How could he?

By Kathy G.

What can I say? I'm greatly saddened by this.

The worst thing is, I think he's still lying. He admits to the affair, but says he's not the baby's father, and that he hasn't given money to the mother. I find that, very, very, very hard to believe. Especially because, as he admits, he never took a paternity test. And if the affair had been over for two years, what was he doing visiting her and the baby in that hotel room?

I suspect the affair went on even after he'd told Elizabeth it ended. He's lying now because he doesn't want to 'fess up about the affair continuing after he'd told Elizabeth it was over.

And to top it all off, he says he "never loved" Rielle. Classy!

In spite of my deep cynicism regarding the dishonesty of most politicians, and the horndog tendencies of many powerful men, I'm still kind of shocked that he ran for president with a skeleton this big in his closet. The hubris is breathtaking. And I would have voted for him, too, if he hadn't dropped out before I got the chance to vote!

I know, I know -- after Clinton, after Spitzer, nothing should surprise me. And yet, I admit that this surprises me.

Can you imagine how awful it would be for the party, dealing with this now, if he'd gotten the nomination?

My heart goes out to Elizabeth and the children. I can't imagine how painful this is for them.

UPDATE: I should add that I don't think a person's sex life has anything whatsoever to do with their fitness for office. So long as what goes on is between consenting adults, it's nobody's damn business except the candidate, the spouse, and whatever sexual partners are involved. 

But given the reality of the post-Clinton rules that say that extramarital affairs are fair game for the press, any candidate engaging in one is being astonishingly stupid and reckless. This is particularly true if the candidate is a Democrat, given that there's an entire industry on the right devoted to digging up dirt on Democrats and destroying them. They nearly brought down a president for this bullshit, if you'll recall.

Thus my disgust with Edwards.

Comments

[arbitrista]

I used to like him. What a...a...a poop-head.

[Aesquire]

Of all the things Micky Kaus could have been right about, why'd it have to be this?

[jonnybutter]

Can you imagine how awful it would be for the party, dealing with this now, if he'd gotten the nomination?

What the hell was he thinking?

I really really think something like this should not disqualify someone for public office. I think the idea that we have to elect only people with a, frankly, religious model of spotless sexuo-personal conduct - a conduct so few of us have but demand in others (BTW: I *don't* cheat on my wife and *don't* think it's OK for me to!) - is both dangerous and ridiculous. The attendant idea that if a man cheats on his wife he will therefore lie about anything is reductive and childish, and very much a conservative tack and worldview. But we live in the country we do, so...what the hell was he thinking?! I believe that 'thinking' had nothing to do with it, and I'm not being flip.

My heart goes out to his family. Why any family should have to endure this kind of public humiliation - in addition to the private one - is beyond me.

[jason]

I respected the progressive emphasis of the Edwards candidacy during this cycle. But I have been criticizing him since his previous campaign on other character grounds.

Leave aside his war vote and his Patriot Act vote, etc.

There is something incredibly presumptuous and self-aggrandizing about running for office for the first time in one’s mid-40s and deciding that, having won a single election, and not having bothered to complete a single term in office, one is now qualified to run for president. The contrast with other progressive leaders, such as Barack Obama (first ran for office ca. 1996; had engaged in political activism previously; competed in four elections, winning three, before deciding to run for president), Howard Dean (first ran for office ca. 1982, served in the state legislature and four full terms as governor and was in his fifth as governor during his 2004 presidential campaign), or John Kerry (first ran for office in 1972; served as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor before joining the Senate in 1985) is glaring.

With regard to these revelations, my main concern is not with his cheating (how is that my business?) but, as Ezra said today, with his bringing this kind of baggage into a campaign relying on nothing more than secrecy to protect himself. Irresponsible? Check. Self-aggrandizing? Check. Shallow? Check.

He is a smart guy with a lot of genuine concern for people in trouble. He needs to understand his weaknesses as well as he does the issues if he is to optimize his potential on behalf of these causes.

[Kathy G.]

I agree that it should be a private matter, but post-Clinton, we know it won't be. It was outrageously selfish and reckless for him to indulge in this conduct, knowing that, if it got the nomination and this were revealed, he could bring the whole party down with him.

And you just know the Republicans would wait till the last minute to go public with this story, October-surprise style.

All in all, I think Meteor Blades at Daily Kos said it best:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/8/161318/4678/624/564822

"You’re an asshole, John Edwards. Adultery is a private offense, of course, a matter to be resolved between you and your wife. How she chooses to deal with this ought not to be something that holier-than-thou pundits argue she should behave the way so many did in the case of Hillary Clinton in regards to Bill’s philandering. If she forgives you, as millions have done for their straying spouses, then count yourself lucky.

"But I don’t forgive you. And I suspect many of your long-time supporters will not either. How can we? Your betrayal of us and the Democratic Party was not a private matter."

[jason]

I had not read this (via TPM Election Central) when I wrote my prior comment:

“In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free.”

