John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private. The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.
That's part of Elizabeth Edwards statement on John Edwards recently revealed affair. (For some reason, AP has the full comments but doesn't attribute them to a source.) Those late to the story and needing audio can click here for NPR. In terms of Elizabeth's statement, what a load of crap. Not only is she not trained in DNA forensics, she also doesn't have the DNA from the alleged child to prove one way or the other. What she may have is that her husband says he's not the father.
(Note the "may," Rebecca cautioned us to use qualifiers. She, Ava, C.I. and Elaine knew about this affair last summer. Rebecca says there is still a great deal to come out if any news organization decides to dig and not just repeat.)
When we first learned John Edwards was publicly confirming the affair Friday, our thoughts went immediately to his wife. As most know, Elizabeth Edwards is diagnosed with cancer. That does make us sympathetic. There's also the fact that we happen to like Elizabeth Edwards. The latter became a reason why we'd probably have to weigh in because we're not the site that just hands out lolly pops. There was a chance that Ava and C.I. would cover the topic in this week's TV commentary; however, they are not interested in sex scandals so we weren't surprised when it didn't make it into their final commentary.
We like Elizabeth Edwards, we are sympathetic to her illness. That doesn't mean you can get away with hogwash. AP's already covering her for this morning, wording it as she doesn't think that her husband has fathered a child with another woman. That's not what she wrote. She wrote that he hadn't. And those of us who majored in journalism (Dona, Jim, Jess and Ty) and those of us who didn't are all sick of this damn trick where someone issues a public statement on something and then says, "Leave me alone!"
Want to be left alone? It takes two words: "No comment." You make a public statement, you're asking for the attention -- intentionally or not.
It also helps to get your facts straight and while Elizabeth maintains that her diagnosis was later, John Edwards told Nightline that her cancer was in remission when the affair began. Could it be both? It probably is both. Like her husband, Elizabeth is an attorney and darn well knew what impression she was creating when she stated the affair began before her March 2007 diagnosis. Reality is she had already been diagnosed with cancer. Reality was the last known word was it was in remission. Reality on cancer is it treated, not cured.
We first learned about John Edwards admission at USA Today which also carried his self-serving statement that sought to promote his interview that night on ABC ("I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.") He really climbed on the cross for that one: "If you want to beat me up feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help." As Goldie Hawn says to Walter Matthau in Cactus Flower, "Julian, please, you're starting to make it sound like bragging."
An affair can be a private matter. Not when you make it a public one by turning it into a media event. John Edwards did that repeatedly long before The National Enquirer caught him in the hotel and he tried to hide out in the bathroom. Having finally decided to come clean, he turns it into another media event -- with accompanying his and her press releases.
No, you can't do that and declare it a private event. You can't invite journalism in the door and then say, "But you have to stay in the entry, you can't come into the living room."
That keeps happening. And it needs to stop.
It's bad for journalism but it's also bad for the public. A politician -- as demonstrated over and over -- thinks they can make a brief admission of guilt (in part or in full) and then declare, "It's a private matter." After which, no one's supposed to ask about -- like you're never supposed to ask Jodie Foster about her sex life or she'll walk out of the interview.
Non-journalists don't dictate what a journalist can or cannot do. It's perfectly fine for a journalist to decide they won't ask a question, that they consider it off-limits. A person issuing a public statement and then declaring it's off-limits and a private matter is something else completely. Politicians are using that quick confession as if it's a non-disclosure statement journalists agreed to sign when it's nothing of the kind.
John Edwards issued his public statement in text form to the media. Then he rushed off to Nightline to give a self-serving interview where he refused to answer Bob Woodruff's question about whether or not he held Rielle Hunter's baby (the baby alleged to be his). He would only say that he couldn't make out the photo The National Enquirer had of him holding a baby. You've agreed to sit down with the media and talk -- on camera -- about your affair, you damn well better talk.
An affair isn't the end of the world. Had Elizabeth Edwards taken Hillary Clinton's approach (it's no one else's damn business), that would be one thing. But she didn't. She wrote up a statement and shared bits (like she KNEW it wasn't John's baby) and then wanted to draw the veil. If it's no one else's damn business, it's no one else's damn business. But don't invite someone in and then think you can make demands after.
The Los Angeles Times is said to be all over this story. Funny, because last month when The National Enquirer ran a story (John's long visit that prompted him, when caught, to run and hide in the hotel's bathroom) the paper issued an edict that none of its reporters were to mention the topic.
Should the paper have issued that edict? That's something to debate. But the Edwards have both decided to go public and, having made that decision, they really can't outline the parameters of what the press can and cannot do.
Other than the tawdry spectacle of two adults deciding to make their private lives public, there are political issues.
John Edwards wants America to believe that this was his only time cheating. If true (if), that would mean that while running for president, he decided the perfect thing to do was to cheat on his wife. Cheating on your spouse or partner isn't uncommon and it's not the end of the world. But it is curious that, according to Edwards, after a lifetime of monogamy, he decided while running for president to have an affair.
To say it was stupid is putting it mildly.
There is also the issue that Elizabeth Edwards got tremendous sympathy (and publicity) when she discussed her cancer. And John Edwards got a bit of a boost from that. He's running for president and everyone's sympathetic to how difficult that must be while his wife has cancer. As the story is being told publicly, while he was campaigning for president (in 2006) he began an affair with another woman. In early 2007, he learned that Elizabeth was no longer in remission. In his statement he claims he made his peace with his family. How was that, John? Did you announce you had an affair and then, as you're doing with the press, declare that, having announced it, you'd said all you planned to?
It's really hard to believe that the marriage could take the toil of an affair, the admission of an affair, the cancer going out of remission and a presidential run all at the same time.
But that's what Edwards wants everyone to believe. Appearing on Nightline, sporting a new do that we can't figure out if it's a homage to friars to monks, Edwards made the usual ass of himself declaring that he was on camera because, "I have to be the man, to take responsibility."
He has to be "the man" in his marriage. The very fact that he feels he has to work at being "the man" when he is, in fact, a man is rather troubling. Add to that the fact that John Edwards has some pretty f**ked up ideas about what a man is. Prior to making his Democratic presidential endorsement, he appeared on MSNBC and got himself caught in a trap of his own making when using the masculine to describe a president. He denied then that he had just endorsed Barack; however, if it wasn't a slip, it goes straight to the fact that he's got some pretty f**ked up ideas of masculinity.
With the admission of cancer, he and Elizabeth opened a new door into a presidential wanna-be's life. It gave him an authenticity that would have been lacking had they also elected to share with the American people that John Edwards had cheated. On Nightline, he declared, "My Lord and my wife have forgiven me. I'm moving on." But what about the American people you wooed so vigorously for over three years in your non-stop campaign?
There is that endorsement, the one The Washington Post saw as a "boost" for Barack. How many would have seen it as a "boost" back in May if they'd known John Edwards had cheated on his wife? It's doubtful that even the Obama-mania news media would have shoved every other story to the side (including Hillary's massive primary win the day before) if admitted Edwards had been the admitted adulterer he is now. In fact, we doubt Barack would have publicized it, let alone attempted to turn it into a media event. (What is it about Barack and all those Crazy White People around him?) Hillary had just had a landslide the night before in West Virginia and there was LIAR John Edwards, side by side with Barack, declaring, "We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice and so have I." For those who have forgotten, that endorsement was judged to carry such 'moral authority' that the networks carried it live. The contest was not over and there was John Edwards trying to shut it down. He also declared that "we must come together as Democrats" and one has to wonder if that's a line he used on Elizabeth after confessing his affair?
A question that both husband and wife need to be asked is what they intended to say if John got the nomination or even made it into the White House? Ava and C.I. heard it in DC from a male senator in August who, in the course of a conversation, attempted to get them to donate to Barack's campaign. (We know that from Kat who was also present.) He assumed, wrongly, that they were Edwards supporters and that was all that was standing between them and Barack. So he shared that it wasn't just whispers, it was true (and other details).
So since this had already moved to DC talk, the Edwards must have discussed it then if not sooner. What was the plan, if John got the nomination, on how they would explain the affair? If John got the presidency, how would they explain it?
By the end of July 2007, the press was largely done with John Edwards and they, no doubt, were hearing the gossip as well. One has to wonder why no one suggested a Super Delegate take John Edwards into a room for a 'talk'? What would the campaign have been like without Edwards in it? Possibly Barack would have gotten all those voters and could say today that he won the nomination. (He didn't win it. Neither he nor Hillary received enough pledged delegates to win it.) Possibly Hillary could have won the voters? Had the news of the affair broken after the MSNBC debate where Barack and John tag-teamed Hillary, what effect would that have had? Maybe Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd or Mike Gravel might have actually gotten some traction in the race and gone on to win the nomination?
Most of the time, that talk is just could-have-been and not worth addressing. However, the Democratic Party and its organs (like The Nation) have repeatedly sold the 2008 election as their election to win and as a historic one in terms of the future of the country. Having declared that so much was on the line with this election, those same outlets should be pondering what Edwards campaigning did or did not do the primaries? Instead, Peter Rothberg (The Nation) rushes out with a don't-you-dare-talk-about-this post.
Again, had the approach been that it was no one else's damn business, that would have been the end of the story. But the Edwards turned it into a media event last Friday. And it's also a political event. In January, Ava and C.I. took Barack to task for trying to weasel out of Anderson Cooper's debate question about Loving v. Virginia where a couple sued the state of Virginia to overturn laws barring interracial marriage. Cooper wanted to know where Barack stood on same-sex marriage and brought Loving v. Virginia into the question. Barack played dumb and pretended to 'honor' that decision while insisting that marriage should be up to churches (Loving v. Virginia did not involve any church). Ava and C.I. also noted, "John Edwards also embarrassed himself in that debate noting he was against 'gay marriage' and 'I do not' support it leading us to shout back at the screen, ''Gee, John, we weren't aware you were being inundated with proposals!" In that debate, Edwards would be asked, via videotape (by a man who it turned out was in the audience) how his using religion to oppose same-sex marriage was any different than others who'd used religion as an excuse to practice other bigotry? Edwards opposed same-sex marriage and (at least publicly) tried to hide behind his Bible. The same Edwards that we now know wasn't too concerned with said Bible when he saw Rielle Hunter.
Last time we checked, the Bible said nothing about same-sex marriage but it was pretty damn clear on fidelity. Edwards was willing to deny some Americans the right to marry and to hide behind his 'Biblical interpretation' to do so but he wasn't too concerned about what the Bible said when he was cheating on his wife. It is political.
There's also the issue of Rielle. She's not made any public accusation, she's neither a plantiff nor a witness in any scheduled court case (and she's stated she's not going to put her child through a DNA test -- and, no doubt, the circus that would result from that). So why are the Edwards lawyering up on her? That is how this is playing out. Elizabeth may have every reason in the world to be mad at Rielle but, thing is, Rielle didn't pledge fidelity to Elizabeth in front of a church and God.
But Rielle is repeatedly rendered the 'bad' one in this. As an unmarried person, she's certainly free to sleep with whomever she wants. If infidelity is the issue, take it up with John Edwards who broke his vow. Instead, she's the one being dragged through the mud. We tend to agree with Jay McInerney's comments to The New York Daily News, "To say that he slept with her but he wasn't in love with her - that's not very chivalrous. He's trying to distance himself from her. I don't feel my questions have been answered with regard to Edwards. It was a half-assed confession."
--------------
Illustrations are Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Endorsement" (May 18, 2008) and Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "When Front Runners Attack" (November 4, 2007).