My Edwards Diary, Day Two
Actually, pondering Edwards' futile quest for the nomination gives me more respect for the guy. The fact is, Edwards was the only explicitly progressive candidate, and he knew he wasn't going to win, but he kept at it, spending lots of money (including a bit of mine) because he wanted to get those pesky issues about working class people out there on the table, and no one else did (or at least, only Hillary did, and only after Edwards forced her hand). Every Edwards supporter knew that in the Capitalist Golden Age, where our "leaders" are prized for their Midas touch (remember King Midas? He turned his favorite daughter into a golden statue -- whoops!), someone had to speak up for plain old social and economic decency. So he did.
But don't come crying to me about what if he'd won. He wasn't going to win and everyone knew it. He was the stalking horse for Hillary and Obama and he stayed in the race long enough to to put his issues on the table. Edwards has called himself a narcissist. My guess is, with regard to sex, he's just a guy. I've know a lot of guys who reacted to misfortune by going out and getting stupidly laid, haven't you?
But going out and getting stupidly laid and then coming home and reconciling with the wife is not the same as going out, getting stupidly laid, then divorcing the crippled wife and marrying the pretty young thing (and taking out your marriage license before the divorce is final). One is stupid. The other is cruel. Brutal. Heinous. And well within the moral capacities of our Republican presidential candidate
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Tell me it isn't so. Did this guy actually, really in truthfully take out a marriage license to marry this lush before he actually divorces his poor, cancer stricken wife? I've heard of low lifers before but this takes the cake. How low can you get? What about Edwards kids? By this time, if they are aware of this, they must think about as much of their dad as OJ's kid do of him. Disgusting. Shamful. Awful. Unbelievably bad.
"But going out and getting stupidly laid and then coming home and reconciling with the wife is not the same as going out, getting stupidly laid, then divorcing the crippled wife and marrying the pretty young thing (and taking out your marriage license before the divorce is final). One is stupid. The other is cruel. Brutal. Heinous. And well within the moral capacities of our Republican presidential candidate "
Conejo - she was writing about McCain in this example, not Edwards. As far as I know, as of right now, the Edwardses are not divorcing. Not that I would blame her...
John McCain applied for his marriage license to marry Cindy before he was divorced from his disabled first wife. She was crippled in a major automobile accident and was permanently injured and disfigured
So he is a guy with a socialist heart.....
For your information the NYT and the LA Times tried their level best to keep this out of the main stream press but the fly in the ointment was the National Enquirer. I don't really know what the political bent of the editors of the NE really is but they did ferret out the truth and the MSM tried to squelch it. Us libertarians
No pass youngster - just put the whole d___ thing in perspective. And just where do you see it being squelched?
Too much glee in all those "without sins" throwing stones. Once you noticve the stones can be thrown at all of us give it up.
Gawd...I am getting so sick of the way some zero-sum, grab-off-the-top people label themselves "libertarians" and carefully fail to even notice what THEY get from the government. How quick they are to label anything anybody else gets as "socialism," no matter how needy the recipients.
How about that mortgage-interest tax deduction? Is THAT bleeping "socialism?" It only helps people in the process of buying property and owners and builders of more property, and it costs the government a damn lot of money that could be used to provide healthcare for the vulnerable. Then some states wouldn't have to put a surtax on the costs of medical care, thus effectively shifting the burden of caring for the indigent onto the SICK. What kind of values must exist in these states (MN and CT, for two)? A way to stiff those least able to protest with costs of caring for another group not likely to protest?
How about the way the cost of employee healthcare is tax free TO BOTH employers and employees, whereas people with no health insurance can only deduct healthcare costs that exceed 7.5% of gross income?
You can judge the morality of a society by what kind of tax breaks it gives to whom, and what kind of help it provides for the young, the sick, the poor and the elderly. I wish that Edwards hadn't disgraced himself and become a less-effective advocate for people who can't self-advocate,
Yep, the latest rage is to call people socialists if they care about the public health and the well being of others. Call me a socialist, I don't care. I am a capitalist who also believes in the common good of the nation and of "the commons". This has nothing to do with wealth distribution, it has to do with national pride and national responsibility in a civilized world.
