RSS Feed MenuPosed of course by Mickey Kaus.
The New York magazine excerpt also glosses over a key unknown part of the story–this part:
Out of view, the Edwards campaign was in damage-control mode, going into overdrive to dissuade the mainstream media from picking up the story, denouncing it as tabloid trash. Their efforts at containing the fallout were remarkably successful. The Enquirer’s exposé gained zero traction in the traditional press and almost none in the blogosphere.
Edwards’s relief was palpable, as was his gratitude to the small coterie of aides who had corralled the story.
What lies, if any, did Edwards’ aides tell in their successful attempt to get the MSM to suppress the Hunter story in the days before the New Hampshire primary–and if there were lies, as I suspect there were, who told them? Were all the lies really told by John and Elizabeth themselves? Remember, Edwards is through in politics. Aides Jonathan Prince and Mudcat Saunders are not. What did they do and when did they do it? … Or did the MSM just roll over and abdicate at the mere mention of St. Elizabeth’s illness (or John Edwards’ … progressivism).
Nor was it only people in Edwards’ employ who connived at what were by December 2007 fairly obviously untruths.
I’ve heard it said that Edwards was a third-tier candidate, a clear non-starter, nothing for anyone to worry about – had his campaign gone anywhere, then the Democratic truth-tellers would have stepped forward. Sure. Right. In December 2007 he seemed a reasonable bet as a vice presidential candidate certainly and – who knows – probably a more likely alternative than Obama if Hillary stumbled.
The problem was not again that Edwards was a bad husband. It was that he was a bad husband who had founded his campaign upon the cultivated lie that he was a good husband. And, as Mickey Kaus keeps reminding when others wish to forget, that lie was not constructed by Edwards working alone.
anniemargret // Jan 12, 2010 at 10:08 am
Edwards and his aides were deceitful, and the MSM gave him a pass. His story should be a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks adultery is a ’so-what’ event. Politicians in particular, who take oaths to be good public servants and upon whom constituents rely with trust, should be even more studious to avoid scandal in their personal lives.
The problem of course is ego – and an adoring believing public willing to be duped. “Good husbands’ they are not, but let’s not forget the ‘good father’ part as well. It is even more despicable when a man (or woman) puts their spouse and their children on the sidelines to suffer the fallout because they could not, would not contain their selfish desires.
So this discussion is why his aides/campaign and MSM were quick to hide the real story. I got no problem with this – they were aiding and abetting. The public has a right to know who their politicians really are, warts and all.
Yet, why this insistence on just Edwards? I would venture to say that the MSM and his aides worked hard at keeping his phoniness from appearing because of Elizabeth Edwards. The Edwards were the epitome of the husband/wife adoring team, sacrificing as a close-knit family working for his success.
With Elizabeth’s horrible diagnosis of uncurable cancer, I think the whole charade was simply a last ditch attempt to keep the pot from boiling over, in a misguided effort to stem the tidal wave of anger and frustration that was sure to ensue once his dallying got out.
Yes, the media and his aides were irresponsible. They were deceitful and they well should be called out for it.
But if you are going to slam the media and campaign aides for willful deceit, please do include the Palin Parade of Deceit. Her deceit is now being rewarded by Fox News.
That John McCain’s aides knowingly and willfully prevented the public from seeing the real Sarah Palin? That they were terrified to put her out there on the stage alone in the horror that she might totally reveal her incompetence? Now they admit that she ‘knew nothing’….didn’t know what any first semester political science student would know about contemporary history and the world? That she didn’t know why there was a N and S Korea? That she couldn’t name the enemy in Iraq, even though her own son was serving there? The list goes on and on….
Obviously they were willing to foist this deceit upon the American public, even going so far to put her ThisClose to the Presidency? Where is the outrage there, or is outrage only going to be applied to Democratic scandals?
JeninCT // Jan 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Mayhill Fowler (HuffPo) described very honestly her unwillingness to break the story of Bill Clinton’s mistress, so I happen to think Edward’s aide and all the journalists who could’ve broken this story simply chose not to because they didn’t want to be the ones to do it. Cowards? Maybe.
Comparing this in any way to Palin is comparing apples to oranges. McCain’s aide’s opinion of Sarah Palin and any fears they may have had about her were simple their opinions and fears and had little to do with Palin’s actual abilities. And her job at Fox isn’t a reward, it’s a job. Nice try, though. A for effort.
rectonoverso // Jan 12, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I can’t believe I actually read this superfluous piece and comment about it. Guess that is why it was posted: generate internet traffic by any means.
sinz54 // Jan 12, 2010 at 8:18 pm
anniemargaret: The problem of course is ego – and an adoring believing public willing to be duped.
The public knew NOTHING about this.
