Good-Bye, John Edwards

posted by Katha Pollitt on 08/09/2008 @ 1:30pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (75)

Subscribe Now

So now we know. John Edwards did have sex with that woman, Rielle Hunter, just as the National Enquirer said. So much for all those jokes about Bat Boy and Hillary's alien baby. I always thought the Edwards rumors were true, because rumors like that usually are (says she cynically) , and I defended this view in many an e mail. But every time I started to write something about it here I would get into a debate about monogamy, privacy, Puritanism, the reliability of tabloids etc with one of our more polyamorous editors, and the air would leak out of my balloon. I would think, Well, really, what do I know? and Oh why add to poor Elizabeth's troubles? I still sort of think that.

So good-bye to Edwards, aka the electable white man. I suppose you could say he's done the nation a favor by further tarnishing that overrated and outdated brand. (If you don't want to hear about women who give themselves names like Rielle and their love children, elect more female candidates!) If he had had more substance to begin with -- a thicker resume, more raw political talent,a bigger, more enthusiastic following, a more, how to put this, compelling and endearing personality -- an affair might not be fatal to his future. After all, Clinton got elected despite Gennifer Flowers. But , as Gail Collins points out, there just wasn't that much to Edwards, besides his policy proposals. Apparently the electorate intuited that. Fortunately, or we'd have just handed the election to McCain.

I supported Edwards because he was the only candidate who talked seriously about inequality, but the truth is I never liked him -- the 28,000 square foot house, the canned son-of-a-millworker routine, the endless parading of his family and its perfections, the (as it seemed to me) politically manipulative use of his son's tragic death and his wife's cancer. "I care about the policy, not the person," one of his academic advisers told me when I confessed my visceral dislike, and I felt properly rebuked for my superficiality. What, after all, did I really know about Edwards the person? What difference did his little vanity vibes make when compared with poverty, which only Edwards was willing to declare scandalous -- and curable?

Time -- and if not Time, the Enquirer -- will tell if he's telling the truth that Rielle Hunter's daughter isn't his, and that he knows nothing about the large sums of money being paid to Hunter and self-proclaimed Other Man and baby father Andrew Young. Color me skeptical. And next time, I'm going to trust my instincts more. For good reasons and bad, the person does matter.

Comments (75)

Sadly... it is a pleasure to live down Mr. Edwards...

...as a 'shining example' of liberal lifestyle hypocrisy.

If only I didn't have so much in common with him...;^)

Posted by ttr at 08/09/2008 @ 2:34pm
John can leave his stricken wife, marry the younger woman (even better if she has a ton of cash), and all will be forgave and forgotten in 25 years....

oh, wait...were we talking about Edwards?

I mean McCain!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 3:08pm
"there just wasn't that much to Edwards, besides his policy proposals."

somehow this statement troubles me.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 3:57pm
"(If you don't want to hear about women who give themselves names like Rielle and their love children, elect more female candidates!)"

Wait a minute. Edwards couldn't have had the affair had THE FEMALE said no to him. The mistress, no less than the husband, is morally blameworthy in adultery.

As for electing more female candidates, the evidence thus far suggests that women legislate just as awfully as men. Senators Feinstein, Hutchison and Clinton all voted for the Iraq war. They all voted for military pork projects. They all stand with Israel, right or wrong. They're all in the palm of corporate lobbyists.

Such female figures as Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Benazir Bhutto are not what one would call paragons of virtue either.

Posted by KSP556 at 08/09/2008 @ 3:59pm
I supported Edwards because he was the only candidate who talked seriously about inequality, but the truth is I never liked him....

Well, we agree basically on that. Edwards put over the table a real left agenda, much more clear to the left than Obama, I supported him strongly initially...but as I said then and repeat now, he did not seem to be a leader, he look at the most as a union chief, a critic, not a manager, less a put into action person. His "two Americas" talk was great and opened the eyes of some but he was not able to galvanize people into viable solutions. I think he never could overcome his trial lawyer way of argumenting and theorizing but still seeming somehow detached of the bottom line.

And about affairs..I don't think they should mean a thing in the political realm. Is so sad that we have to peep that way into public figures' private life. It is really sad and I regret it for Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, a person that I like very much not only because of her courage over her personal circumstances but because her ideas are quite clear and strong and she is also a great debater.

I hope that if Obama makes it to the Presidency, Edwards will be given a Cabinet-like duty to head an action committee that will fight extreme poverty in the US, he deserves it.

Posted by Frank42 at 08/09/2008 @ 4:49pm
Somehow, unfidelity tends to rear up its ugly head on the campaign trail. Ask Bill Clinton. The explanation might lie in the area of perfromance enhancing medications. Campaining requires almost superhuman endurance. I figure some candidates have to rely on stimulants to keep running, while popular stimulants enhance the sex drive and make people feel 'egotistic, narcissistic', above the law, etc. There's nothing they can do about it. Pity the dopehead pol! Urine tests, anyone?

