13 comments

• 

  roadkill refugee

  11 months ago

  I don't feel responsible for John Edwards' hubris and narcissism. I don't feel responsible for Elizabeth Edwards collusive defrauding of voters, staff, donors, other supporters and the press. I never put him on a pedestal, but I did observe him tout himself as uniquely qualified to serve in a position of trust. He touted his marriage and family as a character validation. He could have done what Gov. David Paterson did and simply disclosed the affair in 2006 before he ran. It actually wouldn't have been a huge story then because he wasn't a candidate yet. He could have dropped out after Elizabeth announced her cancer. But he chose to stay in the race and suck money and votes from the other candidates, knowing he was sitting on a time bomb. Bill survived. Newt survived. McCain survived. He could have survived. But no, he decided to lie to his staff, supporters, the press and the American people generally. Like Bill, really dumb judgment. It's not a moral issue, it's simply a judgment issue. Like yelling at your boss over something petty when your spouse has a serious health condition and you have young kids that still need to go to college - it's not about the ethics, it's about the obviously risky conduct that puts your career in jeopardy and hurts others by extension. Narcissistic. Selfish. Dumb.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  11 months ago

  Your point of view is one commonly taken. Shoot, I was ready to castrate him earlier today, I'm not exempt. But what bothers me about the frenzy is the distraction. I guess I'd rather accept that politicians screw around, male and female alike, and it doesn't necessarily make them less effective at getting the job done.
  
  I initially shied away from Edwards because there was something a little too plastic about him. Too perfect. During one of the debates he said something that really bothered me, where he seemed to suggest agreement or sympathy with AT&T, a company I view as nothing more than a tool of empire in today's USA.
  
  At the same time, I have personally found myself wanting to not be the rock in certain situations, wanting to run somewhere else where I don't have to carry around whatever responsibility is weighing at that moment. I can't honestly say that in those moments, I wouldn't have acted if I had the opportunity, and it would have been selfish, but not nearly as destructive as the torture of detainees, wiretaps, and general corruption of our government has been.
  
  I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are greater evils that deserve our attention.
  
  As to the money thing, that may indeed be something that I condemn outright (I'll have to edit this post since I've vowed not to spend any additional bandwidth on this.) I'm still waiting for more details on it.
  reply
• 

  WebPixie

  11 months ago

  It IS frustrating to have this "scandal" distract us fro the real immorality in government today, just as you have described it here. The atrocities committed in the name of the U.S. in recent years violate everything we've believed to define us as people.
  
  So why is this such a topic right now? It makes me wonder what a Bill Clinton, or one of his political operatives, would do if he was denied a spot to speak at the Democratic Convention in favor of John Edwards.
  
  There certainly ARE greater evils more deserving of our attention, as you say. Perhaps we can only hope they will get the attention they deserve and the days of politics as usual will soon be behind us.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  11 months ago

  WebPixie,
  
  I tend to doubt the days of politics as usual will be behind us. This is the shot across the bow. What I hope beyond hope for is that Obama doesn't have any skeletons hanging in his closet like this. Because if he does, it will undo the Democratic party and any hope for progressive politics for 20 years.
  reply
• 

  ursulas

  11 months ago

  good post.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  11 months ago

  Hey UrsulaS,
  
  I hope you're on the mend. Thanks for the comment and the tweeted link earlier. I haven't read it yet but I will soon. :)
  reply
• 

  cgerrish

  11 months ago

  Bill Clinton survived a similar scandal and was re-elected. But Edwards isn't the politician Clinton is. We see, or think we do, that the Clinton's marriage has survived. It looks like the Edwards Marriage will survive. Had Edwards been the nominee, he would have lost the election. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with his skills as a manager or policy maker.
  
  The simple truth is that if you don't win, you don't get to govern. My problem with Edwards, and I voted for him two times, is that he didn't take care of this at the beginning of his run for the white house. As our friend Steve is fond of saying, it's always the cover up that kills you.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  11 months ago

  Cliff, I would be far more outraged if he had gotten the nomination and this news came out. The hubris that roadkillrefugee refers to is clearly out in front of his decisionmaking process when it comes to how he handled his run for the White House.
  
  On the other hand, this is now. He didn't win the nomination. He isn't in contention for the VP slot. I doubt he would have been able to keep this news quiet as long as it was kept if he had been a serious contender. (I'm thinking Hillary would have castrated him publicly if he had been a serious threat to her candidacy, right?)
  
  The only reason to make this a "scandal" at this point is to neutralize him completely and forever, because there is such a damn puritanical streak running down the center of this country.
  
  I do agree that it's the coverup that kills you. And it lands many between that rock and hard place of wondering if they can actually keep anything private (they can't) while living in the public eye.
  reply
• 

  Lara

  11 months ago

  Well said, Karoli! Thanks for hopping over to my space to comment. As I replied back to what you said, my post would have been quite different if he were the presumptive nominee. But since he isn't, and I want the distraction to end so we can focus on REAL problems, I'm with you here.
  Great blog. Nice to "meet" you. :)
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  11 months ago

  Thanks, Lara! Nice to meet you too. :)
  reply
• 

  lildb

  11 months ago

  my god, woman, this is well said.
  reply
• 

  Karoli

  11 months ago

  Thank you, ma'am!
  reply
• 

  Elaine N. Ramey

  10 months ago

  What a STUPID ARTICLE ! The character who wrote this must really be a slovenally slouch. "A THIEF THINKS EVERYBODY STEALS!" THE SIMPLE ANALYSIS IS: JOHN EDWARDS CLAIMED TO BE WHAT HE WASN'T, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER WILL BE. THE PICTURE HE TRIED TO PAINT IN EVERYONE'S EYES IS THAT HE WAS MR. WONDERFUL WHO REALLY CARED ABOUT THE 37,000,000 LIVING IN POVERTY AND HE WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! ELIZABETH EDWARDS "WANTED" THIS CREEP TO BE WHAT HE WASN'T AND ENCOURAGED HIM TO WORK TOWARD THAT GOAL. BUT THIS WEAK-MINDED IDIOT DID HIMSELF IN. HE CARES FOR NO ONE BUT HIMSELF BUT THERE ISN'T TOO MUCH TO LOVE ,"IS THERE, JOHN?"
  reply