I was no fan of Edwards’ policies, but even I had heard NOTHING about Edwards’ personal flaws.
The MSM refused to do a single story on it.
It’s like I said yesterday: Ever since the 1960s, the MSM has stopped reporting the news as such. Instead, they have a script, and they search for stories that illustrate that script.
Tom Wolfe, in his book “The Right Stuff,” related how the MSM covered up all the stories about the astronauts’ personal flaws, and the flaws of their wives. They were built up to be religious, family men, the best pilots that ever were–even though NONE of that was true. (OK, John Glenn was pretty strait-laced in reality. The rest of the Mercury 7 were not.)
And history might have had a different view of JFK, if the MSM had bothered to inform the public of all of JFK’s Mafia connections. Heck, they didn’t even bother to inform the public about JFK’s marital infidelities.
That’s why the liberals who are getting angry that we’re dredging the story up again are angry about the wrong thing. I couldn’t care less about Edwards as such. I do care about how, time and again, long before anyone ever heard of Fox News or bloggers, the MSM has decided to give us scripted “news,” rather than the straight unvarnished truth.
anniemargret // Jan 12, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Well, sinz, I can’t disagree with you there about ’scripted news.’ The news organizations long ago gave up their dignity as real journalists and now pose as faux reporters under the hefty glare of their corporate sponsors. They are told how much to say and how to say it, what to ask and what not to ask.
Used to be journalism was a time honored profession, the ‘fourth estate’ with the grave power of informing a free people. They have the power still to shape our society, but they are no longer the ‘neutral’ power that it once was and upon which it was founded.
So yes, JFK would never survive today in the glaring light of day. None of the Presidents prior to the 50s would be able to get away with half of what they get away with because of the selectiveness of today’s ‘journalism’ but also because people back in those times were a lot less sophisticated than today. After all, the general public ‘trusted’ government at all time, in every way, back when our parents were kids.
I have joined the Edwards bashing here, as I think not only what he did was disgusting, destorying his own reputation, but dishonoring his family, friends, constituents, I agree that the MSM hid a lot of it. As I said, i think it was primarly due to Elizabeth’s cancer… rather than a liberal bias.
Because if you want to look for bias, you can look to Fox news, which has a heavy tendency to put a capital ‘D” in front of any Republican who gets in trouble, and then pretends it was a ‘mistake.’ Once, perhaps, but not many times.
The MSM is phony on all fronts, so that is why I read more than just newspapers and watch TV news. The unfortunate thing is that the majority of Americans get some sound bites off their favorite news show and that’s about all they know.
But again…. my pointing out that the MSM also did not do its duty to let the clear light of honesty shine on Ms. Palin, is not out of line here. Since the McCain camp do absolutely no vetting of her abilities (or disablities in her case), it was up to the mainstream news media to the job…after all, she was running to be VP.
Yep, they failed…in both cases. Every American needs to find out all they can on who they are voting for and why. And do their homework to the best of their ability.
PS: My 80ish year old mom asked me to stop giving her all those Hollywood biographies that she loved so much, because the pristine lives she thought they had are simply not true. She said her bubble keeps bursting!
mlindroo // Jan 13, 2010 at 5:22 am
> I’ve heard it said that Edwards was a third-tier candidate, a clear non-starter,
> nothing for anyone to worry about – had his campaign gone anywhere,
> then the Democratic truth-tellers would have stepped forward.
> Sure. Right.
What’s so laughable about that?
Partisans (particularly Democratic ones, I suspect) don’t care that much about the private lives of their OWN politicians although they will of course gleefully pounce whenever a major politician on the other side of the aisle gets caught. For this reason, the so called “Democratic truth-tellers” would have had little choice but to reveal the bad news if there was a real risk of Obama or Clinton choosing Edwards as their running mate. It would have been an easy thing to do since *NO* serious campaign (possibly excluding the 2008 McCain operation, heh heh) chooses a vice presidential candidate before doing very careful background checks. At this point Edwards’ former confidantes surely would have contacted the Obama and/or Clinton campaign.
The New York Magazine article makes it clear that Edwards was never that close to securing a top job in a future Obama or Clinton administration, though.
MARCU$
GOProud // Jan 13, 2010 at 7:11 am
mlindroo “What’s so laughable about that?”
That you should have to ask says far more about your own blind defense of partisan interests than Frum’s on-target point about Democrat apologists trying to distance themselves from the taint and stink of the schrade of John-Elizabeth Edwards.
It’s not as laughable as you joining in the stampede away from Edwards… and Bill Clinton… and Ted Kennedy… and Gary Hart and…. well, there’s not enough space in cyberland to list all the unfaithful but political relevant Democrat cheaters of the last 30 yrs.