Inasmuch as it was not going to win and everyone knew it, and he did stay in long enough to get issues on the table that Elizabeth believed in with all her heart, do you think any of it is any of our business..
Explain how it is..
I'm sorry but I can't believe that Edwards campaigned just to have his issues highlighted. Everything he does seems to be ego-driven. Narcissism is a character disorder that is not confined to thinking you can get away with sexual infidelity. I happen to have a father who, because of his narcissism, had affairs, thought that rules were only for other people, and lost one career and then a business because he made bad decisions and wouldn't listen to anyone who tried to tell him he was wrong. Don't tell me that just because these men make mistakes regarding fidelity that they can be trusted to make good decisions concerning other things....
Everyone who thinks it's "no big deal" is wrong.....
And don't forget about the complicitous actions of Mrs. Edwards.
My you manage judgment in all directions.
You're saying that Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, GHW Bush, Kennedy - none of these was able to make good decisions about the country, but Bush Jr, who is faithful and monogamous, was?
I think FDR made terrible decisions with regard to the depression. Look at the unemployment rate in 1937. Look at the fact that the depression did not end until we entered WWII.
Kennedy was good but he only got a year and a half at the helm.
And yes I think Bush Jr. was not that good....I mean he expanded government
Don't forget, "use the pretty young thing's family connections and money to launch your political career."
Why do so many people on this blog hate people with money, beauty and youth? You'd think it was a sin to possess any of those things. How puritanical some of you liberals have become.
I'm not sure it's liberals you find making these puritanical comments. Check again.
Unfortunately we live in a culture that equates money (also youth, beauty and many other superficialities) as virtue.
There is more virtue in a homeless old man living under a bridge than within all the celebrity politicians, resplendent with their courtiers and their cosmetics and their corporate bursars. The man under the bridge does little harm compared to the harm done by our ruling class.
Ask any of the million plus dead or vanished Iraqis, any of the four plus million iraqi refugees or any of the tens of millions Iraqis still surviving amid the smoldering ruins of a once prosperous country.
Puritanical?
No Eliza. I'm outraged with the vanity and stupidity of the American culture. Broken lives are far worse than a broken fingernail, no matter how much upset a broken fingernail brings.
Sorry, Jane. He was my candidate, too, but you're going to have to join me in letting go. It doesn't work to say he was never going to win anyway Are you really so certain he went into the campaign knowing this, just ran to help us progressives get some issues out there? The man we now see before is not that selfless individual. He is, in fact, revealed to be a shallow egomaniac who put his party and our future at risk. And you know he's still lying; you know the chances are about 99% the baby is his. And read about this woman, the one for whom everything was risked.
Difference with Clinton? We knew he was probably a whoredog; but although he denied various daliances, he never tried to put himself forward as Mr. Devoted Family Man.
Amen...Cli
Clinton humiliated his wife by getting her to unknowingly lie for him about the Lewinsky affair on national tv. I'm not a Hillary fan, but I still cringe with embarrassment for her whenever I think about this.
Jane Smiley, as always you are such a breeze fresh air. What people are missing is the hypocrisy you are spotlighting when it comes to John McCain. The media, and the moral police of the so called Christians, slammed Bill Clinton but were silent, as church mouse, when it came to Newt Gingrich. The same groups, now joined by many liberals, are beating up John Edwards, a non candidate, but say absolutely nothing about John McCain, an actual candidate. The excuse often offered in defense of McCain is that it was long time ago. I never knew that there a statute of limitation when it comes to adultery. Moreover, how come McCain is praised for being a hero for his POW experience of forty years ago. Personally, I am not saying that McCain should be judged on the basis of his private shortcomings; but neither should John Edwards be judged on his private short comings. Those who choose to do so must apply equal standards.
It's just a part of the mainstream media's tacit bias-- the Republicans get a free pass, the Democrats get lambasted. It's a part of the money and power structure of our media system, which is owned entirely by a few large corporations. Owned by wealthy CEOs, who are overwhelmingly Republican.
It's also a part of a generational mentality, I believe-- issues that are more important to the 45+ age group are totally trivial to the younger. Gay marriage is another of these generational issues, issues that will evaporate as the years go on.
Read my blog!
http://www
Soooo... the media didn't dwell on "wide stance" Larry Craig? They created a new pop culture phrase there. The media didn't focus on Mark Foley during the page scandal? Those Republicans got a "free pass"? Please.
You can't just sum this all up as part of the media's "tacit bias". The dude was caught, red-handed. The mainstream media did the best it could to bury the Edwards story until THE ENQUIRER was proven right about it. Until then it was derided as nonsense and "tabloid" lies. Yes!
This is why more and more people are turned off to politics. It's a game of say-whatev
Media bias. Come on. That's got to be the lamest Edwards excuse offered yet.
Well I wanna see some MSM saturation about McSame's affair, then.
He's still a candidate, Edwards isn't.
thank you jane smiley, for echoing my political view on this whole matter.
as far as the "moral outrage" over this whole thing, all i can say is of course he lied. they ALL lie about sex. and shame on this country for asking about it. it's none of our business. other countries laugh at us. elizabeth edwards knew who she was marrying. so did hillary. do did jackie o. and so did barbara bush for that matter. this is a NON STORY, or should be.
Ms. Smiley, exactly right. There is something rotten in the USA and it's not the Edwardses.
My 2 cents,for what it's worth:
I can't see how ANYONE could cheat on their family. I was raised a baptist,(my parents doing,not mine),and I haven't been to church in over 25 years,too hypocritical for me, yet what my parents instilled in me is still very strong today. As a father of 4 and faithfully married for 19 years, I've had a few instances where I could have strayed, but I couldn't because I could never look my family in the eyes again without thinking how I betrayed them. Thanks Mom/Dad for giving me strong morals.
The Republican Party runs on that mantra, The Party of Family Values, and people buy into it. They have no more "moral values" than my old grill. They use the Bible as their Law, not the Constitution, but when one of them breaks a biblical law they turn and look the other way. When the leader of a church with hundreds of thousands of followers was found to be doing methampthetamine with a male prostitute,those followers should have pulled an Elmer Gantry on that particular church,but they just denied it to themselves. How can these followers bring themselves to vote for McCain ?
Since Edwards is not running there's not much you or I can do about it, but since McCain IS running,we should all think long and hard about if this person could EVER be trusted again.
Remember,cheating is LYING, so what's to stop him from lying about anything, especially to get elected.
jimme, I respect your opinion and I think that the way you honor your family is admirable.
Grouping all republican into the small narrow thinking box that you have put them makes it too easy to set up the "us against them" mentality that will alway make it impossible for the parties to truly work together. Some people are Republicans because of how their beliefs in the roll of government in our lives, not because they are bible thumping, gun carrying zealots who hold themselves up as a moral authority. McCain never did that. Disagree with him on his politics, but don't trash him simply because he is a Republican. That doesn't automatically set you up for a hypocrite label.
I wonder how many of my fellow Democrats would vote for Bill Clinton again if we had the chance. We know that he is a liar, we know that he had affairs. Why should it be ok for him because he was a Democrat? Why did all of the women's groups give him a free pass and throw around political witchhunt and yet they held Anita Hill up like the second coming of Joan of Arc during the Judge Thomas fiasco? It seems that we are more likely to be hypocrits than our Republican counterparts. Of course by saying this, I will be accused of being a republican tr0ll....b
I'm not the most eloquent writer so if my thoughts are construed as being anti-republican then so be it. I was trying to state that if he lied once what's to stop him from lying again,especially to get elected. McCain just seems to be an opprtunist to me that's all. As far as the rest of what I wrote,the Dems don't run on "Party of Values. The Republican Party USED to be a commendable party and had good ideas but they've since sold-out and are no longer what they used to be and stand for.
I don't trust ANY politician , D or R, but whatyagonnado ?
McCain has never been ar religiously family values, till recently. In his current, "hug the religious base" incarnation he has started making a thing of family values. In my book that makes what he says as opposed to what he does fair game. Just like his votes. He has a history of getting up and talking like a maverick but then quietly votin the appropriate Republican way. Just another politician.
A creative new rational: "He wasn't going to win anyway, so it's ok."
