Why (My Guy) Edwards Should Come Clean
By Brian Lambert
John Edwards was my guy in this year's presidential derby. He exhibited the proper level of indignation for what's been going on, and through the smoke of Iraq and all the other Bush-Cheney frauds and blunders, he kept his eye on resolution of out-of-control health care costs as the key to economic stabilization. So whatever is going on with this blond in LA, I still admire the guy.
OK, maybe a little less if this National Enquirer story is completely true. But as a favor to the faction of the public that is damn near exhausted by public, government, and corporate perfidy and is adult enough to accept other adults with adult-like flaws, Edwards ought to convene one of those press conferences where he answers every question until the media's tongues hang out.
If you haven't followed any of this, Edwards, John Kerry's running mate in '04 and one of the top three Democrats in this year's race, is caught up—again—in a story that suggests an affair—if not a love child—with a good-looking blond/former actress/campaign filmmaker. (Here's a link to one of the Enquirer stories.) The "issue" of Edwards's relationship with the woman, Rielle Hunter, broke last September and was dismissed with both Hunter and an Edwards staffer saying the baby was theirs. (Not that that dismissed the notion of an affair between Edwards and Hunter.)
Anyway, now it's back, and the usual suspects, including conservative blogger Mickey Kaus at Slate, are lapping this up, much like if, say, a Bible-thumping, family values, anti-homosexual Republican ever got caught flagrante delicta in an affair with a gay prostitute, a teenage page, an undercover cop . . . etc. It's the hypocrisy hammer, and few things ring the bell louder than that.
The latest Edwards incident happened at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in LA, and the Los Angeles Times sent out a much-circulated memo to its staff to avoid blogging on the Enquirer story, at least until the paper could do some, you know, original reporting. Naturally, the usual trolls began screaming "liberal bias," insisting the Times was covering up for a big time Democrat. In fact, the Times, which like so much of the mainstream press, has gotten a bit tired of following the lead of supermarket scandal rags and bloggers under the tired rationale that anything that crowd puts "out there" is suitable to feed off of . . . simply because it is "out there." The Times was beaten by the Enquirer time after time on the OJ Simpson story, largely because the Enquirer has no rules about anonymous sources and multiple corroboration. Then, of course, everyone hopped on the drudge and Richard Mellon Scaife-fueled Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandal, never caring too much about who was cutting checks to keep the scoops coming.
Since those debacles, most mainstream newsrooms have held seminars, brown bag lunches, and soul-searched over how much they really want to play by Enquirer/blogger rules. (Despite staking out the hotel for the Edwards "gotcha," the Enquirer has not published any photographs of . . . anything. That may change with its next issue, but the LA Times at least doesn't like the smell of that and the lack of eyewitnesses, other than the two Enquirer "reporters.") Frankly, I have to say the picture of the LA Times waiting to do its own reporting on this thing is a refreshing display of restraint in the face of the twenty-first grail of who screams "Scandal!" first gets the prize.
Moreover, as I responded to one commenter who asked about this, in light of the past seven years of apocalyptic scandals, starting with a $2 trillion war we didn't need to fight, Katrina, and countless abuses of fundamental Constitutional law, we may have re-set our criteria for scandal relevance since the days of Bill and Monica. I mean, if that scandal didn't matter all that much to the general public back then (Clinton's approval rating in early '99 was two-and-a-half times what George W. Bush's is today), what are the chances CNN will go twenty-four-seven Edwards and Hunter?
But as I say, lacking much of anything substantive issue-wise to throw back in the faces of liberals/progressives/Democrats, this Edwards thing, with all the usual tedious "values"-based righteousness, is providing traction for the right-wing echo chamber. Which is only one reason why Edwards should come clean by answering every question any reporter wants to ask and give a DNA sample for the bambino.
What this business does to Edwards's political currency—Attorney General under Obama?—is secondary to setting an example for how to deal with private, personal misbehavior. The wisdom of crowds on Clinton-Lewinsky was that hanky-panky had nothing to do with the job Clinton was doing as president, which the public clearly liked. Here, Edwards has a tougher dilemma, considering the sympathy and affection the public has for his cancer-stricken wife. This thing, if true, could send him back to North Carolina for good.
But if progressives, such as Edwards claims to be, are in the business of taking professional risks to push the ball of progress further upfield, this would be a classic example of coming clean and taking the hit . . . if that's what's coming . . . in the interests of demonstrating to the objective public that we do things differently.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
Well, its mighty convenient that the press gets to claim fatigue whenever a Democrat gets caught up in one of these.
I feel some schadenfreud. And its because of the hypocrisy. I knew he was a fraud early in his public prominence. Here's another perfect example of a guy who believes in the 'right' things as a way to ameliorate some very serious character flaws.
Its very hard to provide the right answer now, to 'come clean', and I expect he won't. This isn't the nature of this animal. Lawyer till the end. Parse Parse Baby.
This is a guy who allowed/coerced/bribed an operative to claim paternity. This is a guy who collects phone numbers or gives them out at bars when he feels a 'connection', cheats on his ill wife. You fellas liked to regale at the old Newt Gingrich story where he left his wife on her hospital bed. This trumps that by a fair amount. The guy is a bag of feces.
The NY Times thought enough of the McCain story to run it. The LA and NY Times and the Post can say theyre investigating Edwards all they want - but we have no reason to believe it. Edwards makes public appearance after appearance without being questioned on it by a mainstream journalist.
LAMBERT: And how do you "know" he "allowed/coerced/bribed"? Is that another Enquirer scoop?
Posted by: 108 on July 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM
If this child is his (and hey, in the absence of a convicning denial, we have no reason to believe otheriwse - lets see the birth certificate, Rielle), there has to be an explanation for someone else taking paternity. Its one of those 3. Is fraudently claiming paternity something Democrat operatives just do for the cause, all in a days work?
Posted by: 108 on July 28, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Oh - just because Mickey Kaus will poke a Democrat in the eye doesn't mean hes a conservative. He's an ex New Republic writer, among others.
LAMBERT: Kaus is not conservative enough? Who else fails? Jesse Helms?
Posted by: 108 on July 28, 2008 at 9:21 PM
And...And...I dont think this woman is good looking.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/intel/07/10/10_hunter_lgl.jpg&imgrefurl=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/john_edwards_docudrama_the_ana.html&h=375&w=250&sz=33&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=HeFDB6B6rnZR6M:&tbnh=122&tbnw=81&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522rielle%2Bhunter%2522%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den
She's no Kerri Miller, thats for sure.
LAMBERT: Kerri would be so pleased if she knew ... I think.
Posted by: 108 on July 28, 2008 at 9:30 PM
A real shocking news story would be a Washington politician that is not sleeping around or lying. And yes, that goes for both sides of the aisle.
For me your discussion on real-time news is more the issue. Bloggers and gossip sites throw stuff against the wall constantly and soon rumor turns into perceived fact. I'm not sure that most Americans can handle real-time news that hasn't been cleansed in some way.
I'm guessing that somewhere Gary Hart is smiling.
LAMBERT: Stumped me on that last sentence, Dave. But considering that Edwards is not currently running for office I think the LA Times and the rest of the big boys can afford to wait to find out for themselves what's really going on here. Edwards, as I say, should preempt all that by offering full disclosure. But it is interesting how little encouragement he is getting from the major lefty sites to do exactly that.
Posted by: Dave on July 28, 2008 at 9:33 PM
BL, great column. I too was an Edwards gal....so I was a tad bummed when I heard the "story". I still need more proof before I make a final judgement. But I agree with your other statement....where is the real scandal? The real scandal is how the US people, and for that matter, the whole damn world...were bambuzzled into going to war. Clinton--no deficit. Bush--Blinding, crippling debt. There is a press conference I want to see--the one where W stands up and apologizes for the whole effing mess we are in right now. Then I might have a smidgen of respect for him.
LAMBERT: Edwards coming out and saying, "Yes, I did have sex with that woman" is one thing. Bush coming out and saying, "Yes, I signed off on everything Dick Cheney slid across my desk" is something else.
Posted by: Biotech Nerd Girl on July 29, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Again...you are all falling into the my guy is bad but not as bad as your guy trap.
Step back and realize America is hurting for leadership. The choice between the least offensive Republican and a very ambitious 3 year Senator ?
Is that the best we can do ?
