An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Stock Market Summer Silliness

Let’s Give ‘em Something (dumb) to Talk About »

No Kidding, John. Take The Damned Test

Posted by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist in At TMV.
Aug 10th, 2008 | Comments

01aaaedwards_hunter_plane.jpg

HUNTER AND EDWARDS ALOFT

John Edwards’ half-assed effort to come clean about his affair with Rielle Hunter left a slew of questions unanswered.

Chief among them are:

* If he wasn’t the father of Hunter’s child and broke off the affair two years ago, why was he lurking in a stairwell of her current digs, the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles, in the middle of the night? It’s time for John Boy to take a DNA test even if Hunter says no.

* What was Hunter paid when, from where and by whom? The suspicion grows that money contributed to Mr. Squeaky-Clean’s presidential campaign found its way to her, which is probably a violation of federal election law and clearly not what contributors thought their ducats were being used for.

Let’s also revisit the “issue” of whether it’s anyone’s business if a politician who claims the moral high ground is screwing someone on the side.

Whether I cheat on my wife is of no consequence outside of my family. A politician, especially someone who aspires to the highest office in the land, not only sacrifices a substantial degree of privacy, but if his statements and deeds clash as have Edwards’ — and as also was true of Eliot Spitzer, Newt Gingrich and that Clinton fella, to name just a few people who not only diddled others but diddled their constituents — then what they do in private is very much a public matter.

If John — and yes, Elizabeth Edwards, as well — had not been so consumed with politics and power, then they might have understood the implications of sacrificing their privacy, especially when the man who would be king made a willful decision to add adulterer to his career resume.

All that so noted, Edwards needs to deal with the mess he has made so we can get back full time to stuff that really matters.

Photograph by Robert Scoble via The Associated Press

  • kritt11
    He won't take the test because he's probably the dad. By not taking it, he keeps the story alive as well as his newly earned reputation as a serial liar. Eugene Robinson has an editorial in WaPo where he wonders why a financial backer of Edwards met with his girlfriend. Afterwards, she no longer was interested in the paternity test.

    It makes me question his judgement and his commitment to his family.
  • JoyP
    Since he's not running for office, not even dogcatcher, and not likely a nominee for any Cabinet position in the Obama administration, I could care less about this now. Obviously his judgment was not good and neither the commitment. It's his family's problem. Not mine. Let's get on to more substantiative issues
  • Marlowecan
    JoyP said: "Let's get on to more substantiative issues."

    The Edwards Affair is a "substantive issue" precisely because of the unprecedented American media embargo on this story. It reminds one of the famous "Edward and Mrs Simpson" British press embargo in the 30s.

    Essentially, the liberal media were protecting their favorite - married to a woman they admired. Today, they are trying to pretend it was not liberal bias.

    It is remarkable to read the logical twists and convolutions of the New York Times editor to justify why a rumor of McCain's affair justified front page coverage . . . AT PRECISELY THE SAME TIME that rumors of Edwards affair were circulating, and he was still a candidate, and the NYT absolutely refused to look into them.

    Old liberal View: These are only rumors. More important stories out there - like John McCain's extramarital affair rumors. MoveOn MoveOn

    New liberal View: Extramarital affairs are a private matter. MoveOn MoveOn

    Edwards, slimeball to the end, referenced McCain's 30 year old affair in his TV appearance. An interesting bookend to his moral outrage in condemning Bill Clinton's betrayal of his "precious daughter" at the beginning of Edwards political career in Washington.

    Progressives are chomping at the bit, demanding that McCain be asked questions about his affair 30 years ago. A mistake, for one reason/two words:
    Obama. Cocaine.

    (I can hear the NYT editor explaining that one in a month's time: "In the wake of the Edwards affair, we have revisited our policy, and decided that all presidential candidates must answer questions about their extramarital affairs, rumored or otherwise. Any history of illegal drug use, however, we regard as a personal matter.")
  • Marlowecan
    Further: The NYT public editor notes, but does not agree with, the paper's editors claim that the McCain story was because the woman he was rumored to have an affair with was a lobbyist. But if the story was to indicate McCain's links to a lobbyist, why throw in the rumor - with absolutely no foundation (notably less than with Edwards) - of an extramarital affair?

    A totally unnecessary reference . . . as most media commentators noted . . . except as a political smear against a GOP candidate by an openly Democratic newspaper.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10pub...
  • Loviatar
    Wow Shaun,

    Pimp it baby, Pimp it.

    You've now connected this story to Clinton, I see a Pulitzer in your horizon. Either that or a pair of binoculars.
  • JSpencer
    I've found it interesting (and disappointing) seeing how some of the left-leaning folks are willing to adopt a rather dismissive attitude about this story. The revelation that any seeker of public office has willfully and deliberately betrayed his supporters should be met with condemnation. And the most vehement condemnation should come from those who were betrayed, which in this case, would be the former Edwards supporters - and by extension democrats in general.

    The point isn't about comparing him to conservative hypocrites (regardless of how legion they are), or about how much a persons sex life is their own business, or about the importance of advocating for the disadvantaged. It's (very simply) about the fact that had Edwards become the nominee, this lie would have thrown the election, and it would have been because Edwards deliberately misrepresented himself.

    This isn't rocket science folks, it's about truth in advertising, integrity, and what constitutes betrayal. It's ultimately not even about partisanship... or at least it shouldn't be.
  • AustinRoth
    The Left believes the truth is what they decide it is. Remember, there is no objective morality; it is all subjective.

    If a Left politician is involved, whether it is killing your pregnant girlfriend in river, getting blow-jobs and sticking cigars up a 19 year old intern's twat in the Oval Office, or having affairs and children out of wedlock while proclaiming yourself the defender of modern morality, then nothing bad really happened.

    Because they are good people, as proven by the fact they are Leftist. Only Right-leaning people do bad things.
  • JSpencer
    Cute little diatribe. Are we feeling all better now?
  • having affairs and children out of wedlock while proclaiming yourself the defender of modern morality

    Uh... exaggerate much?
  • Half_Past_Midnight
    Uh... exaggerate much?


    John Edwards ~ Moral Leadership

    http://www.johnedwards.com/moralleadership/
  • Half_Past_Can't_Read,
    I don't see anything on that page about regulating the bedroom or marriages, or anything like what we see on the Right.
  • Half_Past_Midnight
    Half_Past_Can't_Read,

    Oh yes I can. I can read the words "moral leadership" associated with the name "John Edwards", who commanded $55,000 per speech about poverty. That's beyond hypocritical. Regulating the bedroom and marriages on the right? Well, I am a right-leaning libertarian, but if you are saying that the left has no interest in setting a standard for marriage, you might only be speaking for yourself.

    The point is, John Edwards says he is representing moral standards by proclaiming leadership. Morality is not selective. He could have chosen to be a good example, but did not and admitted to being self-absorbed. (Don't be lazy, google it. It's common knowledge about Edwards who have read his quotes.)
  • kritt11
    AR- I don't see how you can criticize the left for doing exactly what the right has been doing for 8 years. Conservative hosts like Bill O Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have passed on the right's talking points for years without a reality filter. The Bush administration has lost credibility with the public after it was found that they were lying about the progress of the war and the reasons for getting into it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC