Three observations on the John Edwards "affair"

Posted by : Drew McKissick August 11, 2008 - 10:50am
Filed under :

Late Friday afternoon - after Obama left for vacation, and most of the world was paying attention to the opening of the Olympics - John Edwards finally admitted what had been rumored (and he had denied) for over a year...that he had been having an affair with a former campaign aid.

There are so many things you could comment on about this, but 3 really stand out to me:

1) The ego on this guy.  By his own admission (for what that's worth) he started up with this gal back in 2006...about the time he was starting up a presidential campaign.  In other words, he was running for president either just after - or while - messing around on his wife.  What can possibly be going through your mind?  What convinces you that "no, this won't be a problem"?

This is the same guy who, when Clinton got busted with Monica, said:

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

Sounds about right in his case too.

2) The hypocrisy of the media.  These guys knew about it for over a year, but went through all sorts of contortions in order to avoid discussing it...even after eye-witness accounts came out that backed up the National Enquirer's story.  The only reason they reported it was because he admitted it...and the only reason he admitted it was because he was going to be conspicuously absent from the Democrat's convention...which would only make people as "why?".

And the "he was no longer a candidate" thing doesn't fly.  This was a guy that, until insiders got word, was on the list of potential VP picks..and the list of potential cabinet and/or Supreme Court picks.  So there's no excuse for not checking it out.  Glenn Reynolds asks the excellent question: "What else are they not telling us for fear it will hurt the Democrats' prospects?"

This is the same media that rushed a much "thinner" rumor about John McCain to the front pages earlier this year.

3) What he "didn't" say.  Yes, he admitted to having "made a mistake".  But when did he stop "making mistakes"??  Meaning, was he "making a mistake" three weeks ago when he got cornered in a Beverly Hills hotel bathroom by National Enquirer reporters at 2:00am??  Not answering that question, since it's so obvious - or at least not denying it - pretty much confirms the obvious.  Which takes you back to point number 1.

Oh, and Hunter has now rejected taking a paternity test on the sixth month old baby...despite the fact that Edwards said he would.  Now there's a gal who know's what's good for her.

Somewhere Bill Clinton is probably chuckling to himself, ("what an amateur!").

*** 

Related:

More: Sister Toldjah - Right Wing News - Michelle Malkin - Stop the ACLU - Wizbang - Hot Air

John Edwards

Submitted by olde bat on August 13, 2008 - 6:49am.

Does it occur to anyone here that the reason the paramour does not want a paternity test is that she has been paid off? SOMEONE gave her a million dollar home and SOMEONE is handsomely supporting her and the child. Perhaps she's been told that if she keeps her mouth shut largesse will continue to flow. If she undergoes her portion of the test she will have to accept whatever a court decides is the right amount. Which amount so you think would be more?

She knows what's good for her

Submitted by Drew McKissick on August 13, 2008 - 8:48am.

No doubt about it. That's why she refused the test. Why stop the gravy train when you could always hold that over his head if things ever go sour. Let's just say, if she continues to live high on the hog, we all know "who the baby daddy is".

That sounds about right

Submitted by PN_Knoll on August 13, 2008 - 8:30am.

That sounds about right there. But as some of the stories that are out there suggest, she and Edwards may have had even more bad intentions. Some comments I've heard about the story suggest a "waiting it out" sort of mentality on these two's parts regarding the Mrs. Edwards. Talk about LOW.

But he was 99% truthful with us!

Submitted by Gary Gore on August 11, 2008 - 3:22pm.

When he made what sounded like excuses for his deception on this issue by saying (paraphrasing) "When I was denying this affair occurred, I was being 99% truthful in what I was saying in my denials. But, sometimes being even only 1% deceptive isn't good enough".

This is 'Exhibit A' as to why those on the left just don't get it. As if the initial acts aren't deplorable enough it is what typical follows that has been the most disgusting thing. It's been the posturing afterwards, the righteous indignation; the "Depends on what the definition of 'is', is", the "vast rightwing conspiracies", and now THIS!