Say goodbye to any chance John Edwards had of being Vice President, and most likely Attorney General as well.
TPM confirms that the recent rumors about John Edwards' marital infidelities raised by (sigh) the National Enquirer are indeed true. Edwards confirms that he was having an affair, but denies he fathered a child with this other woman. He also says that the affair started before his wife's diagnosis of a recurrence of cancer.
This is sad to see -- Elizabeth Edwards deserves better than this. Probably a good thing that Barack is going on vacation soon, to get out of the line of fire on this.
Of course, we can now look forward to the press also asking the actual Presidential candidate, John McCain, about his marital past, right? (Yeah, right.)
UPDATE by Lowell: This diary - "Stop Moralizing, You Sickening Scolds" - largely sums up my feelings on this matter. And I say that as someone who was never a big John Edwards fan and has no dog in this particular fight at all.
How does infidelity make him a phoney across the board?
This does harm his short term political future - and obviously kills any chance at VP or AG. I can't imagine what his family is going through right now.
Of course it doesn't (Lowell - 8/8/2008 4:05:55 PM)
If that were the case, then lots of great men and women throughout history (Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower, etc., etc.) would be phonies across the board.
It also stinks (Ron1 - 8/8/2008 4:09:41 PM)
because, by injuring his image, the issues of poverty that he had some cachet to see perhaps addressed in the next administration will now need a different champion. Sad.
I agree (relawson - 8/8/2008 4:13:16 PM)
This was bigger than John Edwards. This was about poverty, and about economic fairness when it comes to labor, trade, etc.
Just stab me in the heart why don't you John Edwards!
Big House, Yet All About Poverty (varealist - 8/8/2008 5:27:10 PM)
I've always found it a bit odd that he rails against poverty and wants to end it, yet lives in a GIGANTIC house that's really not necessary to be that large. It's 28,000 square feet, according to this article with pictures:
Who needs a house that large when you're fighting poverty, in addition to all the environmental issues a house that size, causes, too.
I never really trusted him...
Personal failures (TheGreenMiles - 8/8/2008 3:36:43 PM)
I have two reactions. The first is that I feel horribly for Elizabeth and their children.
The second is ... what? A politician cheating on their spouse? Any elected official who ever cheated on their significant other should have their names expunged from the history books.
My reaction exactly. (Lowell - 8/8/2008 3:38:35 PM)
In Europe, it's a GOOD thing for a politician - a male one, at least - to have affairs, proves their virile or something. Here, it's all hypocrisy, all the time on matters sexual.
Europe: Come for the public transportation, stay for the infidelity? (Silence Dogood - 8/8/2008 4:15:08 PM)
Lots of things about Europe are great, and I think Europe and the US each have a lot that we can learn from one another. But this is one of those things I could do without. Rather than eliminate the potential for hypocrisy by embrassing our ability to rationalize and be situationally-ethical, I'd prefer it if people, you know, stopped cheating on their wives.
Is he worse than other people who cheat on their terminally-ill wives? Well, no, but that's not saying much. The guy's a sleaze.
Now THAT is a great example (Lowell - 8/8/2008 4:29:07 PM)
Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife on her hospital sickbed while busy preaching "morality" and "family values." Barf.
Glad you caught that. (Silence Dogood - 8/8/2008 4:45:30 PM)
I was going to make it explicit but I don't want this to sound like I'm making excuses for his behavior. Edwards isn't the first, he won't be the last, but all that means at the end of the day is that he can join a support group with Newt before they both claim to have found Jesus.
He had to lie (NP - 8/9/2008 4:11:21 PM)
It is that he lied. They have all those pictures of him lying on camera. He is doomed in politics. His best friend stood by him (Elizabeth). But they will forever flash those statements of him lying.
Damn shame (DanG - 8/8/2008 3:37:28 PM)
Politics is full of heartbreak, isn't it? You think somebody stands for something, and then "blow", it all goes away.
Shame on you, Senator. You have an amazing wife; how dare you betray her. Shame on you. That's all I can say.
McCain is Next on the Affairs Chart (Matt H - 8/8/2008 3:49:24 PM)
Just finished a book call "Nightingale's Song" that depicts McCain as the biggest womanizer in the Navy. He cheated on his first wife and robbed the cradle with his second (17 years his junior).
It's all just life in the big city.
Really-not like McSame or the GOP can comment on this.. (VA Breeze - 8/8/2008 5:20:22 PM)
Exactly!!! (Matt H - 8/8/2008 6:40:13 PM)
Talk about a pickle.
My headline would have been (Lowell - 8/8/2008 3:50:19 PM)
"Yawn: None of My Business."
I agree in general (Ron1 - 8/8/2008 3:59:59 PM)
But this was genuinely surprising to me -- I'd seen a few articles/diaries here and there about the rumors, and had assiduously avoided reading them (and I don't take the Enquirer seriously). But then the last few days, articles started popping up everywhere about Edwards needing to address the rumors before the Convention.
And, it's going to be all over the news for the next few days at least, now.
Furthermore, I would have loved to have seen Edwards be the next AG, and that is probably now off the table thanks to our ridiculous politics and media.
In a perfect world, the relationships of our politicians wouldn't be news. We shouldn't be expecting perfection from public servants -- we're all human.
(Oh, and I didn't expect the diary to go straight to the main page. I just figured it'd be off at the side like usual.)
Here's the thing (Lowell - 8/8/2008 3:53:10 PM)
If some elected official's a hypocrite, for instance a closet case gay basher, they deserve tons of publicity on that. If it's a personal situation without anything else involved or anyone hurt, who cares.
Of course, given that the American people (Lowell - 8/8/2008 3:55:52 PM)
DO care about this sort of thing, thank goodness John Edwards didn't win the Democratic nomination. What a nightmare that would have been. It really makes me wonder, why was he even running if he knew this was out there? Weird.
Because Pols Think they are Invincible (Matt H - 8/8/2008 4:00:47 PM)
Remember Paul Tsongus (sp) bragging that he beat cancer for good. They all have such large egos that we shouldn't be surprised when they act so recklessly.
I knew Paul Tsongas and John Edwards is no Paul Tsongas (Harry Landers - 8/9/2008 12:22:52 PM)
What? Bragging? Paul Tsongas' doctors told him that he was cancer-free. He had no symptoms. He was, seemingly, to him and the medical professionals, healthy. I attach no character deficiency to his behavior, nor would I call it reckless. In fact, he left the Senate when he was first diagnosed with cancer (and formed The Concord Coalition with Senator Warren Rudman). It was only after he was given a clean bill of health that he sought to return to political office.
John Edwards' behavior showed both a weakness of character and recklessness. It's unfair to equate Paul Tsongas' actions with those of Edwards. Give the guy a break!
I'm sorry, Lowell, you can't say no one's been hurt (Catzmaw - 8/8/2008 4:38:03 PM)
by his infidelity, nor can you say that he's not a hypocrite. Elizabeth's a marvelous, courageous woman and they have some beautiful children together. They grieved over their lost son together. She has spent her life working in tandem with him and building him up to the heights he's achieved, and this is the thanks she gets. What he has done hurt his wife and his family and I'm finding it impossible to say "who cares?".
on a personal level, I'm talking politics here. John Edwards will have to work this out with his wife, his conscience, his god, etc., but none of that is my business. That's what I meant when I said "who cares."
You don't know that, Catzmaw (aznew - 8/8/2008 4:57:58 PM)
Assuming you are not personally acquainted with EE, you actually have no idea how she feels about all this. Maybe she didn't mind. Maybe she is furious. I have no idea, and for all you know, Mrs. Edwards might be way more upset at the public discussion of her personal business than anything her husband might have done.
Catzmaw, I'm not harshing on you specifically or personally. Rather, it is the slippery slope of public morality that troubles me. Inevitably, it results in unfair judgments of a situation of which we are both ignorant of the facts and without any kind of vested personal interest.
Now, that said, we certainly have a political interest in John Edwards. As a political matter, this is pretty bad stuff. Regardless of the effect on his wife and family, having an affair is reckless behavior for someone who seeks to be President of the United States. How, in this day and age, could they possibly think it would not be exposed?
Elizabeth Edwards strike you as the type who "doesn't mind"? (Catzmaw - 8/8/2008 5:20:42 PM)
I don't think so. And I don't think she's going to get mad at the public doing what they always, predictably, do. Perhaps you can tell me what set of facts would be sufficient to make this behavior understandable because maybe I lack the imagination. Just take it from someone who has spent a great deal of time around divorcing people, who is herself divorced, and who is familiar with all the many ways people ostensibly in love can hurt each other - there is no way to put some lipstick on this pig and make it pretty.
As for the political ramifications of his behavior, I agree that he showed an appalling recklessness and disregard for the potential harm if the truth came out. What was he thinking?
No, she doesn't (aznew - 8/8/2008 6:14:30 PM)
but that is my point, exactly.
As for the set of facts to make it understandable, who knows what goes on in anyone's marriage? In my experience, people make all sorts of compromises in their lives.
All I'm saying is that you justified your outrage at John Edwards' personal behavior by invoking an injustice to his wife, and neither you, nor I, have any idea if that is the case.
Could not agree more, Lowell (KathyinBlacksburg - 8/9/2008 10:45:26 AM)
The hypocrisy thing is about the only reason justifying an "outing" of a private cheater (unrelated to the public's business). That is not to diminish in any way how disgusted I am in how Edwards treated Elizabeth. But that's not my business, really.
Having said that, Edwards (whom I briefly leaned toward before deciding once and for all to back Obama (before Edwards left the race)did put his neck on the chopping block when he condemned Bill Clinton is such stark terms. I am all for considering this "private" now since Edwards left the race. But he did waste the energy, resources (including donations) and energy of millions of people. The one thing he did wrong to citizens, imho, is running when he knew this would break.
Finally, I AM going to contrast the diff between how Democrats are handled vs., say, McCain. When McCain denies, that's good enough for the entire MSM. In the McCain (NY Times) recent scandal, there was so much more than a suggestion of an alleged impropriety. There was an allegation (shored up with four witnesses) a personal relationship (whether sexual or not) with Iseman, who had business before McCain's committee. This is a betrayal of the public trust. And the media resoundingly yawned and went back to sleep, except to play up their dreams of a McCain presidency.
Would we be taking the same approach... (Jerry Saleeby - 8/8/2008 3:56:57 PM)
...if it was a prominent Republican that was in the middle of this mess.
I'm sorry but the man was running for president when this took place. Is he that stupid that he didn't think he would he would be found out? It's a good thing he's not the nominee or the Democrats would be toast.
We can cry all we want about it being a private matter. The reality is that today nothing is private.
If the man had done this 10 years ago, it's irrelevant. But, to do it while running for president is just plain reckless.
The only reason I don't believe it (relawson - 8/8/2008 4:05:22 PM)
Is because if I had an affair going on and possibly a love child, I certainly wouldn't be running for President. Of course I would get caught, and I wouldn't want to put the nation through that.
If this is true - which it appears to be - wow, what a shame. I really pulled for John Edwards. I think I feel just a bit betrayed myself. I don't think a man in that circumstance should ask others to help him run for President when he is so close to a scandal.
That's the issue right there. (Lowell - 8/8/2008 4:06:48 PM)
If this is true, then what was Edwards thinking? Did he really believe this would never surface? Ee gads.
Yes, he did think no one would know (Teddy - 8/9/2008 11:37:58 AM)
He actually said that during a public interview, and in the very same breath in which he acknowledged it was an "error in judgment." That, of course, makes it all, ah right, right? As for hearing anything about McCain's honor and ethics in ditching his first wife and acquiring a trophy, well, that's old news. More recently, the likely menage a trois or whatever with the lobbyist campaign worker, that has nothing to do with anything, get your mind out of the gutter, he's war hero, you ass.
never trust a man.. (West Ailsworth - 8/8/2008 4:33:56 PM)
...who cheats on his wife. If he'll cheat on her, he'll cheat anyone.
As far as I know (Lowell - 8/8/2008 4:34:56 PM)
Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon never cheated on his wife. So, should we have trusted him? :)
Same with George W. Bush (VA Breeze - 8/8/2008 5:22:06 PM)
That is not responsive to what West was saying. Saying you can't trust a man who will cheat on his wife is NOT to say you can trust a man who won't cheat on his wife. There are obviously other things that disqualify a person from being trusted - such as, in Nixon's case, paranoid sociopathy.
Looks like a payoff to keep quiet! (rpm4peace - 8/8/2008 4:35:27 PM)
The nasty element for me, and I like Edwards, is the report (and I know the story is still emerging) of 100K paid for next to nothing of web/video work by an inexperienced designer. The charges are not just infidelity, insensitivity, and lying...they seem to go on to flagrant misuse of campaign funds.
Now THAT would be an issue (Lowell - 8/8/2008 4:37:38 PM)
"flagrant misuse of campaign funds"
Do we know if that's the case?
No experience (brimur - 8/8/2008 10:17:52 PM)
Apparently she had no experience doing what she was paid a shit ton of money to do. It doesn't look good. That coupled with the payments from Edwards national finance chair is pretty unbelievable.
As someone who seeks govt contracts (relawson - 8/8/2008 4:40:15 PM)
It rubs me the wrong way also. Although this isn't a gov contract, same type of situation. I don't know how much time and $$$ I wasted bidding on contracts that went to people who had some sort of personal relationship with the CO.
I don't even bother with the public sector anymore because of the crap that goes on. Just a waste of my time. One of the first things the Obama administration should clean up is government contracting, the SBA, and the entire procurement process. Just riddled with fraud.
Though I respect that you're defending the guy's privacy, Lowell (DanG - 8/8/2008 4:54:03 PM)
Perhaps you should check out this quote (courtesy of Political Wire)
"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."
-- John Edwards, quoted by the Raleigh News & Observer in 1999, on Bill Clinton.
Ugh. (Lowell - 8/8/2008 4:55:59 PM)
My god, are all politicians liars and/or hypocrites?
No. n/t (aznew - 8/8/2008 4:59:15 PM)
Agree Al (KathyinBlacksburg - 8/9/2008 10:48:06 AM)
I still don't believe they are all like that.
Yeah, that was mainly a moment of (Lowell - 8/9/2008 10:53:26 AM)
frustration. Obviously, there are good people in politics, and many more (most) who are simply complex human beings like everyone else on this planet.
Why is that not surprising (tx2vadem - 8/8/2008 6:43:12 PM)
Maybe he was seeing his Jungian Shadow?
But then he defended Clinton (VaD2 - 8/9/2008 1:13:23 AM)
For whatever it's worth...Don't forget that Edwards became one of Clinton's chief defenders following his election. During the trial in the Senate in '99 he was considered one of the architects of Clinton's defense.
Right... (DanG - 8/9/2008 8:51:46 AM)
It would be wise not to defend the hypocrisy, dude.
Yes, Edwards defended Clinton. But he still spoke down at the man. Just seems ironic to me that one who is so high-and-mighty falls for the same vice he criticized before.
I could care less (jasonVA - 8/8/2008 4:55:41 PM)
About the infidelity. But everybody should be p*ssed that he was seeking our party's nomination with this skeleton in the closet. How bad would that have sucked?
Agree (relawson - 8/8/2008 5:00:15 PM)
That could have changed the entire landscape of the nomination process had he not had his hat in the ring.
I was a strong Edwards supporter, but I'm a realist. You just can't win with these types of skeletons. Especially considering the circumstances - his wife has terminal cancer. He had no business in that race - and just imagine what his wife is going through right now. As if she doesn't have enough to worry about.
If anyone deserves a good punch in the nose right now, it's John Edwards.
Yeh, Maybe an olympic boxer would help (rpm4peace - 8/8/2008 5:09:01 PM)
And if someone like Edward's is going to lie to and cheat on the most important person in his life, in the most important relationship in his life, how does one know when they are or are not doing the same to us.
The bottom line is he lied to the public when he renounced those "lies" back in the fall of 2007 and kept running for president. As I stated, where would the party be right now if he were the nominee?
What a letdown (Barbara - 8/8/2008 5:34:42 PM)
The lack of honesty and lies do bother me, but the question of campaign funds bothers me more.
I thought for sure he'd be considered for AG, but I doubt it's on the table now.
John Edwards statement (Lowell - 8/8/2008 7:06:04 PM)
In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.
I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.
It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. 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. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.
I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.
I don't care (tx2vadem - 8/8/2008 7:23:00 PM)
Whenever these things come up, I think of Matthew 7:3 -"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I don't know either of the Edwards. My trust has not been betrayed. I am not expecting a paragon of virtue in my public officials. I am not looking to them for interpersonal relationship advice. I am not looking to them for guidance on how I should live my life. I am not looking to them for guidance on morality.
So, John Edwards owes me nothing in this regard. And I am in no place to judge him. I can recognize specific decisions as bad ones, but that doesn't give me enough insight into an individual's history, humanity, being to judge them.
Let's strip away everything else around this man and say there was only this. He could not be a public servant, because of the media's and by extension the public's obsession with the sex lives of celebrities. That to me is sad. Talent for performing specific tasks that we hire people to do should be our only concern. What they do outside of that, we should ignore.
I think you are right (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/9/2008 11:29:33 AM)
Obviously in America a celebrity's sex life matters, so I agree with those who ask "what was he thinking?" Knowing he had a skeleton in the closet, how voracious the press is about seeking out sex scandals, and how dumbly puritanical the public is, he shouldn't have run and taken the risk. Better still, he shouldn't have cheated on his wife to start with.
The truth, though, is that if having affairs was such a disqualifier for public office and was proof that a person who fell into temptation could never be trusted by the public, statesmen like Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson should have been disqualified from any office. Not to mention many very fine leaders in Europe, where they are more sensible about human failings.
It is a failing. It is a sin. But to believe that because a human being gave into temptation and had a lapse of morality, every other area of his, or her, life is tainted by dishonesty is to engage in two actual thought disorders. The first is dichotomous thinking - seeing everything in stark black or white terms - the other is over-generalization, the belief that because a person tells one lie, he must be a liar in everything.
Folks, real life doesn't work that way.
Paradoxically, some leaders have been honest and faithful to their wives and lied blatantly to the public. Richard Nixon comes to mind. So does G. W. Bush, who leds us into a war with his lies, now documented by Ron Suskind among others.
That doesn't mean that being faithful to your wife and family means you'll be a liar to the public either. There are actually some leaders who have been very decent and moral both in public and private. That is obviously the ideal. It's what I want in a leader.
But failing that, I'll at least try to see the nuances. Good people can do bad things. And, yes, bad people can also do good things, show compassion and have a decent streak in them somewhere and sometimes. It just all isn't black and white.
Interesting..... (Flipper - 8/8/2008 7:24:11 PM)
If Edwards is correct and his affair ended, making it impossible for him to be the father of this child, why is he in the guest room of his "former" lover holding this child on July 21, 2008?
The irony is, if this affair was truly over and he is not the father of this child, this very trip where he was caught skulking around at 2:30 a.m., at this hotel is really the event that cracked this story wide open.
What an idiot.
And look at that those pictures - he's sweating like a pig.