LAMBERT: What I'm saying is that my guy -- as an example of the higher standard for transparency he has said we have a right to expect from elected officials -- should do A LOT BETTER than other guys ... Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter ... tell me when to stop.
Posted by: Jed Leyland on July 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Lambo, as you may recall, I too was an Edwards supporter earlier this year and was aboard back in 2004. For some strange reason, that he was a trial lawyer didn't offend me much.
I will say that if he's fathered a child out of wedlock, I'd be disappointed in him. But so what? I've long since stopped expecting that political figures were paragons of virtue. Whether it's Edwards or Gingrich or McCain or Wilbur Mills or Bob Livingston, the harsh reality is that our political leaders have the same warts those of us at the retail level do. They just wear more expensive suits.
Regardless of the alleged affair, Edwards would bring a level of competence and probity to DOJ not seen there in decades. I don't really care whether he sleeps with Elizabeth, with the LA woman or with Janet Reno, as long as the Department does its job and is not filled with hacks hired after passing a political litmus test.
LAMBERT: I'm with you. Edwards as AG actually, you know, pursuing and prosecuting high end fraud and assorted evil-doers, as opposed to hitting them up for campaign donations, would be a huge improvement in our national quality of life. But he isn't going to get the chance unless and until he clears this up.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on July 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Since you don't have a copy editor, allow me to point out that it is "theirs," not "their's" and quote marks come outside periods and commas (except in the U.K) and inside other punctuation marks, e.g. should be "liberal bias," and "out there."
LAMBERT: My stylebook crede is the stuff of much snickering. And, in the case of the Edwards post, I blasted through that and hit "publish" ... and forgot to tell my over-burdened copy editor it was up. I am entirely to blame.
Posted by: richard conklin on July 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Beyond comprehension that you would defend Edward's being an apparent total scumbag by impugning.... Bush/Cheney!
Getting the racy blonde campaign worker preggers while the wife battles cancer is about as low as you can go....almost as low as channeling dead children for juries.
But not for you libs - it's really Cheney who's "bad"!
Remarkable.
LAMBERT: Why do I found your moral confusion so reassuring?
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Just think of the indignation when Bertram learns that Cheney's been sleeping with a Don Rumsfeld plastic blowup doll.
LAMBERT. Yeah. Bertram's been wondering where that thing went.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on July 29, 2008 at 1:28 PM
That's all well and good, snicker chortle chortle, but where exactly do you, if ever, draw the line?
The moral relativism of the left is astounding.
LAMBERT: A (possible) illicit love affair compared to a guy who orchestrated (among other criminal activities) a fraudulent $2 trillion war that has killed tens of thousands and dragged the reputation of the United States through the slime.
Do you even read what you write?
(Why do i ask?)
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Fox News now has the corroborating witness:
Should be a great DNC in Denver - wasn't the Silky Pony scheduled to pontificate further on his ?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391426,00.html
LAMBERT: Fox News and "corroboration". Now THERE is a first.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 2:13 PM
...his "two America's"?
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 2:14 PM
How about a bloviating, narcissistic trial lawyer candidate for VP who impregnates a campaign worker DURING THE PRIMARY, while his wife battles cancer?
That's your "illicit love affair", I guess.
Like I said - astounding.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Only you are comparing the scumbag Edwards' cheating on his cancer stricken wife, and sneaking around in the middle of the night to visit the love child, to Bush /Cheney.
THAT is my point. Have you no inkling of the folly of your "position"?
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Since you are so shamefully "enmeshed" in the thought of the Hollywood left, try this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/
LAMBERT: Dude, you are unraveling. Get out of the sun.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM
FWIW correlations between primate body size differentials between males and females can give a good estimate of the probability and extent of polygamy.
In humans these calculations suggest more than one but no more than three.
Also FWIW in a recent NY Times article it was pointed out putting a man in the presence of a woman--good looking or not--immediately raises the testosterone level by 8%.
Human nature even trumps the caution of trial lawyers. Edwards has veered from the straight and narrow path and I would see his strategy of not discussing this as meritorious and likely to lead to the best solution. Don't wallow and don't whine! And, especially don't have the little wifey at your side.
LAMBERT: Legalistically, and "strategerally", an attorney's position is to never admit error, much less guilt. I'm saying he should set a better example.