Posted by Sick Rat at 08/09/2008 @ 5:22pm
Happy-The only one slipping into kool aide land is the person who believes that committing adultery is somehow different if one plans on running for POTUS soon or if one is planning on using the new rich wife in order to have a political career in the first place.McCain dumped his wife for the younger rich one.Edwards is still with his wife.Committing adultery is committing adultery and excusing McCain because he is a republican is pathetic,but shows the hypocrisy of the right when you question Clintons character for committing adultery,but then nominate an adulterer for the position of POTUS.Nice family values..

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/09/2008 @ 6:20pm
Katha generally makes sense except when she doesn't. I think the term is"piling on". Stay away from the John Edwards thing, let Elizabeth handle it. She is brighter than all of us. John Edwards was right by focusing on the damage American Globals are doing to the American labor force. Rielle is a male ego accident, like a female mid life thing. Give it a rest Katha, you sound petty. Let's all pray for a miracle for Elizabeth's cancer. How about some attention to medical research? Yes I agree American politics is, "in fact", so petulant and petty that John Edwards may be finished. All to the power of the gluttonous corporation that are in the process of selling out the rest of the country to insure the security of their gated communities and individual CEO pay the size of small countries. I think it is a tremendous loss to us as a nation. Aren't we about to elect an old war hero that left his wife in a hospital bed.

Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2008 @ 6:54pm
And from the bio that I read Senantor McCain was pretty good at messing around wink wink. The tabloid press is hemorrhaging into mainstream media and Georgia is burning. Wow we are saved once again by our brave and courageous journalist doing their investigative duties by stirring around in sewage. Thank you, thank you.

Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2008 @ 7:18pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/09/2008 @ 3:21pm

Uh, HAPP...that was my point.

25 years from now, given your standard, Edwards could run for President as a former adulterer...

and you couldn't say a damn thing, given you have no problem with "how John met Cindy"!

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 7:44pm
Wow Happ has officially entered Happyland. I think I know where all his happiness comes from now.

Women cheat when a relationship is over, men cheat because they can. The sad part is John Edwards was either so arrogant he thought he'd get away with it or so stupid that he didn't recognize the consequences. Since he's a pretty smart guy, I'm going with the former, and he should stew in the happenings of his own divising. Does it matter? Only in that he's now shown as a hubristic jerk. And that doesn't entirely inspire folks to follow you. Beyond that a few papers get sold and life marches on.

Posted by yutsano at 08/09/2008 @ 8:17pm
Hey zero, I find that the louder the puritans yell the more guilty they themselves are. Small minded, anal, little creeps that yell at the waitress if the fork isn't straight. We elected this born again that has invaded a country on an ego trip, killed thousands of innocent civilians, displaced four million from their homes and turned them into refugees, ruined American soldiers lives and families, introduced this country to torture, and we are stirring into a families private sewage, because of a man's mid life crises. We are about to elect a wrinkly faced white haired old dude whose married life makes Edwards little affair look like a choir boys escapade. Looks like Edwards just had a me too thing. I don't care what ol' Andrea Mitchell says. She looks so sour lately that she "should" have an affair. I think old Al needs his Viagra. These are the same people that would have chanted" CRUCIFY HIM". Leave them to their small minded little amen groups and trust in the humanity of the majority.

Posted by julien38 at 08/09/2008 @ 8:47pm
I don't care what Edwards did. I delight in the loss of perceived moral authority that has happened. Now, the "2-Amerikka's" crap will dry up and blow away, slowing for a little while the descent into socialism. Thank you Mr Edwards!

Posted by sntauri at 08/09/2008 @ 9:32pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/09/2008 @ 7:54pm

So it's simply a matter of "timing"?

You got no problem with guys fooling around on their wives running for President...as long as the fooling around and running are separated by a few decades?

Interesting, if complext rule you have there.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/09/2008 @ 10:33pm
So you resent Edwards because he is a man?

When you say things like "If you don't want to hear about women who give themselves names like Rielle and their love children, elect more female candidates!" you really eat away at any credibility you my have. By making unsubstantiated claims that women are somehow inherently less likely to do something sleazy than men and arguing that women should be elected just because of their gender you perpetuate an inequality. Women should be elected to political office, but they should only be elected when they are the best candidate for the job. There needs to be a certain color blindness.

Ms. Pollitt, to come out saying "I never liked him" when a scandal likes this breaks makes you seem petty and vindictive. I really enjoy reading much of what The Nation has to offer, with your contributions being the notable exception.

Posted by ThePedro at 08/09/2008 @ 11:51pm
WOW--- i finally feel safe to say something- by now no one is reading this entire load of absurd crap you folks have written--- it was summed up already by one of the most intelligent blatherings posted-- scroll way back up to one by frosty zoom ---repeating MS POLLIT'S OWN POSIT BACK AT HER!

"there just wasn't that much to Edwards, besides his policy proposals."

somehow this statement troubles me

ME TOO!

