Friday, August 8, 2008

Edwards' affair: Trite. Hypocritical. Ordinary.


Confession may be good for the soul, but what does it do for a former presidential candidate who was supposed to make a speech at the Democratic convention? John Edwards told ABC News today that, yes, he had an affair and he had lied about it while running for president, but that he wasn't the father of her baby.

According to ABC News' Web site, friends of the woman, Rielle Hunter, 44, said Edwards met her at a New York City bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience. Edwards told ABC the affair began after she was hired by his campaign. He also said that his wife, Elizabeth Edwards -- whose cancer was in remission at the time -- and others in the family learned of the affair in 2006.

How trite. How tawdry. How hypocritical. And how ordinary.

If American political life were scrubbed free of all men (and women) who'd had extramarital affairs, precious few would serve. Even Charlotte's own Republican Rep. Sue Myrick, a very public born-again Christian, had an affair before she married her current husband, Ed.

If affairs disqualified men for the presidency, we'd have had no FDR, no JFK, no Clinton, probably no Eisenhower. (No Warren G. Harding, either, but almost everyone agrees that would have been a good thing.) Thomas Jefferson wasn't married while he was president, but he fathered children with his late wife's slave (and half-sister).

Edwards' actions were sleazy, and his credibility is probably destroyed. Keep him off the speaker's podium at the convention. Please. But he's not even a candidate anymore. Can't we devote some of that considerable reporting energy expended on the Edwards love child story to some topics that, in the end, will make more of a difference to more people's lives?
-- MARY NEWSOM, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

9 comments:

NCSiO2 said...

We still don't know the truth about the child's paternity.

So, let's not rush to put this behind us until we do, yes? Edwards needs to submit to a paternity test and prove that he is telling the truth. His record of lies is too much for any sane person to take him at his word regarding whether this child is his.

RT said...

Why do we need to know the results of the paternity test? He's no longer running for president so I could care less. There are far more important issues that we should be concerned about. Let's just be glad he wasn't elected.

NCSiO2 said...

Yes, we should be glad that this dirtbag will never be President.0

But this is not some either/or thing. We can be concerned about his repeated, habitual lying and other things, as well.

The man lied. REPEATEDLY. And yet he still has some measure of authority, not only within the Democratic Party but also within the UNC school system, where he pulls in a considerable salary. Since he has lied and been caught doing so, we, the taxpayers of this state, deserve to know the truth about Mr. Edwards, including whether he is still lying about not being this child's father. Once we know the truth, we can proceed accordingly.

Only a Democrat or someone who is simply unconcerned with the truth would accept a half-truth from a bald-faced liar such as Edwards. It's not enough to accept what small amount of truth he has finally coughed up; we deserve to know it all.

dustinblythe said...

Writing from northern Indiana, we are sick about this. I had a small hope that he could have been named Obama's running mate. The odds were greater that he could have been nominated for attorney general. Now he could not run for dog catcher in Chapel Hill.

He cheated on Elizabeth while she was sick with cancer. He's done. He'll be crucified. What's worse, I will have to throw him under the bus. I supported him last year, even drove to Iowa to canvass for him in five degree weather before the caucus. I am sick.

I heard the rumors, but with the "Enquirer" being the source I dismissed the story. I could not believe it could be true. Say it ain't so...

RNM said...

Deny him a speaking role at the convention? OK. But what about fellow-philanderer Bill? Or do the Dems really want Clinton front and center so close to the 10th anniversary of Monicagate?

bsyr2k said...

Why do we continue to act surprised when news of this nature becomes public? This is a daily occurence in the workplace, church, and every other environment where men and women interact. From the 'Christian right', we never hear this is not for me to judge as we are admonished in the Bible. My sympathy goes out to the Edwards family, those who thought they knew him best, who have been betrayed at level most of us can't understand.

Larry said...

What brand of whitewash does the Observer prefer when they protect and promote people like this?

kuregal said...

So Hunter says she won't allow a
paternity test. Now we know why
Edwards was in that LA hotel room.
Once he'd convinced her not to
permit the test, he was free to
say that he would have one.

Tom said...

Since he has lied and been caught doing so, we, the taxpayers of this state, deserve to know the truth about Mr. Edwards, including whether he is still lying about not being this child's father. Once we know the truth, we can proceed accordingly.

What interest does the taxpayer have in the paternity of Rielle Hunter's lovechild? It goes without saying that Edwards has disgraced himself out of any further political acendance, so what voyeuristic purpose would there be in continuing to pursue the "truth" about his sexual pecadilloes at the expense of the privacy of mother and child?

The taxpayers have no more right to a paternity test on Edwards than they do to a paternity test on me our you. Unless you are the host of a WBT radio show, there is no reason to dig any further into the sordid details of this affair.