our behalf. My hat is off to him.

[kellygrrrl]

I don't care what Dems say about Edwards

as long as they all use this Golden Opportunity to make an issue of MkKain's infidelities and dumping of his disabled wife

[mmmd]

It seems only silence is golden in case of McCain's indescretion(s).

[AngieH]

Painting Edward's as a champion of the people has always been ridiculous, regardless of his honesty to us and his fidelity to his wife. He knew from 2004 that he was going to make another run for president... he kept offices open in Iowa for goodness sake!! Yet, what did he do in those four years to help the poor? To my knowledge, nothing! He worked for a hedge fund and made a bunch of money. He had 4 years to polish his C.V. for his populist message and he did nothing.

The fact that he was unfaithful to his wife is terrible. I feel for her having to go through this public humiliation. Adultery is awful, but what is unpardonable is that they both decided to make a presidential bid without disclosing this to the public, since like it or not, it is a scandel that will feed the MSM for many news cycles. Imagine is Edwards was our nominee and this story came through 2 weeks before the convention. Hello President McCain? By sweeping this under the rug and hoping he could still run for president, he did a huge disservice to our party. While we shouldn't "throw him under the bus," we shouldn't be lionizing him as a champion for the people, when so far, he has been all talk and no action.

[S1m0n]

Edwards didn't have the stones to VOTE for any of the positions he was supposedly running on when in office, so there's no reason to keep a spot open for him in the party. He's a taker, not a giver. John Edwards exploited the party, exploited its socially-concerned wing, exploited his family and his girlfriend, all for the sake of no one but John Edwards. Screw him. We deserve better, and frankly we've GOT better. We didn't want his candidacy when he was supposedly honest and faithful to his wife, so it's beyond me why you think we'd want him now that he's known to be neither.

[teresa h]

let me correct my spelling in the last comment... I meant to write Baron.

Frederick Martin Baron to be more exact.