If we want the focus to be on the Policies, then the choice is clear-- the Nation should start looking into the sex life of every Republican possible-- instead of focusing on opinions like Ms Pollitts, put Katha on the trail of Mitch McConnell --- sniff around and make him squirm--- at the very least annoy him to the point of vexation-- and report every juicy detail and somehow cleverly force the mainstream FOX to cover his vexation. PLAY THE GAME FOOLS!

i am reading you, not the WSJ--but wow!! the Left are the League of Wimps -- i.e. who cares who fucks who-- OH IT'S AN ISSUE? OK, LET'S LOOK AND LOOK AND BANG AWAY --perhaps Huckabee is secretly Fuck-a-Tree, placing his member in the Holy Oak--- start playing rough because this is all that this is--- McCain DID FUCK AROUND ON HIS WIFE--- to be honest, i have been on this planet for over half a century-- and forgive me brothers for violating the secret, unwritten, unspoken code----

Ladies, your husbands have almost all had at least ONE TIME fucked someone else while with you. It's normal, apparently - .. so go ahead men, LIE about it, i don't blame you -- it's what men do

i care about policies not puerilities--generals not genitals--and RESULTS---

so far so there have been some mighty effective philanderers--

so GET OVER IT! AND LET'S GET TO WORK MAKING OUR WORLD A BETTER PLACE.

or sit and snivel ---

Posted by scrapwank at 08/10/2008 @ 01:49am
In America you can get away with almost anything if your rich and powerfull. Look at the Bush Crime Family. But don't dare do the Dicky Dance and get caught. Naughty, Naughty. We are a Nation of Children...

Posted by chaoszen at 08/10/2008 @ 03:43am
I think the media should stop acting like a pack of wolves. In their effort to "report" they drag his wife and kids through unnecessary pain.

Good people make bad choices and we all have feet of clay. WWJS--let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

He did the proper thing at the time; he told his wife and asked for her forgiveness. They handled it privately and appropriately. It is none of our business, from my perspective.

I know that this will sound freaky, but if it were me, (as the wife) I would appreciate it if he lied in order to keep the wolf like press out of our faces. As a wife, I would rather not have to listen to marginally principled journalists ruminate about my husband that I have dedicated my life to. Especially when I'm fighting cancer.

I think that if I can forgive him for a fling, I can forgive him for a lie to protect our privacy. But that's just me.

However, the fact that he ran for president while knowing he could go down in a flame of shame, is rather disturbing. That could have been a disaster.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 08/10/2008 @ 04:48am
So happy that the MSM has a new sex scandal to gnaw on for the next 4 months or so. Just curious though - how come no MSM outcry that the former governor of NJ who finally came out doesn't have to pay alimony? How come no righteous anger from our female journalists? Sorry but Edwards' affair isn't that big of a deal on our sociopolitical screen. Anymore now when a politician doesn't have an affair you almost have to wonder about him. . .

Posted by Greytdog at 08/10/2008 @ 09:15am
Posted by PrairieDeb at 08/10/2008 @ 04:48am

Well said. I quite agree.

Posted by KSP556 at 08/10/2008 @ 09:37am
Quite a few years ago, I read an article that cited statistics on the SAT scores of quite a few college majors.....holding up the bottom quartile or half, were Education & Journalism majors. The trendline was clear......lower and lower % of Americans were majoring in the tougher sciences where the SAT scores had held up.....while more & more were `cruising' to the soft stuff like Education, Journo., Communications....

Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/09/2008 @ 2:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I resent your disparaging comments about journalism majors. While I admit learning the inverted pyramid style is not as taxing as quantum physics, that doesn't mean we don't spend our spare time in meaningful pursuits.

I was in college as feminism was emerging. Concordant with that movement was sexual liberation. I was proud and honored to be known as the kind of guy who would always sacrifice his body for the cause.

I do have a question for anyone as to social graces. The MSM refers to Ms. Reille as a 'former' or 'ex' mistress even though Edwards was with her a few weeks ago. When does a woman officially become part of your past? Is it two weeks? Is it one week? Is it when you put your pants back on?

I fervently await a reply.

Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 08/10/2008 @ 09:50am
Even as few as two decades ago, I was wiser than you are today....

Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/10/2008 @ 12:15pm

suggested reading:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/The-Big-Brag-Se

uss/9780679991496-item.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 1:55pm
obama is still squeeky clean. no fall out.

life goes on.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/10/2008 @ 2:24pm
Edwards was not the only candidate who talked about inequality! Dennis Kucinich did so and far more eloquently. He is, as far as I am concerned, the only one of the original bunch who is actually qualified to be president.

Posted by cnigelross at 08/10/2008 @ 3:41pm
Hey, 2Happy...you need to get a life.

Posted by realgonecat at 08/10/2008 @ 9:14pm
Winterkill

WINTERKILL is one of the TOP TEN MYSTERIES OF 2003 according to Oline Cogdill of the South Florida Sun Sentinal: "Few mystery authors who use the environment as a plot foundation are as even-handed and clear-eyed as Box. In his third novel, Box blends the hot-button issue of survivalists, the FBI interventions at Waco and Ruby Ridge and personal freedom into a thrilling and heart-wrenching plot."

<<<<<>>>>>

i'll stick to seuss, thanks.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 12:02am
hey, thanks hap.

ooh, we've loads and loads of books.

plus, the local library has many great titles.

listen, why don't you do that?

donate those kids books to a needy local library.

and give them the money you would have spent shipping them (books are heavy) so they can go out and by some brand new copies of seuss......

but again,

thanks.

p.s. don't taint the donation with any of that sowell :=]

p.s.s. sowell food! heheh

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 02:53am
'Told you so. Why didn't every progressive listen when Russ Feingold cited Edwards' voting record? It doesn't take a four a.m. CSPAN-watcher to have found Edwards voted for the Iraq war and pushed the credit card industry bill years ago...even Hillary opposed that. It was only a sign of desperation in the "loser" Democrat faction, the ones who cower when Karl Rove flicks his little finger, that Edwards was embraced as a hope but it was primarily because of his looks. What gets me is that there are many liberals among us who felt "safe" and secure" riding the white horse..many who claim that though they themselves are not rascist, they fear that others are. Fears motivated their choice to pass over an obviously gifted and promising candidate, Obama.

Posted by hrayovac at 08/11/2008 @ 10:43am
Edwards screams "phony." Can't wait to see pics of the kid as soon as she's old enough to have her features deciphered.

Posted by swanny58 at 08/11/2008 @ 11:33am
"(If you don't want to hear about women who give themselves names like Rielle and their love children, elect more female candidates!)"

yeah we could have heard more about Mark Penn and his free trading, union busting clinents instead. What an attractive option.

Posted by alexmhogan at 08/11/2008 @ 11:37am
TO MR., MRS,. OR MS. SWAMMY58. is you %&(*^)^#@%& me? Thank god for the ignore list.

Posted by julien38 at 08/11/2008 @ 1:19pm
KATHA, So we are an overrated and tarnished brand eh? Another absurd comment by the "enlightened" ones who constantly and self righteously pine for the decline of their own. Perhaps one day she'll get her wish: After all, history is full of the advent and decline of great peoples. Perhaps Katha will find whatever rises next more to her liking. Perhaps then she'll learn to be careful what she wishes for.

Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2008 @ 1:23pm
"For good reasons and bad, the person does matter." That may be true, but do you, Katha Pollitt, really believe it? Puh-leeze!! If Margaret Sanger were alive today, you'd excuse her open racism and advocacy of eugenics, so long as it served the cause of bringing contraception and abortion to women. Character certainly didn't count when a neo-Stalinist group stood at the forefront of all those protests of the impending Iraq War. And in the future, when female candidates bring to the table experiences like squashing unions, you'll either extol them or at least play down their bunions and warts. Just like you didn't want to talk about how the leading witch-hunters in the Satanic-abuse fiasco were feminists acting as feminists. No, the only time the person matters to you is when that person is a white male who steps in a pile of dog shit he should have seen coming. How sad. Paul Mattick must have really done a number on your psyche.

Posted by DP in TC at 08/11/2008 @ 1:51pm
So, Edwards was running for president while this little skeleton was in his closet. He could have been nominated, and this would come out...what a party that would have been. Young rich men with power, attractive to the ladies...no one is looking...thought Bill Clinton and Edwards, "who could possibily find out"? You guys better hope Obama is not hiding something behind those eyes. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by pyeatte at 08/11/2008 @ 2:27pm
Maybe if Katha looked more like a lefty BABE she wouldn't be getting flamed here (wouldn't have been DISSED by the 'polyamorous' editor who wouldn't let her do the story). John Nichols can praise the Enquirer all he wants---but the NATION shoulda had this story. Yes, putting forth a POLICY is NOT enough. Obama just voted for FISA (and stop blaming Hillary for the war-given obama's sell outs on 'clean coal' and biofuels and nukes and expanding the war on Osama bin DEAD into afghanista and pakistan---well, we might soon WISH Hillary hadn't been elbowed outta the race by Edwards and Barry) --Hillary voted against it. Where was the Nation reminding us of how Hillary got such bad press for knock down drag out arguments (?) with Bill about Lani Guinier, etc.. I've always thought she was the campaign strategist of the couple--definitely the more resolute lefty. I hope the dems have a REAL convention--but with plans 2 open with the presumptive candidate's Daley machined up WIFEY, well, there's always hope with the instant runoff second choice ballots and the Green Party. Someday it'll be 'safer' to vote our conscience. And speaking of conscience---looks to me like Katha's about the only one on staff with one of those. Too bad we older gals aren't seen as 'telegenic enough', eh?

Posted by TD101 at 08/11/2008 @ 2:38pm
"So good-bye to Edwards, aka the electable white man."

Pretty good nutshell, that. The only thing that would make it better is if the author hadn't joined the "electable anyone-but-That-Woman" not-that-woman" crowd who IMO were and continue to be a big part of the Obama campaign.

I remember Pollit expressing her view in 2004 that Edwards comes across as ... phony [my word, forget her exact ones]. I agreed, but still I admired the good qualities he has. Hope he bounces back -- I still see him an Obama Administration, somewhere. Maybe.

Posted by RLawrence at 08/11/2008 @ 2:39pm
I USED TO THINK Edwards could be a great attorney general. He'll be lucky not to be indicted over this--the campaign funds are a HUGE issue and the media is ignoring it. I would never have voted for Teddy Kennedy either, by the way. I mean--Mary Jo was a PERSON--not as rich as trustfund princess Caroline (I mean why was SHE vetting candidates? and we WONDER why Dems look more and more elitist?) but her life DID matter. No, Elizabeth Edwards also has my disdain---they KNEW about this---and were joining Barry and Michelle in looking down their noses at Hillary--the one candidate I feel who really could win over McCain so decisively that it won't be able to be stolen. Maybe with Hillary as veep we can still beat McCain.

Posted by TD101 at 08/11/2008 @ 2:49pm
And another 'nother thing! I hope there is a VOTE on the FLOOR because I think Hillary is the best candidate among the two left standing. I wanted Kucinich. I think Hillary's the only one who can win. I don't trust the Obamas, though I'm voting and working for them, but, DAMN!

Posted by TD101 at 08/11/2008 @ 3:11pm
I think that the media and people in this country have a screwed up sense of priorities. We will destroy a politician's career if they commit a sexual sin, but not if they lied this country into a war that has cost the lives of 4000 American soldiers and half a million innocent Iraqi cilvians. Edwards has sinned but he is still a good overall person who is forcefull advocate for labor unions and fighting poverty. I would like to point that both FDR and RFK came from wealthy families and were nortorious womanizers. That did not stop either of them from being strong advocates for the poor and disadvantaged in society. If the only thing that we look at in a politician is whether or not they are good husbands, than we deserve the terrible leaders we get in Bush and Cheney.

Posted by steverouse2001 at 08/11/2008 @ 6:00pm
Heard Ed Schultz on Air America going on and on about how he's sick of politicians lying. But this Edwards thing seems weirder than lying. At least with Bill Clinton it's clear that he was hiding facts from his spouse -- which is pretty much the definition of the "sin" at issue, so it's hard to think of it as being some sort of speical political crime. Plus he was in legal jeopardy.

But with Edwards you get the impression that the spouse must have known for some time, and that together they decided to pursue the presidency in spite of this time bomb -- even though they were in no legal jeopardy, didn't need the presidency, and could have quietly worked at some foundation or something and angled quietly for some plum appointment down the road. Crazy hubris, truly blind ambition. All those volunteers and employees working for them! Endorsements from prominent people, labor unions. And, after Iowa, trying to edge out HRC to make it a two-candidate race -- no, two-"man" race, of course. Knowing all along...

So, I don't agree that "it's about the lying." It's not some guy lying about an affair, or even a politician lying to a journalist (although that's doubleplus ungood.) It seems to be two very, very unthinking, self-involved people aiming for the main chance with reckless disregard for the feelings of other people.

Er, not to pile on, or anything.

Posted by RLawrence at 08/11/2008 @ 7:34pm
RE: Good bye John ...

Well, we've long been suspecting some troubled things in Edwards. He attacked bubba, he left his ailing wife in hospital and scutlled here and there. How bout the other nice-nicey guy Obama?

---------

Edwards 'Nightline' interview a ratings bust By Paul J. Gough

Aug 11, 2008, 07:03 PM ET NEW YORK -- Friday night's exclusive "Nightline" interview with former presidential candidate John Edwards, which rocked the media landscape earlier in the day, did little to boost the news program's ratings, although it was able to hold its audience against the Olympics opening ceremony on NBC.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/11/2008 @ 10:13pm
Just Another Lying Liar

You might recall how the idiots at the nation enthused after Spitzer of New York falled (just because that would harm HRC). Now of course they mum about that f-g lying liar John Edwards of the Obamaland. Spitful.

---------

After the Affair Melinda Henneberger takes readers' questions about the John Edwards sex scandal.

Posted Monday, Aug. 11, 2008, at 4:49 PM ET Slate "XX Factor" blogger Melinda Henneberger was online on Washingtonpost.com to chat with readers about the John Edwards sex scandal. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

Time and Resources: I somewhat understand the angst about news channels/papers not reporting the Edwards story, but it is mitigated by two things. Firstly, he isn't that important. Yeah, he might have been on the cabinet, but even without the reporting that seemed less likely, so if he is just some random politician without an office, why should the public care?

Secondly, it was an affair. He didn't

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/11/2008 @ 11:39pm
Got along without ya Before I met ya Gonna get along without you now. Gonna find somebody who's twice as nice, Cause I didn't like you anyhow. Good-bye John Edwards, Good-bye old pal, Gonna get along without ya now.

Posted by jsens at 08/12/2008 @ 12:59pm
All I'm going to say is who the hell are you, Katha Pollit? A little self absorbed and grandiose perhaps?