This sort of thing is a good example of the self-awareness Edwards ought belatedly to be cultivating, so good for him for acknowledging the grandiosity issue.

[Brian Schmidt]

As penance for my previous support of this idiot, I forced myself to read an entire Mickey Kaus post. Yuck.

Forget the moral character issue, this poor judgment disqualifies Edwards from elected office. I don't think it rules out an appointed position after a period of time, though.

While it was Elizabeth's choice to handle John as she wished for their relationship, I think both of them made a mistake in putting their joint ambitions for his candidacy ahead of the huge risk he created for the Democratic Party. While the adultery was 100% his fault, the coverup is a joint responsibility.

[Mitchell Freedman]

Whoa, Jason. Edwards only one won one race for the Senate and lost his other elections in which he ran--and you say he should not run for president? Remember Abe Lincoln lost most of his political election races, and he seemed to be a pretty good president, or am I wrong here?

I agree with Kathy G on everything else (and now agree with her points that he may still not be as forthcoming as I initially thought when I heard the news). I also voted for Edwards here in California. I am so very glad that he did not win the nomination as the corporate media would be talking about nothing else for weeks and weeks. If he had just told the truth in the beginning, he would have been better off.

[KRK]

I agree with Brian. On the only matter of public concern -- running for president and asking people to commit their time, talent, and money to that cause while concealing (and lying about) an affair that could have handed the presidency to the Republicans on a silver platter -- Elizabeth betrayed people's trust as much as John did.

[Tim Worstall]

I have to admit that I don't really get this. How can any adult believe that *any* politician is anything other than an egocentric and narcissistic scumbag?

So one of them got caught....you really believe that any of the others are any different?

(Yes, this does apply to Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and even St. Ralph Nader as well as Democrats.)

[Kathy G.]

Re this:

"I have to admit that I don't really get this. How can any adult believe that *any* politician is anything other than an egocentric and narcissistic scumbag?"

I don't make any presumptions about the moral character of any politician, except for this: I assume that no one who runs for president this day and age would be so stupid and reckless as to engage in activity that could cause a huge scandal. Post-Clinton, the rules are different, and there's a good chance sexual indiscretions will come to light -- especially if the politician is a Democrat, given that the right has a full-time industry devoted to digging up dirt on the Democrats and destroying them whenever possible.

What bothers me about Edwards was: a) his stupidity about this, and b) the arrogance -- the seeming willful indifference to the effect that his getting caught could have on his supporters, his party, and his country. If he'd been the nominee, there's a good chance his wandering genitals would have condemned us to 4, or 8, more years of a Republican horror show.

At minimum, I assumed that Edwards, as well as the other Democrats, would understand this. The implicit deal is, that in return for our support, a politician agrees to make certain sacrifices, and one of them is to refrain from behavior that could result in a scandal.

I'm angry at Edwards because I expect, and deserve, a whole lot better from the elected officials I support. So do we all.

[Ron C]

So when's Kathy going to apologize to Mickey Kaus?

[jason]

Mitchell,
For a presidential candidate, Sen. Edwards had an embarrassingly thin resumé in 2003. Whatever the merits of his prior success at legal advocacy (and the civil justice system is obviously important), it cannot be considered political activism or engagement. Politics is about helping people in a collective way rather than one client at a time. Nor do I remember any particular insight or accomplishment distinguishing his Senate career, although it was hard to do much while the GOP had a stranglehold on power there.

[Tim Worstall]

"I don't make any presumptions about the moral character of any politician"

There's a difference between our worldviews then. Precisely because a politician puts themself forward as one who knows how to run our lives better than we ourselves do I make a judgement that they are indeed egocentric and narcissistic.

[Kaethe]

Adulterous assberets should not be outspoken about what they believe marriage is. Unless they're going to extend the legal right to commit adultery to all people.

[Barry]

"There's a difference between our worldviews then. Precisely because a politician puts themself forward as one who knows how to run our lives better than we ourselves do I make a judgement that they are indeed egocentric and narcissistic."

Posted by: Tim Worstall

Just to help you out, Tim, you'd probably find that leading businessmen are also, as well as entertainers, religious leaders, etc.

[Paul]

tim said:
There's a difference between our worldviews then. Precisely because a politician puts themself forward as one who knows how to run our lives better than we ourselves do I make a judgement that they are indeed egocentric and narcissistic

That's a hopelessly limited view on politicians, Tim. For example, I know for a fact that any politician who would have stopped the Iraq invasion dead in its tracks should have been in power than the sorry lot in charge at the moment. And like Ron Paul, that doesn't have anything to do with running your life, just preventing the rest of his colleagues from getting the rest of the country in deeper trouble.

And political obstruction of the invasion would have been a lot less violent than a coup by the nation's antiwar contingency.

BTW, care to have a safety net available when relying on your instincts in life gets you in trouble? I honestly don't think that even the most devout anti-politician is keen on that (and in fact I know a couple of true-blue libertarians who relied on social services when times got tough for them).

Even if you don't want that security, please let the rest of us decide for ourselves.