Well, there's an easy enough way to figure out the parentage (Catzmaw - 8/8/2008 7:32:32 PM)
and they don't have to go on the Maury show to do it. Someone needs to spring for a DNA paternity test.
Edwards has offered to take one (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/9/2008 11:32:05 AM)
He's a trial lawyer, familiar with forensic evidence. I don't think he'd do that if he knew he was the father. As to why he was in Rielle Hunter's room, he's explained that he was trying to convince her not to confirm the rumors. If that's true, it was a dumb move and, ironically, it's how he got truly caught.
He would offer to do it (Alicia - 8/9/2008 10:18:07 PM)
if he had already paid off Reille to refuse to take one.
And low and behold - today she put out a statement through her lawyer -- refusing to take one.
I smell - something.
What were they thinking? (spotter - 8/9/2008 12:37:27 AM)
I'm most disappointed with Elizabeth. They both had to know this would come out eventually. What if he had been the nominee? It would have destroyed any chance we had to move beyond our current disaster. Edwards and his wife both had perfectly legitimate reasons to back out of a run for the presidency. Instead, knowing what they knew, they gave us the brave speech about soldiering on. That speech sure looks a lot different now than it did a year ago.
I take two things from this: (1) once again, never trust a guy with two first names, (2) at some point (ahem, Hillary) you stop being a victim.
And what was Ms. Hunter thinking? (Teddy - 8/9/2008 12:00:23 PM)
I find it odd that no one, amid all this angst about John and Elizabeth, has mentioned the fact that Ms. Hunter also had a choice to make, and made the wrong one. She surely knew Mr. Edwards was a married man and a candidate for President; did she imagine she could replace Elizabeth and become First Lady if Edwards actually won? Or, First Mistress like Madame Pompadour or, say, Marilyn Monroe? Was she so overcome by passion that she ignored the harm her fling would cause to a boatload of good people, never mind the country? Talk about common, classic soap opera by a dilettante who was out of her league. Amusing, pitiable, fulsomely stupid. On the other hand, prominent Republicans both in and out of office do this sort of thing continuously, without penalty---- so, Why Not?
Why should we automatically assume that if a man decides he would like to have sex with a particular woman she will automatically jump at the marvelous opportunity--- does it never occur to you lads that she might Just Say No? And should have.
Oh Come On! (AnonymousIsAWoman - 8/9/2008 11:38:46 AM)
John 8:7 "When they persisted in questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." International Standard Version
Mathew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" New American Standard Version
Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
And that's just for criticizing Elizabeth and Hillary, who were VICTIMS of philandering but who happened to love their husbands.
Do you ever get off your high horse and exhibit compassion for women?
Nope. (spotter - 8/9/2008 1:53:38 PM)
I cannot for the life of me understand why a graduate of Yale Law School or UNC Law School would behave in this way. I see women every day who behave this way, and believe me, the results to themselves, their children, and others around them are not pretty. Both of these women have strength, intelligence, and resources that give them little reason to put up with and even further this kind of behavior.
I have plenty of compassion for women who are trying to get out of a bad situation, but none whatsoever for those who are themselves a part of the problem. And I don't think it's up to Democrats, or the public in general, to make excuses for a sleazeball just because he happens to be a Democrat.
and (spotter - 8/9/2008 5:20:06 PM)
what are these women teaching their daughters? Both have 26 year old daughters. Elizabeth Edwards has a seven and a nine year old son and daughter. She supposedly knew about the affair beforehand, and had to know it would eventually come out. Now she's complaining about the news helicopters over her house and the reporters in her driveway. While I am sure that this is all quite painful and intrusive, particularly when she is ill, the whole thing could have been avoided by just refraining from running for the presidency.
Women will get respect and equality when they demand it for themselves. When strong intelligent leaders like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards fall short, they set a poor example for their own children, for younger generations, and for all women.
Say goodbye to any chance John Edwards had of being Vice President, and most likely Attorney General as well.