I'm pretty embarassed to be a liberal right now...and yes, I really am a liberal.
i agree. First off, i take serious exception to this whole "being a guy thing." last I checked, I'm a guy, and guess what, I have never cheated, and really don't plan on it. I am not the exception, I am the norm. But lets talk judgement, after Clinton (and various republicans), how could anyone aspiring to be president get involved with this. next, a matter of hypocrisy. Edwards castigated Bill Clinton for his affairs, while carrying on his own. Or how about his image problem (no substance) Well, he was a big time centrist in the Senate, then switched gears for this election. Well, that leads us to credibility, oh yeah, he doesn't have any. And finally, it takes a heartless man to cheat while his wife is going through all this. His pathetic line about her remisission just about made me loose my lunch. No way, nothing McCain did, nothing Spitzer, larry Craig, etc can make any of this right. This man proved to be the snake oil salesman so many thought he was. Whether you supported him or not, one must come to the conclusion this man is a total sleaze.
This is a great example of where modern political discourse is at.
John McCain has some issues in his past. Let's talk about that! But please, making MCain out to be "worse" doesn't excuse Edwards, even if it's demonstrably true. It really is a Kindergarten strategy. And it's transparent. Edwards isn't running against McCain. Everything has to be couched in terms of "us" vs. "them", 100% of the time. That is what's turning regular, fair-minded people against participating in politics anymore. You get slimed just by paying attention these days.
"I've know a lot of guys who reacted to misfortune by going out and getting stupidly laid, haven't you?"
Actually, no, I haven't. Your style seems to be that of a cynical observer, Ms. Smiley, so surely you realize that Vicki Iseman will not matter to Americans right now. Anything that happened there is decades-old news, vs. a hot-off-the-press coverup of an affair and possible "love child". In the wake of such a scandal, no amount of "But, look at what THAT guy did in 1980!!!" will divert everyone's attention from the current issue at hand.
Can you defend the Edwards actions *without* invoking anyone else's history to compare it with?
This is very clever. Ms. Smiley is apparently aware that the Vicki Iseman story is an unexploded hand grenade.
Journalists in D.C. are well primed on McCain's liaisons with Iseman back in 2000, but they are afraid to come out and say what they have heard. Basically, they don't have a "smoking gun" piece of evidence - a photo or the like - with which to come forward. And Republican Party handlers have basically walled off Iseman from any possibility that she might be questioned on the matter.
The NY Times never backed off on the facts of this story - instead, it questioned the relevancy of the sex angle. The Washington Post held back on reporting the affair - which was the right thing to do, given that it would distract from the main story about McCain's influencing the FCC.
But the McCain-Iseman "relationship" was definitely something that people spoke about back then - and it is no surprise that McCain has been so reticent on the Edwards issue. Because if he opens the door, Iseman becomes relevant again.
"Journalists in D.C. are well primed on McCain's liaisons with Iseman back in 2000, but they are afraid to come out and say what they have heard."
How do you know this? Have you talked to some of them? Do you have a link to some info? If you know some much, then why aren't you investigating this further and getting the facts out?
"And Republican Party handlers have basically walled off Iseman from any possibility that she might be questioned on the matter."
What is your source for this?
"The NY Times never backed off on the facts of this story..."
What facts were in the story? They didn't have any facts about Iseman having an affair, only speculation.
"How do you know this? Have you talked to some of them? Do you have a link to some info? If you know some much, then why aren't you investigating this further and getting the facts out?"
A lot of people in DC at that time knew this because it was discussed pretty openly back then. People on the Hill didn't think it was that big of a deal, since infidelity is relatively common in these parts. And I'm not "investigating" this because (1) I don't really care who McCain slept with, and (2) I have a job and a life.
[Re: Republicans walling off Iseman]: "What is your source for this?"
Iseman conducted no interviews after the story broke, and her Wikipedia page was scrubbed clean. You're right - I don't have any direct knowledge; I am operating under the assumption that someone in the Republican party had something to do with that. I think that is a reasonable assumption.
"What facts were in the story? [The NYT] didn't have any facts about Iseman having an affair, only speculatio
Well, that's not quite accurate. The Times cited Republican staffers as believing that McCain and Iseman were having an affair, and that this was the reason that they told her to back off. It wasn't "speculation" - this is the type of sourcing that journalists commonly rely upon to write stories, and the Times - in response to criticism - said these sources were legitimate.