If everyone were honest, and searched back through his or her family tree, lo and behold, I guarantee you'd find transgressions equal to Edward's if not worse. Welcome to being a human being. If the media and citizens would quit elevating candidates to infallible status, maybe events like this wouldn't dominate the news. So what? This is none of our business. Jesus Christ, aren't there enough other pressing issues facing this country, like our oil addiction, our involvement with torture, species extinction, poverty (to which Edwards brought sincere and great visibility), impeaching that idiot current dictator we call our president who has murder on his hands, his oil crony Vice President lying to satisfy socio-pathic tendencies, the mortgage crisis, finding new alternative energy solutions that deserve our focus? Should I keep going? Why don't you all get lives and focus on what matters so we might heal this devastated country? I would still vote for John Edwards if he were running, which is not condoning infidelity, it is, however, forgiving it. There are far more pressing issues than someone's private life. Elizabeth Tjader

Posted by eatjader at 08/12/2008 @ 1:04pm
There is more sleaze reported in Harper's. It's about his poverty funding and where the money went. You can read it at harpers.com. This information was ignored on Daily Kos where the majority continue the luv fest.

Two things made me turn against Edwards.

1. Edwards' response to the question why he did not have his wife standing beside him during the ABC interview (aka closing argument for the defense). In his response he showed no solicitude for Elizabeth. He said "I don't need somebody - uh - I don't need a shield." So that's it, his wife = shield, his mistress = mistake.

2. Reading in Harper's about where the money for the now defunct poverty funds went.

Posted by Marilyn-08 at 08/12/2008 @ 1:06pm
Why don't we just put a big red "A" on the forehead (or at least resume) of every politician, reporter, columnist, blogger, priest, voter, soldier, publisher and editor?

I wonder if Alexander Cock Burn has ever fucked anyone other than his legal wife? Does the public deserve to know?

Clear the air.

- Mike Draper

Posted by Ganesh83 at 08/12/2008 @ 1:14pm
Katha--

I'm more cynical than you are.

I automatically assumed that the rumors were true, despite the source.

I think it's his kid.

I think the groupie is being paid child support.

I think she was on fertility drugs.

Posted by connieboyd at 08/12/2008 @ 1:26pm
let's a take a quick look back repugnicants: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Mark Foley...and so on.

And if that's not enough for you check out this fascinating list ...

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

so all you holier than thou repugnicant moralists should shut the F up...

Posted by sirhcus at 08/12/2008 @ 1:39pm
Get back on the ball! Far more important are the candidate's ,scumbag McCain, infidelity and the Penn-Clinton clique using the Edwards 'scandal' to supplement their move toward at a palace coup.

Posted by sandiaman at 08/12/2008 @ 1:44pm
get a life. He didn't do it to you and unlike a very popular ex-president who did far worse and lied ot the counrty. Before you get on your high horses I voted for him twice and so I believe i can speak to it. Of course I wouldn't vote for him for anything. Back to John Edwards this happens all the timeIt's hard to find a politician in Washinton who's on his first wife. The bottom line is it isn't our business and who cares anyway.

Posted by esalter at 08/12/2008 @ 1:58pm
This article/editorial whatever is horsecrap. She says "(If you don't want to hear about women who give themselves names like Rielle and their love children, elect more female candidates!)" Who do you think the guys are cheating with. I hate it when women point to infedelitous men and say a woman wouldn't do that--bullshit!

So focus on the real issue which is John Edwards let us down. And don't give me this i knew it all along crap I don't buy it. He new how important this election was and f*cked it up by listening to his Johnson. I don't care that he had an affair, but he picked a hell of a time to do it. Moron. I'm glad he's not president, and I voted for him, this shows he lacks judgement, i think we dodged a bullet with that guy. I'm sorry I didn't throw my support for Dennis K. He wouldn't have won, but at least i wouldn't feel like a duped ass right now.

Posted by Dark_Presence at 08/12/2008 @ 2:06pm
Anyone working for Obama's campaign is just wating time and effort, based upon evidence that the birth certificate his campaign has presented is a forgery, he very well may be Constitutionally unqualified for the presidency. He will be, if he cannot prove he was born in the USA, and thus far he has failed to present such proof.

Posted by Banshee5 at 08/12/2008 @ 2:41pm
Of course, it's his kid.

Posted by Banshee5 at 08/12/2008 @ 2:48pm
"there just wasn't that much to Edwards, besides his policy proposals." somehow this statement troubles me. Posted by frosty zoom

Yeah, that troubled me as well. If not policy, what do we look for in a candidate? Good looks and a sparkly smile? Someone "we'd like to get a beer with"? Maybe someone who mirrors our ethnicity/religion/gender?

This statement bothered me equally: "If you don't want to hear about women who give themselves names like Rielle and their love children, elect more female candidates!"

So are you saying there is something wrong with the person's name that deserves your disdain? Or maybe with the pejorative "love child" your are suggesting this baby somehow deserves your scorn? And, oh yeah, if we had just elected a woman, everything would be OK. Ann Coulter, perhaps?

I rarely comment on stories, but your post hit a nerve. I blame attitudes like yours for why my 21 year old daughter holds feminists and feminism in such low regard.

Posted by artie-chimney at 08/12/2008 @ 3:25pm
so the reason we respect ms politt's opinions is that we don't know about her sex life yet?

C. Pedersen

Posted by kold at 08/12/2008 @ 3:40pm
I'm wondering why so much is being said about a man whose political career on the national stage was over before the story came out.