Posted by: Bleuler on July 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Any attorney worth his salt--let alone his $350 hourly rate--knows there are times when the wisest course is to admit the damning facts and move on to damage control. Edwards tried too many cases not to know this almost instinctively, and he's smart enough (I hope) to recall the list of those who stonewalled to their everlasting discredit. Those who come clean quickly are best remembered for having done so rather than for the details of their misbehavior. If there is a rule in American politics, it's that the cover-up is always much worse than the offense.
LAMBERT: The fact Edwards hasn't said anything about this is not good. There's no question it is handing a huge platter of steaming red meat to the knuckleheads who only see scandal in sex. But whatever has been going on, Edwards undeniable skills as a legal tactician could come in handy in the event of a full-scale electoral flushing this November. But he can write all that off if he takes the stonewall approach.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on July 30, 2008 at 9:44 AM
One word: Ego. Ego will prevent Edwards from going through the pain of reconciling his private (barely) behavior with his long and carefully cultivated public persona.
A fella' doesn't run for president without being something of a megalomaniac. These folks, by definition, are not much prone to self examination and acts of sincere contrition.
As one who very much admires the capacities and abilities and rhetoric of John Edwards, I do not for a minute expect the behavior you've so eloquently and wisely outlined for him to ever be manifested in a news conference of similar content and tone.
To quote Jake from "The Sun Also Rises": "Yes...Isn't it pretty to think so." I guess that makes you and Son of Mississippi Lady Brett.
LAMBERT: Have you seen Son of Mississippi's legs?
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on July 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
[Cohn:] “I can’t stand it to think my life is going so fast and I’m not really living it.”
[Jake:] “Nobody ever lives their life all the way up except bull-fighters.”
To hear Jake tell it, I reckon we have little in the way of rational choices but to take ourselves and most people as we find them-- deeply flawed and limited.
But, as the last seven and a half years demonstrate, you can take that philosophy too far.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on July 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Don't hate me because I have the legs of Ginger Rogers and the soul of Miss Havisham.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on July 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM
I watched him on PBS this weekend talking about his poverty initiative and I really like his ideas and him motivation seems well intentioned, however just being aware of the buzz around possibly babymamadaddygate08 and with his wife fighting the good fight with cancer, the skepticism is unavoidable. Then you have to think, "well those Kennedy boys were not saints either."
LAMBERT: Obviously two... or three ... or four ... or a dozen wrongs don't make a right. But yes, this stuff happens all the time. Give the public an honest explanation/apology and THEN move on.
Posted by: Stephanie on July 31, 2008 at 9:15 AM
You mean something like:
"Hi, I'm John Edwards, my daddy worked in the mine, and I'm a disgusting trial lawyer who impregnated a skeezy campaign worker while I was running for the vice presidential nomination, then I ran away when confronted by the press.
Oh, yeah, and my wife has cancer."
LAMBERT: Back from your six martini lunch, I see.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 31, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Urp.
Just looking for some of that "accessible" food your guy writes about.
Posted by: bertram jr on July 31, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Let's see if I've got this straight, Bertram. Ted Stevens, dean of the Republicans in the Senate, is indicted on seven counts of lying about his receipt of $250k in gifts, but the poster boy of the week for ignoble behavior is the one who had sex with someone other than his wife. Classic.
LAMBERT: Has Ted Stevens ever had sex?
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on July 31, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Oh.
One little detail was left out there, SOM - the part about the cancer stricken wife.
Remember?
Your folks pretty much deified her, so I am surprised you "forgot".
Heh.
Posted by: bertram jr on August 5, 2008 at 4:48 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/31/birth%20certificate.pdf
Posted by: bertram jr on August 6, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Well, here it is, Brian. Now, will the media "balance" this story with McCain's affair with Cindy after his first wife gained too much weight. This was some time ago, maybe he was completely out front back then with all the details. Now that he's running for president, shouldn't it all be gone over again?
LAMBERT: The "media" has had every opportunity to "report" on McCain's private life and has passed. unless he wanders into a "hypocrisy moment" I don't see it happening. And he has described his behavior back then as something he isn't proud of. Very few voters know the story, though.
Posted by: MomKat on August 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM