RSS Feed MenuI only met John and Elizabeth Edwards in person once in my life, but in light of this week’s revelations, the story takes on new meaning.
We were at an international conference in the summer of 2008. I was a panelist, the Edwardses a last minute “get” for the keynote address.
Obama had all but won the Democratic nomination, so our hosts flattered Edwards by repeatedly suggesting aloud that Obama would likely choose Edwards as a running mate. These tributes elicited only a grim smile from Edwards.
Edwards’ address reprised the themes from his presidential campaign. Speaking intensely and without notes, He pledged the rest of his life to the fight against poverty: “the cause of my life.”
Maybe because of translation difficulties, the audience seemed only mildly impressed. Or perhaps they felt as I did: with the campaign behind him, Edwards lacked the energy to go on faking sincerity.
The open session ended. John and Elizabeth posed for photographs. Then all speakers – the Edwards plus the second-tier attractions – adjourned for dinner with host-country business leaders.
As this informal conversation commenced, Edwards shape-shifted almost before our eyes. Not one more word was spoken about poverty, the cause of his life. He expiated at length about national security, defense budgets and the Afghanistan war – and all from a distinctly hawkish perspective. Here again was John Edwards version 1.0, the centrist New South Democrat.
Through his answers, Elizabeth had kept her eyes fixed upon him. Seated directly across the table from him, she looked at him – not with Nancy Reagan adoration – but with the non-comprehending anxiety of a dog watching her owner pack a suitcase.
The in-country manager of a major European insurance group posed a question about healthcare. Edwards answered: My wife Elizabeth was our campaign’s expert on this issue, so I’ll leave the question to her and eat a bit of my dinner.
Off she went. Elizabeth Edwards explained the most important differences between the Obama and Clinton health proposals, offered measured criticism and praise for each. Her remarks were strikingly well-informed. (Edwards by contrast had been forceful and clear, but showed nothing like such command of detail.) When she finished, she turned another beseeching look to John Edwards, as if to ask: “Didn’t I do well?”
After she finished, Edwards beamed at the whole table. I unfortunately didn’t write down his words, but it was to the effect: “Now you see why everybody loves Elizabeth!”
For those who’d like a reminder: here’s a timeline of the story courtesy of New York magazine.
The story begins to surface into public view in September-October 2007. In December the National Enquirer published the news that Rielle Hunter was pregnant. In late July 2008 the National Enquirer photographed Edwards’ middle of the night visit to Hunter and her child at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles.
As of that date, however, not one word or hint of the story had appeared in any traditional media outlet, prompting Mickey Kaus to wonder:
Will this be the first presidential-contender level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM? That’s always seemed an interesting theoretical possibility–a prominent politician just disappears from the scene, after blogs and tabloids dig up dirt on him, but nobody who relies on the Times, Post, network news or Mark Halperin has the faintest idea why.
Or for that matter, almost no writer sympathetic to Democrats – with Kaus himself a rare exception – breathing a word of disquiet about the candidate’s actions.
One word more here, in reply to those who uphold candidates’ rights to private flaws. It’s a fair argument much of the time. But in Edwards’ case, his campaign rested in very large part on his self-presentation as the devoted companion of a sick wife. Kaus again:
Why, after all, was Edwards ever considered presidential material. Is he a great executive? No. A brilliant policy expert? No. An accomplished diplomat? No. He’s an ex-Senator with one undistinguished term in office who rose in life on the basis of his singular ability to use tearjerking stories to move juries and win large verdicts . His presidential campaign has featured similarly moving anecdotes, such as the famous 10-year old girl “somewhere in America” who goes to bed “praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn’t have the coat to keep her warm.”
Edwards’ most effective anecdote this year, however, was probably the story of his popular wife Elizabeth’s struggle against cancer. He made it the emotional center of a TV ad:
And Elizabeth and I decided in the quiet of a hospital room, after 12 hours of tests and after getting very bad news, what we were going to spend our lives doing. For all those that have no voice. We are not going to quietly go away.
During a joint 60 Minutes interview focusing on his wife’s illness, Edwards explicitly linked his behavior in that struggle and his fitness for public office:
Katie Couric:
Some have suggested that you’re capitalizing on this.
John Edwards:
Here’s what I would say about that.
First of all, there’s not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. ..[snip]
But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we’d make. [E.A.]
Relevance: If a politician is a great executive, thinker or diplomat who cheats on his brave, ill wife, you figure, “OK, We’re not hiring him because of his sterling private behavior.” If a politician whose chief appeal is his self-advertised loyalty to his brave, ill wife cheats on his brave ill wife, what’s he good for again? And if Edwards’ crucial talent as a public official is his ability to move people with tearjerky anecdotes, and those anecdotes (like the tale of his spousal loyalty, or the girl with no coat, or the anecdote that reportedly made John Kerry queasy about him)–turn out to be BS or half BS, that’s more than random hypocrisy, It goes to the core of what he does and what he claims to offer. (I’d also argue that an emotional, anecdote-led liberal approach to poverty inevitably tends toward the failed solution of simply sending poor people cash welfare, but that’s another argument.)
COProgressive // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm
David wrote;
“Or for that matter, almost no writer sympathetic to Democrats – with Kaus himself a rare exception – breathing a word of disquiet about the candidate’s actions.”
True. I believe that John Edwards actions were reprehensible. I was an Edwards support first. I believed in, and still do, his “Two Americas” theme.
We all are fallible. John Edwards was popular and was dealing with his wife’s illness. Perhasp the MSM didn’t do their job out of some preceived kindness to Elizabeth.
MSM being kind? Naaa, must be something else.
teabag // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:27 pm
In truth Edwards really did not stand a chance of getting the nomination.
The base of the party did not buy what he was selling. In my opinion he comes across as false and vain, much in the way Romney does.
So all this really is water under the proverbial bridge.
franco 2 // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Mickey has it exactly right.
By the way. Does anyone REALLY believe the anecdote about the little girl with no coat? Edwards is a liar and a hypocrite and I knew that long before any of this information surfaced.
rocklobster // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm
All of this seems to be true and it ripped my heart out when I began hearing things. I was appalled, but more, there was a moral disappointment. I know, it is not my place to judge, but my heart was broken.
However, in the time since, as I have volunteered with Edward’s charities, I have had plenty of time to speak with him as we work on homes in Central and South America, and in two different parts of Appalachia.
Sure, I wouldn’t vote for him as president or anything. But, as long as he keeps his promise about one of the truths one party denies and the other party only sees at election time, American Poverty, all of it, the entire ugly truth. For that, I will stick with him to help others.
SFTor1 // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I’m not sure I understand the relevance of this discussion, considering that John Edwards is buried under six feet of bad press and public disgust.
franco 2 // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm
rocklobster // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Would your boss please give that little girl a coat at least?
JJWFromME // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I was disappointed in John Edwards. But he sure did push the ball forward in terms of health care and climate change. I don’t regret that he ran. (On the other hand, I do feel bad for his wife, who is much more admirable a person than the candidate–which isn’t an uncommon story in politics…)
rocklobster // Jan 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm
SFTor1 You have hit it perfectly. Politically – there is no place to go. And, as long as he stands by his working with poverty issues, that is fine. Yet, he can’t be a spokesperson for them, he, as you stated, is buried and it would be fair to ask it he is telling truth. One thing he has realized is that he has hurt some of this abilities to get help for the poor.
If someone will cheat on their spouse, why wouldn’t they cheat on a business partner or anyone else.
JeninCT // Jan 11, 2010 at 4:16 pm
“SFTor1 // Jan 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I’m not sure I understand the relevance of this discussion, considering that John Edwards is buried under six feet of bad press and public disgust.”
The discussion is relevant because Game Change just came out and the stories of the 2008 election are just now being told.
It’s also quite amazing how far Edwards got and many lies he told before the story was published. You can’t make this stuff up….
franco 2 // Jan 11, 2010 at 4:26 pm
It’s old news… lets talk about Trig and Levi…
rocklobster // Jan 11, 2010 at 4:50 pm
now that is a good idea
Stephen B // Jan 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm
The anecdote is mildly interesting at best and sheds little light on Edwards or his wife. Why not just reprint the Kaus piece if that’s what you wanted to do?
sinz54 // Jan 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm
SFTor1: I’m not sure I understand the relevance of this discussion, considering that John Edwards is buried under six feet of bad press and public disgust.
I’m not interested in Edwards at all.
But I am interested in what it says about the news media:
The National Enquirer dared to investigate Edwards’ extramarital affairs, when virtually the entire mainstream media (MSM) refused–even after the Enquirer seemed to be on to something–and the Enquirer ended up scooping everybody else.
The MSM had a script, of Edwards the populist-idealist fighting for Michael Harrington’s “Other America”. Any hints that might suggest Edwards had a darker side were never even investigated.
Whether it’s Edwards, or the “news” reports from Jayson Blair, or all those women before Monica Lewinsky who came forward to point fingers at Bill Clinton, or the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, or the Lebanon “fauxtography” scandal, the American MSM seems to operate according to a predetermined script. Any news stories that might run counter to the script get spiked. And in each of these cases, the American MSM got scooped by the Drudge Report, or the National Enquirer, or the foreign press, or the bloggers respectively.
stevefromsacto // Jan 11, 2010 at 7:37 pm
“Any news stories that might run counter to the script get spiked. ”
Once upon a time, that’s just the way news magazines like “60 Minutes” worked. If the facts didn’t strengthen the ” theme” of the story, the facts got left on the cutting room floor. Today, sadly, all of the media, whether Mainstream or Fox News, works that way too.
PracticalGirl // Jan 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Sinz:
“I’m not interested in Edwards at all. But I am interested in what it says about the news media”
I echo that.
“The MSM had a script, of Edwards the populist-idealist fighting for Michael Harrington’s “Other America”.”
I add to that. Sadly, the so-called conservative media (even the bloviating Fair and Balanced network) also had their own script, one that highlighted his highlighted hair, banged against his lawyering, screamed about his liberalism- things everybody already knew and all things that could be contested, argued about, debated, ignored Absolutely nothing substantive nor concrete. When will it be time to also hold Fox News’ feet to the fire on things like this? If the conservative media wants to be legitimate, it will have to learn to investigate.
The National Enquirer scooped them all, the reporters and retorters alike. A pox on both their houses for that. What else are they missing that I’ll have to read about in between Michael Jackson Tribute issues and the Jon and Kate saga?
BoolaBoola // Jan 11, 2010 at 9:28 pm
When this happens to Democrats, they drop out of the scene, at least for a while. Spitzer, Edwards. When the same thing happens to Republicans, they stay on and continue polluting our politics (Sanford, Ensign, etc.)
COProgressive // Jan 11, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Franco 2 @ 10 said;
“It’s old news… lets talk about Trig and Levi…”
Or better yet, let’s talk about Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase CEO bonuses, or Geithner and AIG, or did you hear about the huge heist at Treasury?
Mandos // Jan 12, 2010 at 1:29 am
Also, Orszag.
franco 2 // Jan 12, 2010 at 3:48 am
Practical girl,
“I add to that. Sadly, the so-called conservative media (even the bloviating Fair and Balanced network) also had their own script, one that highlighted his highlighted hair, banged against his lawyering, screamed about his liberalism- things everybody already knew and all things that could be contested, argued about, debated, ignored Absolutely nothing substantive nor concrete. When will it be time to also hold Fox News’ feet to the fire on things like this? If the conservative media wants to be legitimate, it will have to learn to investigate.”
Fox is definitely not the answer to the other networks. It is more of a bastard child. While NBC/GE ABC/Disney, CBS/Viacom, PBS/USGovCorp are despicable, Fox benefits by default. In other words, Fox only has to NOT be obnoxiously in the tank for Democrats and they get viewers. Fox doesn’t have to do much more than simply not be like those networks.
But things are changing. Andrew Brietbart and others are opening up media platforms on the internet and as broadband becomes more and more available there will be more balance in the news. As someone who has recognized media bias since the 80’s we have come a very long way. I am actually amazed how merely the presence of Fox news (with its own flaws) and alternate media the internet and You Tube has changed things drastically, despite the fact that the networks and newspapers still have the “floor” when it comes to news. They are losing their monopoly. They can no longer control the news for everyone. And they are forced to report stories they used to be able to ignore.
Now it’s funny you choose this particular issue to lambaste conservative media, especially Fox, because they are usually accused of sensationalism and this story certainly qualifies. There is a sort of bottleneck when it comes to investigative reporting and real journalism. This is done still through the legacy media AP Reuters and to some extent the newspapers and networks, also CNN has real reporters (most are lefties ) while Fox is a news aggregator, and talk radio is just opinion.
The fact that the MSM is so biased toward Democrats has some silver lining. Democrats are getting a false sense of the political landscape and make errors. This Edwards situation could have gone really badly for Democrats. Had Edwards gotten the nomination, the story would probably have come out because of the increased intensity in the general election .Had Edwards been chosen as a VP it could have also cost the Dems the election. There are many pitfalls when you have a slobbering media.Unfortunately we are all affected badly like the election of Obama – a man with leftist ideals and no experience, two things the media all but ignored. But then so did McCain. The one time a Republican can get traction in the MSM is during a campaign – the MSM can’t ignore him and must report on his/her claims and charges, even as they can try to spin it away.
The MSM loses credibility everyday. This Edwards story has an effect, even on people who get their “news” exclusively from MSM sources have to wonder why this story didn’t come out in the MSM but in the Enquirer. It definitely damages their credibility.
rectonoverso // Jan 12, 2010 at 5:12 am
And?
GOProud // Jan 12, 2010 at 7:31 am
Shock of shockers! Not another slimey, cheating Democrat leader struck down by the evil mainstream media?? Come on, it’s the party of Ted Kennedy. It’s the party of BIll Clinton –who literally turned cheating into a White House cottage industry.
The MSM sat on the story –just like they’ll sit on Obama bad press stories– because the MSM is liberally biased, are rooting for the Democrats to win and want the 2 Americas made into one liberal, wasting cesspool of massive govt deficits and special interest programs.
John Edwards was the perfect Democrat. He had that boyish, Breck-ish good looks the press love. He was a celebrity candidate before the press discovered Obama. He had the sleazy background of a trial lawyer selling snakeoil -Democrats just love trial lawyers. He was a light-skinned white guy who spoke articulately, could use a southern home boy dialect when he wanted, and could steal the shirt off your back while he had you smiling. Fleecing your pockets for campaign bucks and taxes, too!
And now, shock of shock, we find out he was morally impaired? Well, as all Democrats will pipe in, “that’s between Edwards and his wife”. And a bevy of divorce lawyers.
No surprise.
PracticalGirl // Jan 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Franco2:
I am fully aware of the role Fox News actually plays in the media. But the fact remains: All the co-called conservative media whine about the weak role the MSM plays in ferreting out the truth about Democrats. At the same time, they explain it away by reminding everybody that the MSM is “on their side” and have no vested interest in playing hardball with Democrats.
If the conservative media wants to do more than complain, they will start operating like real, investigative news orgainzations. But I think they don’t-want to do more than complain, I mean. It is much easier (and more cost effective) to connect with an audience on an emotional level by reacting to news, rather than finding it. The so-called conservative media is set up on this model, and as long as the masses who drink their Kool Aid continue to tune in, they won’t change.
As far as credibility…Sigh. The so-called conservative media has no problem making charges that are false and hiding behind “opinion”. Even within the news organizations (Fox News, Washington Times etc), there is a concerted effort not to report what really happened but to retort a story and present only what they want people to hear.
Case in point: Fox News alters transcripts to make it appear that Michael Steele did not use a racially offensive term while he’s calling for the head of a Democrat who he says did. Jeez, that was yesterday, but there are other examples.
If the right wing media wanted to be serious about news, they could easily do this. But then they would be subject to the same scrutiny that they apply to the MSM. And they DESPERATELY do not want this, or their house of cards would all fall down.
Carney // Jan 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm
rocklobster, status among current US elites is determined by the extent of ostentatious altruism toward certain underperforming demographic groups. Edwards is just using the poor (and we will ALWAYS have poor people because we will always have low-IQ people) as props to claw his way back into high status and public adulation again, and perhaps political power. Don’t be his dupe, and don’t waste your time. Thousands, tens of thousands of people can pour their sweat, blood, treasure, and lives into various low-IQ areas and in the long run will achieve nothing; 100 years from now they will still be miserable hell-holes.