He ran as a candidate in 2004 and lost all but one (South Carolina) primary; this time around he came in third in SC. For whatever reason, he didn't connect with the nation as a whole. There was something about him that people did not care for -- I thought him smarmy. That may be unfair, but when I compared him to Richardson, my first choice, Clinton, Obama and the others running he always ranked last.

As far as I'm concerned this story is no more relevant than if it were about any other private citizen.

Posted by empeegee at 08/12/2008 @ 3:47pm
Ms Pollitttt, you give new meaning to chauvinism and arrogance. ...names like Rielle, elect women ... I just can't tell whether you are promoting bigotry or opposing it. Why do you care so very much about someone else's sex life?

Posted by Bob Pomeroy at 08/12/2008 @ 4:11pm
Katha,

You supported him but you didn't like him? Your posting is the most passive-aggressive bunch of snottiness I have ever witnessed. Congratulations! You have actually succeeded in surpassing my mother. I hope everyone gets the 'creeps' as much as I did reading your blather.

cjk

Posted by Abraham at 08/12/2008 @ 4:13pm
Hahahahahahahahahaha! Typical liberal hypocrisy once again! Gavin Newsome, Spitzer, his replacement ( another Dem. ), Clinton, Edwards etc. These actions, and the loser sheep/followers that either dimsiss them as " human " or " a mistake", accurately showliberals are nothing but severely flawed losers who continue betray those closest to them. Yet the morons on the left somehow think these people can be trusted to run our country when they can't even run their own lives honesty and honorably. Pathetic! John Edwards is the low-life hypocrite that all free thinking people knew he was long ago!!!!!!!!! LOL!

Posted by barry25 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:46pm
Damn, John Edwards is not perfect, I guess I'm the only one left!

Posted by dryheatpete at 08/12/2008 @ 5:55pm
I'm with the people who think that this affair is nobody's business but the Edwards'. If there's any "story" here, it's where the payoff money came from and that is what should have been investigated, if anything- if that angle isn't just an excuse to engage in childish gossip. The lead for that story should have been Edwards' personal use of campaign funds- if that turned out to have actually happened- with the involvement of the mistress as secondary.

The fact is, lots of marriages end in divorce in this country and lots of divorces involve some infidelity, especially toward the end. Still other marriages survive infidelity and in most cases outsiders know nothing about it. Any adult knows love ain't tidy. What's the big deal?

And why do we seem to have a different standard of virtue for Democrats?

What does someone being named "Rielle" have to do with it, anyway?

Reason with me now, folks: If we get more women in public office some of them will probably HAVE names like "Rielle". And since I'd like to see more women in office, I don't really see that as a problem- even if they occasionally do the foolish things people do.

I didn't support Edwards. He was always sort of my second choice, tho.

I think a whole lot of us need to GROW UP in this country. Or the right wing will keep distracting us from focusing on issues that REALLY MATTER.

Posted by Odilon at 08/12/2008 @ 6:43pm
Oh yeah and for those of you who keep saying "Don't look at me, I was for Kucinich," if there was ever a person whose bio screams "interesting private life" if would be Dennis Kucinich. But it's just that- his PRIVATE life. And we should support his right to that privacy not point to him as some supposed shining example of moral purity.

Posted by Odilon at 08/12/2008 @ 7:03pm
dryheatpete: "Damn, John Edwards is not perfect, I guess I'm the only one left!"

It's just you and me, Pete. Just you and me. And, frankly, I wonder about you.

:-)

Posted by Odilon at 08/12/2008 @ 7:06pm
Forgive me for being rude, but I have been sitting here hysterically laughing at your article. Aside from me not giving a hoot about whether you liked Edwards personally, can you answer me one question?

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? "But, as Gail Collins points out, there just wasn't that much to Edwards, besides his policy proposals. Apparently the electorate intuited that."

Shouldn't policy proposals, specific ideas on how to execute and fund proposals for domestic and foreign policy be at the forefront of voters' minds when they select a President?

John Edwards may be an adulterer and a liar (like most politicians in Washington D.C.) but I hate to tell people like you (who are looking for more than substance to pick the next leader of the free world) that he had innovative solutions for today's problems.

Cheating on his wife doesn't mean he is any less sincere about bridging the gap between the haves and the have nots. There aren't any successful crusaders against the rich for the poor, who lack funds. He lives in a big house. So does John McCain. So did John Kerry. The Bush's have how many mansions? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I'm disappointed in myself that I even spent time replying to this post. Only a baffoon ackowledges that solid policy proposals, and a fight for inequality aren't enough to choose a President. Can anyone say George Bush? He was likable and look where that got us.

Posted by colinmincy at 08/12/2008 @ 7:58pm
"john was 40 and wanted to be 25 again" said Carole Shepp McCain".

Posted by julien38 at 08/12/2008 @ 9:15pm
Edwards had my support because, beyond his policies on poverty, health care, and the war, he was willing to say things like decisions made in the White House will not be made by gathering up the very interested and the very well-heeled and proceed to compromises favoring the very interested and the very well-heeled. He also struck me as one of those rich guys who had it all (materially) but was asking is that all there is? This type can plunk for real change if s/he thinks it will land a place longer than a bio an a milk carton in the history books. His affair? So what. He's a man not a monument. And even monuments (see Jefferson) can have feet of clay. Edwards was ignored out the race. We'll never know.

Posted by garyd at 08/12/2008 @ 9:22pm
Rielle is her birth name, she was born Rielle Jaya James Druck (link: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/politics/story/100766.html) and she was married to a lawyer whose last name was Hunter.

Posted by eightball at 08/13/2008 @ 02:11am
So perhaps it's good that we've impeached John Edwards before he was elected, and don't have to worry on that anymore. Other than that, he still looks better than the presupmptive nominees. Yet, Bozo Bush still reigns Supremely, while Darth Cheney keeps smiling in the darkness. Apparently, defiling the constitution no longer has any shock value. On the job, we call this extreme confusion, "multi-tasking". I really miss Senator Robert Byrd; was he swallowed by a black hole?

Posted by CAPTAINSKIPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 02:56am
The title says it all:

Good-Bye, John Edwards

It probably could have been the entire piece since that one sentence fragment sums it up completely.

Anyway...... we have only two choices for President and one of them isn't John Edwards. Russia invaded Georgia, the Olympics are on, we're still in Iraq and paying lip service to Afghanistan. But....

A two year old affair involving an ex-politician is getting a LOT of attention. Why? Maybe Edwards had more clout than people are willing to admit. I don't really care, there are more important things on which to focus my attention. Edwards was done when he dropped out, for the second time.

Obama / Panetta '08 !!!!!!!!!

Posted by ChescoBill at 08/13/2008 @ 11:27am
I subscribe to The Nation because it is given to mature and serious reporting and commentary. This silly sex scandal (which is just another example of all of us sticking our noses into each others' sex lives) truly belongs in the National Enquirer.

Posted by Zero at 08/09/2008 @ 6:11pm

Well said Zero!!! Enough with this meaningless crap. By the way, we used to be semi-neighbors. I used to live in West Seattle. I remmeber reading on another thread that you live in Seattle right?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 12:17pm
2Happy cites Fox News and Hannity as paragons of objective journalism. Just think, there are more than a few million of these duped chimpanzees out there. God bless America!

Posted by stefinmc at 08/13/2008 @ 5:31pm
I know this is going to get lost in the huge amount of responses to the Pollitt piece on Edwards, but.... many Republican sympathizers have written on here and in the New York Times, that the NYT would always report on the misdeeds of Republicans but never Democrats. I seem to recall reading about the Eliot Spitzer affair and the McGreevey situations in full detail in the New York Times when they happened. I get impatient with people who divide everything into right and left, when there are hundreds of small subdivisions that reside in those designations. Also did anyone notice that when the Arkansas head of the Democratic party was murdered today, one of the Republican commentators was quick to still use the derogatory "Democrat party" term? I don't think there is a huge conspiracy to just name the scandals of Republicans and I do think Republican commentators should be more respectful of someone who was just murdered. Thank you.

Posted by arendtfan1026 at 08/13/2008 @ 9:44pm
Where would the Democratic Party be now, if a month from its convention the presumptive nominee was John Edwards? It would be in shambles.

Did John Edwards (whom I voted for in the primary and gave money to) ever consider the damage he would do to progressive possibilities (yes, I know the Dems aren't that progressive) if news of his adultry came out once he was the nominee? Given this, if he really cares about the issues he says he does, why did he put them at risk?

Though not the nominee, how much credibility has he squandered for his issues and how much easier will it be for the right to tack hypocrite on anyone who talks about poverty?

If Elizabeth (whom I have really liked since 2004) knew about the infidelity, did she try to stop him from running and putting the Democractic ticket at risk for 2008?

Posted by JayJM at 08/14/2008 @ 3:35pm
1) It's not really about sex.

It wasn't about sex when Clarence Thomas was condemned for his behavior with Anita Hill. It was about abusing power relationships at work (although in retrospect his abuse seems absurdly minor: he asked an employee out and talked dirty in front of female employees).

It was not about sex when Clinton was accused of repeatedly abusing his power to harass and sexually exploit employees, of paying off a sexual partner with a government job; and of commiting violent rape while attorney general of Arkansas.

And it's not mostly about sex when Edwards uses contributions (to his "end poverty" PAC) to put his mistress on the payroll and pay her off.

McCain left his first wife for a younger, prettier, richer woman. That's about being a man, unfortunately. As a gay male "first wife," I know all about that. It speaks to his personal character, I suppose, but how many politicians could pass the test, once we get to know them? George W. Bush is one of the few who comes to mind.

2. I don't understand why anyone would vote for a candidate based on his "platform." Such platforms are rarely serious, and are always forgotten after the election. Especially when, as in Edwards' case, they are so at odds with the candidates professional, personal, and political behavior in the decades prior to his becoming a candidate.

The person matters, and his friends matter. In Edwards' case, the friends seem to be all corrupt, enabling ambulance chasers.

Posted by BarryYoungerman at 08/15/2008 @ 08:41am
When people say "It's not really about sex," it's about sex.

Posted by FrlessFreep at 08/15/2008 @ 1:42pm