Sorry, people, lots of citizens have affairs, both Rep. and Dem. There is usually deceit and lying going on, but let's get down to the real reason that Edwards behavior was so despicable.
First of all, his wife, who is a smart woman, and well liked pretty much all around, is sick with cancer.
Next, his colossal pomposity in believing that he could run for president while keep this a secret from the press, knowing how voracious the media is.
Then he pays the woman a large sum of money (that came from where again?) to create "webisodes" of him, which we all know was a ruse to keep her close to him while out in public and out on the campaign trail.
The repeated denials when asked about Hunter, he should have known he was busted then, but if he dropped out of the race, he would have no reason to be cavorting around with his "documentarian"
The unpleasant fact that Edwards and Hunter may have been biding time waiting for Elizabeth to die to be together.
All in addition to having the staffer taking the fall for the baby, Elizabeth's statement that she knew about the affair still encouraged him to run for president, don't these people pay attention to things like the Spitzer drama?
Edwards was just duplicitous to the extreme, it's what makes this story so sensational.
Just a small matter - Edwards wasn't the only progressive in the race, the true progressive was Dennis Kucinich, and, of course, he really didn't stand a chance.
And if it weren't for John Edwards Dennis Kucinich might have been the nominee! Damn that Edwards.
Wait a seccond! They had three children together! How can they only havebeen married a year? He had a loyal wife who worked hard to get him released, was in a devastating accident, and just because she changed physically you maintain they had grown apart. Please. He chased the skirts of a 20-something hieress who would later support his senate runs, all the while still a married father of three, and without his wife ever realizing anything was amiss in the marriage, He dumped Carol like a hot potato and took out a marriage license in Az. while his marriage was still viable. Let's not sugarcoat McCain.
Dems were not the party that smugly and sanctimoniously declared themselves the party of family values. That was their adopted Conservative Christian Right Platitude. McCain. Gingrich, Mr Bathroom Stall, Guilliani, Cokehead Bush, etc. At least Edwards did right by Elizabeth. Gingrich gave his wife divorce papers while she was on her deathbed. McCain deserted his loyal navy wife who was in a wheelchair. Some family values.
They were her children from a previous marriage. McCain was not the biological father. I'm not a McCain supporter but you don't know all of the facts from the end of his first marriage so you want to paint him as evil because you don't believe in his politics and then let Edwards off the hook for the opposite reason. Half of all marriages end in divorce. I'm not making excuses for McCain but he was married for a short time before he became a POW, spent 5 years away from his wife while being put through hell, and came back a different person. I assume that his wife had also changed during that time. People grow apart under the best of circumstances. Imagine how it can happen under the worst.
From what I read, the marriage was rocky from the time he came home until the divorce and there was more than one separation during that time. McCain has never tried to hold himself up as a moral authority and has always been critical of his past and how that lead to the end of his marriage.
I like Edwards but he didn't have a relationship with another woman while his marriage was ending. You could argue that what Edwards did was worse, but I don't really like making moral judgements on anyone. I'll leave that to the people here who have lead the perfect lives.
BTW, I am a democrat and an Obama supporter.
Bull, you made so many excuses for McGrandpa its hard to know where to start. Oh, and please stop with I'm an Obama supporter or Democrat but BS! You people are so obvious!
Yeah...
people aren't really into reason around here. You may want to come back with some guttural partisan vitriol. That will be a lot better received.
Also, just to clarify - what the Edwards did was worse. Both of them.
I agree wholeheartedly. Enough of this nonsense already.
wjb0965
"... the marriage was rocky from the time he came home until the divorce and there was more than one separation during that time"
Sure, the marriage was rocky when he came home, but that's because when McCain came home, he found that his first wife had been disfigured from her car accident. It appears that he was no longer interested in her due to her injuries and immediately went looking for a more attractive mate. So much for "til death do us part"!
I don't understand your comment. What post did you read?
He adopted his wife's two sons from his first marriage. McCain has seven children, three of whom he adopted, and all whom have turned out well, and are close to their dad. Three of his sons have served or are serving in the military.
Edwards won't even claim the little girl he probably fathered. How does that help her? McCain raised three kids that he wasn't the biological father of.
"...from HER first marriage..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
