New York magazine's stomach churning cover story on the fall of John Edwards is up

[BurtWorm]

There are simply no words...

http://nymag.com/news/politics/63045/



Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster


A candidate whose aides were prepared to block him from becoming president. A wife whose virtuous image was a mirage. A mistress with a video camera. In an excerpt from the new book Game Change—their sweeping account of the 2008 campaign—the authors reveal that, inside the Edwards triangle, nothing was too crazy to be true.

By John Heilemann & Mark Halperin
...


For all the tabloid headlines that have dogged Edwards in the years since then, most of the details of the circumstances that led to his fall have remained shrouded in mystery. After his turn as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, Edwards was among a small handful of politicians with a credible shot at occupying the Oval Office. He was popular and charming, with serious rhetorical skills, a wife beloved by the public, and the same basic profile—a white, southern, moderate male—as the previous three Democrats who’d proved capable of winning the White House. Today, according to a recent NBC News–Wall Street Journal poll, Edwards stands as the “most disappointing” public figure of 2009, having collected twice as many votes for that dubious distinction as Tiger Woods. And hard as it is to imagine, the coming months may debase his image further still.



Philandering is hardly a novel vice among presidential wannabes—or presidents, for that matter. Nor was the Edwards campaign the only national operation in 2008 for which the actual or rumored extracurricular activities of the candidate (or the candidate’s spouse) posed a significant political problem. John McCain’s campaign expended vast amounts of time and energy dealing with accusations that the senator had had an affair with a lobbyist and preparing to confront stories that his wife was carrying on a liaison of her own. Hillary Clinton’s team established a “war room within a war room” to douse potential flare-ups in the press surrounding her husband’s personal life. Indeed, among the top-tier contenders, only the eventual Mr. and Mrs. 44 were untroubled by such matters.



Yet it was Edwards who stepped so far across the line that his career and life were reduced to rubble. For all the high drama of the Obama-Clinton battle and the historic import of the former’s general-election victory over McCain, Edwards’s story is equally, lastingly resonant: an archetypal political tragedy in which the very same qualities that fuel any presidential bid—ego, hubris, vanity, neediness, a kind of delusion—became all-consuming and self-destructive. And in which the gap between public façade and private reality simply grew too vast to bridge.

...

Read more: An Excerpt From John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's 'Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime' -- New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/politics/63045/#ixzz0cA6a6fQ6

[stray cat]

1. No sympathy for John Edwards from me

[benlurkin]

51. Why would his staff put up witht he kind of nasty abuse that

this book is alleging? I don't have any sympathy for any involved but for the child. She had no choice in the matter.

BTW, I am unfamiliar with the authors. Can someone shed some light on who they are and what they have done previous to this book?

[BurtWorm]

76. John Heilemann is New York magazine's political correspondent.

He usually strikes me as a pretty shrewd observer of the politicsl scene. Mark Halperin was the one of the originator's of ABC's The Note. He is one of the most respected pundits among "respected" pundits--which means he has, as far as I can tell, that same tunnel vision all elite members of the media have. But he has a lot of contacts who spill to him, apparently.

[Mass]

2. Not sure what bugs me more: Edwards or the clear pleasure Halperin has reporting this.

Given the excerpt that have been published (Clinton and Reid), this is an all out attack against Democrats.

But I have never been an Edwards's fan, so this is probably a lot less disturbing to me than to former John Edwards supporters.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Good call on Halperin. nt

[RamboLiberal]

23. The past few days there has been stuff against Palin

coming from this same book. Myself I intend to read the book before I call it just a hit job against Democrats. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have their share of warts.

[tammywammy]

37. Actually I'm a bit interested in getting the book too. n/t

[troubledamerican]

195. +1

[Book Lover]

3. John Edwards never made any promises concerning his zipper to me

and I therefore not only do not care, but have an obligation to keep my nose out of his personal business. A sentiment we all would do well to share.

Or is the above result more desirable?

[Captain Hilts]

6. True, but folks trusted him to not be vulnerable to blackmail. nt

[LaydeeBug]

263. that excuse is as bullshit sounding now as it was when Clinton was in Office

yeah, not like having a male escort spend a few nights at the WH would open any of those doors :eyes:

[msongs]

7. maybe deceit and dishonesty are your family values. well ok then... nt

[krabigirl]

29. No, some people just don't give a crap about politicians' private lives

[defendandprotect]

80. EXACTLY . . . and this idea of putting politicians on pedestals is so laughable . .. !!!

And still so many here trying to make obama look more than human --

it's so inane!!

[hack89]

137. Should we care about their honesty? nt

[skepticscott]

197. When he decided to run for president

his life was no longer private. Not when exposure of his affair could have destroyed the Democratic cause and endangered the whole country. What do you think would have happened if he had actually become the nominee, and then had this story break (as he knew it might) only a month before the election? His campaign would have gone down in flames, and John McCain and Sarah Palin would be holding the reins of power. Edwards had no right to risk that just to indulge his ego and his false sense of privacy.

[dorkulon]

252. Some people, sure. But not nearly enough to win a presidential election.

Bottom line, Edwards could have blown the election.

[pattmarty]

135. I am not going to defend the guy, but I think you're getting just a little........

..........judgemental and "overly religious" in your seemingly conceited appraisal. Edwards is gone from the political scene and I feel sorry most for his wife and what she has had to go through with the media and whatnot. I am not going to read the book OR MAKE ANY JUDGMENTS.

[avaistheone1]

270. Well many of the greatest leaders in our country's history have had the same propensity.

I think it is a family matter. Period.

[emilyg]

17. He should have promised you. He

was running for Pres.

[cornermouse]

110. You are aware of Halperin's trashing of the Clinton's, right?

In which he took personal opinion and attempted to turn it into fact.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/07/60minutes/main6067628.shtml

When President-elect Obama called her again to convince her to be his secretary of state, Clinton told him there was a problem, says Heilemann, a New York Magazine reporter. "At that point she says 'There's one last thing that's a problem, which is my husband. You've seen what this is like; it will be a circus if I take this job,'" Heilemann reports.

Says Halperin, who writes for Time magazine, "It's this extraordinary moment…Clinton saying something she says to almost no one, admitting her husband is a problem. At the same time Obama comes back and shows vulnerability to her. He says to her, 'Given the economic crisis, given all I have to deal with, I need your help.'"

Notice that there is a difference in Heilemann's account (quotes) and Halperin's account (in which he tries to throw mud at both Clintons).

[Ken Burch]

115. I'm not sure I follow the president-elect's logic in this, if this is an accurate report.

Why would the economic crisis mean Obama needed Hillary as Secretary of State? That's a position which, in theory, has almost nothing to do with economic policy. If it was about economics, you'd expect him to tell her he needed her at Treasury or Commerce...but at Foggy Bottom?

Does...not...compute...

[mantis49]

141. I think it may mean that if State was in her capable

hands, he would be able to focus more on the economy.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. I'm not interested in his personal business

I'm interested in the fact that he was a candidate for leader of the Democratic Party and his personal business had the potential to bring the party down in he had won. Put another way, I don't care who he is fucking. I do care who he gets caught fucking.

[roguevalley]

67. I do because it makes them worthless if they win and gives the press

and pigs something to squeal about for four years.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. You must have read my subject line and not the entire post

As I said, I don't care who he is fucking. I do care who he gets caught fucking because that has consequences for the party.

[Adelante]

104. Exactly right nt

[ginnyinWI]

140. it shows a person's character--or lack of it.

Not only was he willing to do this for himself at the expense of wife and family, he was very willing to lie, lie, and lie some more. As well as sell his endorsement to Obama for something in return (which Obama refused to do). When someone has no standards of decency, they should not be entrusted with running a nation.

[Hippo_Tron]

165. FDR was a great president and he had a mistress

Shrub, on the other hand, was probably the first president who was completely faithful to his wife in a while and well he was terrible. These so-called "moral character" judgments that we make about people are complete crap. Everybody has character flaws and if a politician appears not to, it's probably because they are a really good actor.

[bobbolink]

172. Nail on head.

I wish all our politicians could be perfect... could satisfy ALL our desires for who they are.

That's never going to happen. Actually, you said that much better:

"Everybody has character flaws and if a politician appears not to, it's probably because they are a really good actor."

[PSzymeczek]

184. Well, there were

those rumors about Condi, especially after she made her "my husband" gaffe.

[skepticscott]

199. The issue was not even so much the morality

of what he did (though if he'd lie to his wife about being faithful to her, he'd lie to anyone about anything), but the likelihood of getting caught and the consequences if he did. Edwards lives in an era of far different media attention to politician's sex lives, and far different public reaction to them than FDR did. Running for president with this in his closet put the whole country in jeopardy of 8 more years of Repugs in the White House.

[Hippo_Tron]

223. Read my post above

As I said I don't care who he is fucking. I do care who he gets caught fucking.

[XemaSab]

230. Here's the REAL difference

Presidents are only judged in hindsight.

FDR is remembered as a great leader because his accomplishments overshadow his infidelities.

Edwards is an also-ran because he has no accomplishments, so his infidelities are all that is left.

[tblue37]

232. Nah--I think Ronnie was totally faithful to Nancy.

I doubt that W and Laura have been intimate for years. My guess is that he and Condi were bestest friends.

[kaybea]

261. or Jeff Gannon, Intrepid 'Reporter'. . .

[aquart]

253. Yep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

228. That disqualifies almost every President since oh Washington then

I think the only exception to that is oh Carter. And he still felt guilty for thinking bout it.

[ginnyinWI]

243. These days you don't get the nomination with any moral taint on you.

Bill is the exception. Everybody else has been pretty clean who has gotten the nomination: Obama, McCain, Kerry, Dubya, Gore, Poppy Bush, Reagan, etc.

[saracat]

250. You are kidding right? Really? McCain? Poppy? Dubya?

Did you pay any attention to the last campaign?, Or the others? It really is more about how the issue is handled or supressed rather than freedom from taint!

[ginnyinWI]

272. Okay sure.

I was speaking specifically about sexual scandals. I know McCain narrowly avoided one. My larger point was that sexual scandals usually end a politician's prospects, although there can be exceptions. Back before the media felt it could go there, people got away with a lot more.

[saracat]

273. Now that is true to a point but there were sexual scandals linked to all mentioned that were just

underreported. It just seems to be a matter of choice who is targeted for investigation and destruction.Even in the case of Edwards, it waqs never actively pursued until the question of Attorney general was involved.It seems what figures into what dictates the choice is not known because it certainly isn't party affiliation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

281. Obama is more or less sqeaky clean but not from the moral standards you think

McCain has a second marriage under him and rumors of tail... Kerry had his issues, and second marriage, dubya has drug use and ahem issues, gore was destroyed as well, by being called a liar, Poppy had more than just some issues, Reagan was in a second marriage and rumors abound he chased tail in the WH.

Next fantasy statement.

Or rather you mean you don't get the nomination if you are a democrat...and chiefly a social democrat. Sex is just a way to destroy you.

Americans are so damn ignorant of their own history, and chiefly so damn naive about how politics is played that they are so damn fucking easy to manipulate.

Me, in the corner laughing my ass off. It would be something to cry about, but why bother any longer?

[aquart]

255. This is how the Irish cheated themselves of Parnell.

Fools.

[SammyWinstonJack]

292. +1

I'd rather Edwards was Pres than Obama. Talk about a liar and a manipulator. Obama cheated on his base and has let his fellow citizens down.

[CitizenLeft]

202. my sentiments exactly.

[bertman]

73. I'm a North Carolinian and he promised me and the other citizens of North Carolina

that he wanted to be elected to the Senate (to replace the douchebag Faircloth) so he could represent us.

The lying son of a bitch didn't even get his feet on the ground in D.C. before he was actively campaigning for President. We had an absentee Democratic Senator for two years while he was trying to stroke his ego with the Big One--winning the Presidency.

Gigantic ego and no sense of obligation to the people he was elected to serve.

[barb162]

129. I hate to tell you

but he's not the only one who just got in the Senate and ran for Prez.

[bobbolink]

173. .

ZING!

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

180. Yeah, that's a little inconvenient to bring up...nt

[bertman]

186. I know, barb. But the other guy didn't tell me he would represent me, so I gave him a pass.

:hi:

[LisaM]

275. Naw, he just promised the people of Illinois. As Hillary did the people of NY

turns out only one of the three actually fulfilled that promise.

[jbnow]

222. Of course the book also says that other Senators were urging Obama

to run for president, something I hadn't heard before. Well I knew Durbin had but but I didn't know Reid and several others had urged him to run then as well.

I'm pretty sure he didn't enter the Senate to run for president in his first term but doors opened. Destiny called you could say

[spiritual_gunfighter]

268. Edwards was my Senator as well

and I too remember all the talk about wanting to finish his term as Senator. I never trusted Edwards and I dont think may people in NC ended up trusting him either.

[appal_jack]

288. my thoughts and experience w/ Edwards too

A big +1 to everything bertman said. Any DU'ers curious enough dig can find my Journal entries from the primary days expressing doubts about Edwards honesty and principles long before even a whiff of sexual scandal was adrift on the air.

-app

[BurtWorm]

83. I don't care about his private life. I care about his lack of judgment and wisdom.

His lack of concern for his wife and staff and supporters. His apparent loss of touch with reality. His lack of self-knowledge and self-control. His lack of smarts about how politics is done in America. But then I've never been an Edwards fan. I've always thought there was little there there.

[Retired AF Dem]

112. I don't understand this feeling

If a politician is a scumbag in his personal life just why in the hell should I trust him in his public life? If he cant control himself he has no business trying to control others.

[laughingliberal]

182. That was certainly the rationale for going after Clinton. nt

[midnight]

5. Why have the courts processed this claim against Edwards, but the courts

refuse to hear the crimes against bush?

[struggle4progress]

12. The US Attorney for Eastern District of North Carolina, George Holding, is a Bushbot

who has specialized in prosecuting high profile Dems

[MissDeeds]

24. Strange how priorities run

Isn't it?

:wtf:

[aquart]

41. Yes. I would rather my president screw his mistress than my country.

And I don't care if my candidate/president is beloved of his children. In fact, I'd rather they hate him for his neglect because he gave all his time to his job and making sure ALL the people are provided for.

[Darth_Kitten]

146. A President shouldn't screw his BASE.

And there is no Democratic President sort of doing that now? :(

[malaise]

30. Good question n/t

[asjr]

8. Every time I see Mark Halperin's name

I run for the Pepto Bismol.

[QC]

9. I have a feeling that Halperin is about to become a DU icon,

right up there with Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan, and Joe Klein.

[jonnyblitz]

34. gossipy political books are a guilty pleasure of mine so I will

read a copy from my library and take it all with a grain of salt. Since I never met a politician I liked it won't bother me what is said about any of them. I am curious to see what is said about the others as well. While perusing this article I also discovered that Larry Kramer is also working on a book that sounds a bit bizarre that I will have to read if he ever finishes writing it. check the link out:

http://nymag.com/news/features/62887/

[troubledamerican]

196. Wrong. Andrew Sullivan is enemies with Halperin, Noonan & Klein.

That may not be what you meant to convey, but for those not well-versed with all of those names, it looks like you're associating one name there that does not belong with the others.

[QC]

201. I think you are making things unnecessarily complicated,

though I see what you mean.

All of those people are right wing assholes who have lately found great favor on this site.

[troubledamerican]

219. Wrong. Sullivan is hardly a "right wing asshole" -- anti-torture, pro-gay, anti-Cheney, pro-Obama

You can barely name an issue on which he is a "right-wing asshole"

[QC]

220. How long have you been following Sully's career?

It goes back more than a couple of years, you know.

[troubledamerican]

225. You gotta be kidding. Would you crucify David Brock too? Sullivan is a de facto Democrat

Sullivan's defection from the GOP has been very public, and he was NEVER Far Right to begin with.

I'm starting to conclude that either (a) it's YOU who knows nothing about Sullivan, or (b) you're spreading disinfo.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Find the "Right Wing Asshole" blog entry. You'll see his admissions today about how he's "becoming a hippie" and anti-Liz Cheney posts and anti-Palin posts and anti-torture posts and pro-Obama/anti-Likud posts.

You really ARE spreading disinfo, intentionally or not.

[QC]

229. As I suspected, you have just discovered Sully in the past couple of years.

That's true of most of his fanboiz here. I've been reading him for nearly twenty years, so I'm not nearly so starry-eyed.

Inform yourself. Google Sully's name along with the following phrases:

"The Bell Curve"

"libidinal pathology"

"RAWMUSCLGLUTES"

"fifth column"

You will find some very interesting info.

[gateley]

47. Why? Who is he? (I must have heard of him, but nothing clicks.) Thanks. nt

[BurtWorm]

52. He used to be responsible for The Note, ABC's 'inside' political newsletter

I forget where he went afterwards--maybe a newsweekly? He's always on Charlie Rose and often on Rush Limbaugh giving the conventional wisdom about politics.

[struggle4progress]

10. Too bad.

[cali]

11. Pretty yucky stuff. also well sourced yucky stuff.

[CTyankee]

21. We knew Edwards was a shit before Halperin came on the scene.

He is just a follow up guy, taking advantage of what is already known.

Halperin should be a cut out paper doll of a gossip columnist because that is what he is...

[bigtree]

13. we should stay out of peoples' bedrooms

. . . we've only ourselves to blame for whatever we see and feel about it when we go there.

[BurtWorm]

53. I don't know about you, but if the politicians aren't going to be happily married

I don't want them pretending to be happily married just to improve their chances ro get elected.

[SmileyRose]

66. I'm not so sure this is about bedrooms

It seems more a statement on the fact politicians script their public persona and we really have no fucking clue who they really are.

[hlthe2b]

14. Edwards may deserve this, but it is so cruel re: Elisabeth...

horrendously so.... I'm sure she's no Saint, but damn... what she's been through. This callous treatment of her just makes me cringe from my toes to my eyebrows. Really hateful..

[jillan]

16. I just posted the same thing. My heart really goes out to her.

[RamboLiberal]

36. I admire Elizabeth but

both she and John could've cost us the Democratic presidency by allowing the campaign for John to be president to go on after they knew about the affair & love child that they very well knew would most likely be exposed!

[hlthe2b]

39. Yes.. However, did you read the article pieces on Elisabeth?

I could appreciate the point you make being the focus, but what was written was ... just nasty innuendo vis-a-vis Elisabeth

[aquart]

49. What was the innuendo? They didn't imply anything. They flat out stated.

With heinous but unrefuted quotes.

I do thank her for pushing John left, though. Wish it had been his own bent, but he was clearly out for himself and not us.

[hlthe2b]

96. I called it innuendo only because these were unattributed....

Heinous quotes, indeed....

[northernlights]

175. especially agree, considering that she was probably on chemo

it seems patently unfair to attack someone's behavior that way when they are not only personally tormented but physically sick and suffering the effects of chemo...

I spent half an hour on the phone Friday night with someone who has a year to live. He was argumentative, sometimes angry, and uncooperative because I couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear. But really, he is not an abusive person, he was just angry that he is dying.

[bobbolink]

176. I appreciate that you understand that.

That's what walking a mile in someone's shoes means.

Thank you.

[jillan]

15. Did they do a similar story on John Ensign or Mr. Appalachian Trail?

I'm no fan of John Edwards - but - this is really over the top.

and the one person I feel for is Elizabeth. How she must feel seeing this.

[cali]

18. Was either running for prez in 2008? No? There's your answer.

[dsc]

26. No but Ginrich is very likely to be this year

and I sure haven't seen this kind of expose of him, Guilliani ran in 2008 and I didn't see a similar expose of him either.

[hileeopnyn8d]

33. I think Guilliani is

in the book, but I haven't seen near as many "advance excerpts" coming out about the Republicans. Funny how that works.

[Cleita]

40. Yes, and their bedroom escapades makes Edwards look like a choir boy. n/t

[Orsino]

264. Is either still in office? Yes.

The question is hanging in the air.

I suppose the answer must include the fact that the Edwards machine has already been dismantled, and that there are plenty of former employees and associates willing to talk.

[Doctor_J]

124. No, and they won't. Halperin s a Repuke whore

I read that he is a guest on Limpballs' show. You won't see anything like this on Gingrinch, Rudy, Palin, or Willard.

[SoCalDem]

19. Tiger Edwards, Esq. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

162. OT - are those your kitties? My husband absolutely LOVES THEM.

I do too :-)

[SoCalDem]

163. Not mine, but my kitties do that too

I found these online somewhere, a while back.. My Marvin even "hugs" ME :)

[RevCheesehead]

20. I feel like I need a shower.

You're right - - there simply are no words.

[Enrique]

22. interesting subject

I'd like to read an in-depth story on the Edwards affair. If anyone sees such a story not written by Mark Halperin I hope they post it.

[jbnow]

224. His ex-aide, Andrew Young, who took blame for paternity

has written a book that comes out next month.
"The Politician": John Edwards Book By Andrew Young

I didn't read it but from google Huffington post has an article about the book
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/the-politician-john-edwar_n_387000.html

[unc70]

25. Strange no mention of Lisa Druck, or a lot of other things

Interesting the spin on things, particularly the framing of EE. For example, my first thought about the health insurance is was that if EE were somehow excluded when the plan was established, she would be denied coverage for pre-existing.

[Paper Roses]

27. I still want my money back. Both donations. What a fraud. n/t

[shireen]

194. me too ....

i fell for the 'poverty' line, despite my instincts warning me that something was not right.
;(

At the time, my instincts were also warning me about Obama, but i really didn't feel like listening to it because i was so thrilled at the prospect of having an African-American president. I never got bad vibes about Hillary; i liked her a lot and thought how wonderful it would be to have a woman as president, but felt lukewarm about her candidacy because of Clinton fatigue due to Bill. So I didn't support or campaign for either of them, just voted the Dem. ticket in November because there was no other choice.

Since having the privilege to vote after getting my citizenship in 2002, the only political candidate, for any office i can vote for, who has won (and still has) my whole-hearted loyalty and support is Wes Clark. The only sitting politician I whole-heartedly like and support is Bernie Sanders, who has been instrumental in helping to shape my political ideology over the past few years.

Such weird weird times we live in ... from now on, i'm going to pay more attention to my inner voice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Wow.

That's bad.

Doesn't make Elizabeth look too good either.

[krabigirl]

31. Yawn. Who cares. So many puritans obsessed with other people's lives.

none of my business.

[Omaha Steve]

32. Marta & I believed in John Edwards...

Hard to say how much of this article is truth or fill in. Time will tell. It doesn't look good.

I traveled three times to see him. I'm in photos and videos of his Iowa trip sometime during Oct. 07. I got an autograph on his vacation pic the AP put out. Marta and I kicked in $100's for him. I still have paid for yard signs in my shed. I took vacation days off to work for him (side by side with Rocky) for the 08 Iowa caucus. I guess it is best others sent the election in other directions!

OS

[MissDeeds]

35. Edwards' message was sound

It was the messenger that was flawed.

[AspenRose]

42. His private life became a public concern for democrats who supported him

financially.

It's not so much about the infidelity (although for some it matters, as a gauge of character) as it is about his ability to be irresponsible and reckless with the truth, with the public trust, and with the money his supporters gave him.

All of that points to traits no one would want in a president.

He could have ruined the 2008 election for democrats if he had beaten out Obama and Clinton in the primaries. We'd have President McCain now had that scenario borne out.

So it's more than "about his private life."

[Withywindle]

43. Totally agreed.

Politicians (especially Democratic ones, unfortunately) need to realize and understand that standards of behavior are higher for them than for John/Jane Q. Public, or even for John/Jane Q. Sports/Movie/Music Celebrity.

I don't personally give a damn what Bill Clinton did either - consenting adults, legal, etcetera (and at least Hillary didn't have TERMINAL FUCKING CANCER, Jeebus)--but it does make me angry in that it gave the Repukes ammunition against him to interfere with his governing and might have hurt Gore in 2000.

Surely lesson #1 ought to be "don't give your enemies easy-to-understand, low-hanging-fruit ammunition against you!" Anyone who can't understand this is not smart enough to be President, and anyone who can't put this into practice for a few years is not disciplined enough, IMO.

[Juche]

46. Pretty much

[BurtWorm]

82. When you have campaign staff worrying that you'll actually win primaries

something is seriously wrong with you.

[Alameda]

136. Very well said......I agree and couldn't have said it better.

[UTUSN]

44. Selection Night '04 was SO strange to my Piscean intuition

I was never a fan of his, really was just indifferent to him. Back in '04 I sold myself on KERRY despite doubts, and just thought that EDWARDS was a fill-in-the-blank. But when KERRY didn't show for a concession speech and EDWARDS substituted, and he said something like, "He's had a rough time, let him have one more night off, he'll talk to you tomorrow," I thought it was SO strange. It was like EDWARDS was cutting his strings from KERRY, that EDWARDS didn't seem to be a partner in a team, was out for himself, was talking like the campaign had nothing to do with him.

[karynnj]

58. Edwards was sent out by the campaign because late that night Ohio was not 100% clear

What he actually said was that they were not conceding yet - they were watching Ohio and getting numbers on the number of outstanding provisional ballots. This was (per Shrum and others) the decision of the team and especially Kerry. By the next morning, the numbers made it impossible to hold out and Kerry conceded - the second slowest concession in modern times.

There were earlier things that could be said to be Edwards not being a team player - starting with refusing to have Kerry's back (which he in 2006 argued he wanted to do - contrary to stories from people in the campaign) even when he promised Kerry he would and when he wouldn't use the campaign's slogan.

I assumed in 2005 and 2006 when Kerry spoke of knowing mistakes were made - that it was likely that bowing to the media and party and taking JRE as VP, against his gut instinct was one. Like you in 2004, I ignored Ewdards, who I really did not particularly like.

[Major Hogwash]

95. Even though all of that may be true, and there were mistakes made that Kerry admitted to later

Everyone told Kerry that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would win.
Kerry had huge favorability ratings in June of 2004.
And Edwards had huge favorability ratings in June, as well, just behind Kerry.
So, naturally, that pair would have huge favorability ratings as a team in the general election.

And personally, although Ohio's results were shadowy at best in 2004, I think Kerry/Edwards actually did win that election.

Although I really fought hard for Kerry in 2004, and didn't really think that Edwards had much of a chance against Kerry, I liked Edwards on a personal level.
And I hate it that this happened.
I hate it that they are shredding him like this.
And I hate it that Elizabeth has to endure this, too.

But, if anything is true about the character of John Edwards, he will rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, and become the man he once aspired to be.
And I hope that somehow, some way, him and Elizabeth can weather the storm together.

His own supporters are the ones that feel they are the ones most hurt by these events, but all of us are diminished and hurt by the level of schadenfreude and exposé displayed by the all too eager press, acting like buzzards in the desert, ready to pick at the bones of the man who has fallen to the ground in the sands of the desert.

I was not an Edwards supporter in 2008.
But I am now.

Nothing makes me wretch faster than the rush of the media to point their long, bony, hypocritical fingers at a man who has failed to live up to some ideal built up in our minds while they sit in their ivory towers and condemn other men (and women) who have walked among the people and have gained friendships and loyalty that they can count on for the rest of their lives.

I supported Obama for President in 2008.
But now I support John and Elizabeth Edwards in their time of trouble, for what are we, but fragile human beings, prone to make errors like children with no one to guide us?

There is but one truth about this entire sordid incident and that is, there is no one greater or no one that will be harsher that will judge John Edwards, more than John will judge himself.

I hope that one day John can look himself in the mirror and find the will, the strength, and the courage to ask Elizabeth for forgiveness and to make it right with her.
For she is all that matters for him right now.
And then to forgive himself . . eventually.

And then get back to the business of living.
Back to the business that pushed him into making political changes to begin with.
We may drop the torch once in awhile on our journey, but we are all in this together.
And John needs to pick that torch back up and get back to being what he aspired to become.

There are those who will ridicule him for it, they are always ever present.
He will have critics who will mock him, for the world is full of critics.
But, if Richard Nixon can get beat in his run for the Presidency in 1960, and get beat in his run for the Governor of California in 1962, and still come back to become the President of the United States in 1968, then John Edwards can come back from this, and be the man he aspired to be.

Hillary Clinton did not write her book "It Takes A Village" so that we only take care of the little children of the village, but also so that we take care of each other, along with the elders, and all the other members of the village, too.

We belong to the family of the human race and we are all in this together.
We are affected by this event, or that incident, or any tragic news we hear of.
We need to start lifting each other up, not tearing each other down.

And that is the message that Obama has been talking about for the last year!
We need to help one another, the rich and the poor, the healthy and the sick, the weak and the strong.

We are what we aspire to be.
We will become what we aspire to become.
We should, we will, we can aspire to be great.

So, even though John doesn't read the DU forum, I hope that he understands, he is no greater than his own successes, and no less than his own failures.
And together, we can rise above this.
We can heal one another.

And we can aspire to be great.

I don't even know if this incident is true about John.
Whether it is actually his baby or not.
It makes no difference now, we still have to help that baby girl grow up and nurture her like she was our very own child.

It's our village!!!

And we can aspire to have a great village!
Yes, we can!!

[chimpymustgo]

126. Yours is one of the most thoughtful, humane pieces I've ever read on DU. You should post this as

an OP.

I had not planned to comment on this tragic situation, having been an Edwards supporter in both '04 and'08. There was so much truth and hope in his message, and his dishonesty and downfall have been painful to watch and endure.

Thank you, for strong words in the face of the tsunami of schadenfreude in the media and at DU. Perhaps it is deserved. But redemption is not only possible, but hoped for.

[karynnj]

154. Only a very good person could write what you wrote here -

It is clear to anyone who read my posts in 2005/2006/2007/2008 or 2009, that I am not someone who ever believed in Edwards. However, I really wish none of this were ever written. At this point, his and his family's lifes have to be enormously troubled. There are very few who still think highly of Edwards or think his behavior was acceptable. I honestly do not think he can raise from the ashes of this. Nixon, as unlikable as he was, never offended most Republicans nor did he as blantantly lie about who he was. That however makes it more reasonable to just let this story die - we know more than enough - at this point this is like people rubbernecking to see an accident better.

I agree with you that at the time of selection, given that Edwards had popular and media favorability, (per Shrum) internal polls and the fact that he was a party favorite, Edwards would have been very hard for Kerry to reject, especially based only on Kerry's negative gut reaction. In addition, had Edwards accepted the normal junior role of the VP, which given the huge difference in political and governmental experience and because Kerry beat him soundly in the primaries should have been easy, he would have been a better than average asset in running for President. Edwards was nowhere the drag (nor attraction) that Palin was, but I remember being underwhelmed with the CSPAN coverage of his events - he really seemed bored and giving his speech in a rote way. The meglomania shown at a more advanced stage later explains how he saw his own political instincts and abilities as better than Kerry's - even though he never in 2 elections years came close to Kerry's poll numbers. Edwards' actions in 2004 were negative enough that NONE of the many strategists and fund raisers that stuck with Kerry until he opted not run went with Edwards.

It is interesting that reportedly, Kerry's advice to Obama was to chose as VP someone you want to govern with. Now, 2008 was a year when Obama/(almost anyone) would win - so considering who could bring something to the ticket in terms of votes was not needed. (Also in 2004, Kerry had no "knowledge" areas that were deficits - perceived or actual/). The criterion Kerry gave Obama along with the view of someone who could be a credible President is better only when the election itself was pretty certain. In rhetrospect, I wish Kerry would have argued that his gut feeling when added to Edwards' lack of experince made him a risky choice .... as a potential President.

There were rumors in 2005 or 2006, that Kerry's personal choice was Durbin. Now, Durbin would very likely have been better debating Cheney and he would have had Kerry's back, but that Edwards would NOT do better at both these things given that he was a hot shot lawyer was not predictable. The media story would have been obvious (as some already had said it in speculation) - that Kerry was not self assured enough to pick someone more charismatic and exciting them himself - which reflected the media's assment that voting never supported. (Oddly, some in the press did argue that Gore did not pick the "more charismatic, eloquent" Kerry for that reason - though I believe teh Lieberman is the antiClinton argument). Not picking Edwards would likely have led to negative media, especially if they thought the choice was not one of the "cool kids".

At this point though, I am influenced by Kerry's sympathy and his calling the whole Edwards story, "a tragedy for the family". As Kerry and his wife were victims of the Edwards' attacks on anyone in their way (in return for Kerry giving him the opportunity to be VP), Kerry's compassion and calling it a tragedy suggests that he does not see Edwards (or both Edwards) as not having a good side.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

171. Everyone should read this.

(what Major Hogwash wrote above)

[BurtWorm]

226. I hope he and Elizabeth and the little girl will get through this and be made stronger by it.

But I don't think Edwards needs to get back into politics. I'd be very surprised if he did. He was a wealthy trial lawyer who unseated Lauch Faircloth, then was a "moderate" Democratic Senator who voted for IWR, for giving Bush greater leverage in negotiating trade policy, for liberalizing trade with China against the arguments of American unions, for making it more difficult to declare bankruptcy and escape debt, then was the moderate VP choice meant to appeal to Southerners and conservative Democrats. Then he got religion, thanks to Elizabeth apparently, but we don't know if his heart was really in it.

We don't need Edwards in our public life. Let him earn our trust. He has a lot of work to do toward that.

[UTUSN]

161. What bugs me eternally is the discrepancy between public image & reality AND that PLENTY of people

around all of these public people KNOW what they are really like and they play along in keeping it all quiet until LATER.

We NEED TO KNOW what they are all like AT THE TIME!1

[femrap]

45. Human beings are mostly

terrible company. I believe I'll stick with those of 4 legs or wings.

Now I will go take a shower.

[Kaleva]

48. A modern day Shakespearean tragedy.

[undeterred]

50. Stomach churning is right.

This episode changed my view of the National Enquirer.

This article isn't very flattering to Elizabeth Edwards, but she still can't be half as phony as John Edwards is. I feel sorry for the campaign staff who had to put up with him.

I was a Kucinich supporter, while everyone around me was supporting Edwards. I was told DK wasn't ready to be president yet.

[bobbolink]

177. And again it must be said--Kucinich dropped poverty in '04. Those of us who were adamant about

poverty were left with only ONE choice.

If you would work to get other politicians to take poverty seriously, THEN there would be more choices.

[Odin2005]

54. Edwards is a fucking selfish idiot.

committing adultery while he's running for president and his wife is fighting cancer, charming his adoring fans all the while. That's borderline sociopath behavior. Only a sociopath would cheat on his spouse while she was fighting a probably lethal disease, because sociopaths have no conscience.

[greennina]

55. What fall?

You're buying into their propoganda. He is as popular as he ever was. Hopefully he'll be the man in 2016.

[Odin2005]

56. I want to have whatever you're smoking.

I'm not voting for a sociopath that treats his dying wife like shit.

[Berry Cool]

61. Me either, but in this story his dying wife doesn't come out smelling like a rose either.

She sounds like an utter harridan, who apparently has not let her health problems interfere one iota with her harridanism and nastiness...and who somehow managed to hoodwink everyone but her inner circle into thinking she was a lovely, gracious lady who didn't deserve all this crap.

This article, on the other hand, makes her sound like EXACTLY the kind of fishwife a man would cheat on the second he got the chance...a shrew who belittled him constantly and forever made jokes at his expense. So, he hops into bed with the first bubblehead to tell him "Oh, you can't be John Edwards...you're just too gorgeous." And lets her become his right-hand woman, despite how awful it looks to everyone, and despite the fact that she's flakier than Mom's apple piecrust, talking in ways that make Shirley MacLaine seem down-to-earth.

There are no heroes in this story, except for maybe the campaign people who saw what was going on (especially the wife whose first statement the first time she viewed one of Rielle's "campaign videos" was "OMG she's fucking him") and tried to make it stop.

Brrrr. :scared: This story DOES make one want to take the Karen Silkwood shower after reading it. But worst of all is that it's so damn sad, and that so many of us were so easily fooled by at least part of it.

And one wonders why John and Elizabeth got married in the first place.

[katkat]

98. Berry, believe everything you read, do you? n/t

[cali]

107. I certainly don't but this is a well sourced story and NONE of the people

named as sources has denied the story.

[Boojatta]

62. Please, some respect.

You are talking about a man who could have been ambassador to Zimbabwe.

[goldcanyonaz]

125. Tis True!!!!

:rofl:

[Adelante]

164. DUZY

:D

[Boojatta]

198. It's not a DUzy. I took it from the article.

[karynnj]

59. You forgot the sarcasm icon

I doubt he could be elected dogcatcher - even in 2006.

[Adelante]

60. Ha!

[roguevalley]

68. proof?

[dionysus]

70. ROFL.. ever heard of this miracle drug called thorazine?

[Raine]

94. Yeah right

:rofl: whatever you've been smoking has made you delusional. :silly:

[cali]

106. bwahahahahahahahahah. post those polls showing how popular JE is.

[rvablue]

158. You should try open mic night. That was a good one!

:rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

57. That article

was fascinating and harsh. He truly is an interesting man full of hubris. His tragic flaws brought him down. It's truly Shakespearean.

[tonysam]

63. I don't give a shit what a "writer" or in this case editor, who exploits others' foibles

has to say.

JRE and EE are no longer in public life.

This excerpt is from a book about the 2008 presidential campaign. There were plenty of other parts to excerpt rather than this cheap shot.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. Not in public life? Was her book tour a private outing?

Or do we call it a private affair?

[Adelante]

64. Whew - what awful people

I was starting to feel sorry for the staff, the way they were treated, but they all, especially those who stayed, collaborated in this sick cover-up, so feh.

The Edwardses: I'm surprised my opinion of them could go any lower, but it has.

[struggle4progress]

75. Throughout 2007, he had a substantial campaign staff, consisting of people

from all over the country, some of whom had quit other jobs so they could move to Raleigh to work with him. Many of them were not highly placed in the campaign, and it would be unfair to blame them for what happened

[Adelante]

103. I blame anybody who stayed in the cover-up

Those who didn't know, of course, are not to blame. Everybody else participated in scamming supporters and voters knowing it threatened the election, the party and the country. Feh.

[struggle4progress]

105. I don't think many folk knew for sure, and I think most folk who had serious suspicions

started to rebel. I volunteered extensively for that campaign, from the beginning of 07: later in 07, the atmosphere changed substantially, and volunteering ceased to be enjoyable, so I stopped going in. I wondered WTF! at the time because I had a great time volunteering for his Senate race some years before

Big campaigns become people's lives for a while: serious staff sometimes literally lives at the campaign office, pulling all-nighters and sleeping part of the next day on the floor in an unused room. The staff can't work together without trying hard to be friends; in off-periods, they may vacation together; and you can bet they talk to each other intelligently. As soon as two or three people outside the innermost circle had serious suspicions, everybody on staff would know -- though, of course, the volunteers wouldn't hear a word. It would affect the entire campaign. I'd guess that by mid-07, quite a few people in the main office were extremely concerned that something was up, though they couldn't prove it and really hoped their suspicions weren't correct

[Adelante]

117. I feel really sorry people were let down so badly

Politics can be a real heart-breaker. I've worked as lower level staff on many campaigns, and it often hurts, but that's usually when you lose. Nothing this horrific, though.

[SmileyRose]

65. IMHO the worst part of that whole excerpt is

When Edwards told Obama that he wanted him to make poverty a centerpiece of his agenda, Obama airily replied, Yeah, yeah, yeah, I care about all that stuff. Clinton, by contrast, proposed that she and Edwards do a poverty tour together, even suggested that Edwards would have “a role” in her administration.

[Radical Activist]

88. Edwards really was trying to make a trade for endorsement

and Hillary was willing play ball. Wow. At least the best of the three won.

[aquart]

101. You mean the one who wasn't interested in poverty?

And still isn't?

[karynnj]

157. That's not what he said - he said he cared

What he didn't say was that he needed Edwards. That HRC was willing to play is worse - and UNLIKELY. At that point, Edwards was desperate and had HRC offered that the reasons given (that she could lose) make no sense. 1) he was enough of a selfcentered meglomaniac at that point, that he would have seen the HRC/Edwards team as easily stomping Obama. 2) there would be no discussion if he hadn't made the offer, so if she was offering this high profile assignment - when he was faced with NO role, NO position - is it logical he would turn it down.

It seems these are Edwards' team leaks - and thus you need to filter them through some logic. With Obama, the inference that he blew off the idea of "poverty" was more likely he wisely rejected the partnership with Edwards. As to poverty, Edwards will have to work several more years on poverty to have Obama's experience helping the poor on the South Side of Chicago. Have you ever been to the South Side of Chicago?

[bobbolink]

179. Thank you.

The (invisible) elephant in the room.

[laughingliberal]

183. +1 nt

[undeterred]

190. Do you honestly believe any of them are interested in poverty?

I never believed Edwards. Yeah, the $400 haircut, the house, the hedge fund... they speak loudly.

[Ignis]

286. Maybe if those impoverished folks donated more...

:sarcasm:

[LibDemAlways]

93. If true it sure doesn't make Obama look good and doesn't help

Hillary's image much either. The poor are far from the top of Obama's agenda, and the last thing impoverished people need is a couple of millionaire politicians touring the country talking about how crappy life is at the bottom of the economic ladder.

[CreekDog]

257. I feel like people are saying "Obama said he didn't care"

which he didn't say.

he was probably dismissive because he knew, as we know now, the point of such a teaming-up over poverty would be to put Edwards center stage --not poverty.

[katkat]

99. Obama

Yeah, Obama's true beliefs were coming out even then. He didn't give a shit about anything.

[CreekDog]

258. Then why take his life into his hands simply running?

Bullsh*t.

[jbnow]

267. What that really said was he didn't give a shit about a deal with Edwards

The "he said airily" is someone opining on his tone.
It wasn't like he said "Oh like I care about poverty" or something dismissive.

People cab change over a few years evidently, the book sure shows Edwards did.
But the clue that Obama might have cared about poverty is the time he spemt over the years trying to empower those in poverty.

Not just his early years working with the very poor but when he got back to Chicago after law school he didn't just quit. Even during his years as a lawyer and state senator (while he was also teaching at law school part time) he continued ro offer his time training (poor)people to lead groups (of poor people) to advocate for themselves, how to make things better...

I tried to get out all the info I could on who the candidates were before they got to Washington and found a surprising amount written about Obama before he was any national figure. Who knows what he cares about now but in all the researching on candidates I have no doubt he cared about it the 15 years before he got to the US Senate. His actions spoke loudly on that as did what those he worked with had to say about him

We haven't seen that focus now except the way the stimulus bill helped, which isn't minor.
This report looks at just 7 of the bills provisions and found

Nationally, these provisions are keeping more than 6 million Americans out of poverty and reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million more. (These figures include both people whom ARRA has lifted out of poverty and people whom ARRA has kept from falling into poverty.)
These estimates are conservative.

This is an independent report, not a government one
One has to work to find what the stimulus bill does and includes because ... well you know how the news is.

Still although I know Obama worked to make sure some key provisions were in the bill I don't know which ones so this might have nothing to do with him. Or it might.
The poor are also greatly helped by the health bill. It's those just above 400% of poverty level that are going to find it hard

I happily criticize Obama's policies but saying he doesn't care about the poor doesn't make much sense.

[CreekDog]

256. But Hillary's response is far from believing in it

Because if she really did, she would have out-povertied him in the first place.

I personally like Hillary's candor about the SoS spot and I am grateful for the way she has handled that important role.

[icymist]

69. I don't know what to say about Edwards

I supported this man. I supported what this man was saying about the plight of the working class in this nation. The other candidates were exclaiming that their position(s) on health care reform and stimulating the economy were much better than what Edwards was implying. Everybody voted for Obama. After the election, Mrs. Edwards revealed the affair and the media groped its' way in.
I think we all lost a really good leader for the working class.

[BurtWorm]

78. Russell Feingold was warning about Edwards' razor thin convictions after Iowa in 2008.

Apparently he had reason to warn us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html

[rvablue]

159. "Mrs. Edwards revealed the affair."???? That's some serious revisionist history.

A tabloid rumor rag revealed the affair.

And if Edwards is such a champion for the impoverished, why did he cancel his scholarship program so quickly after it didn't help him politically anymore?

[blogslut]

71. Ouch

The only thing that will disgust me more is the idea of Halperin's smug leer as he make the rounds on the talky talks, pushing this bitter little book.

[TygrBright]

74. Kingfish, izzat you? Shades of Huey Long...

The beloved fire-breathing populist with the morals of a tomcat and the conscience of a Vegas hustler.

Ouch.

Way to set populism back a decade, dude.

disgustedly,
Bright

[Radical Activist]

77. I see Edwards is back to being a moderate in this story.

I'm still amazed that anyone bought this DLC leader as the progressive candidate. Someone should lock Dean and Edwards in a room and not let them out until they both decide for good if they're liberal or moderate.

[BurtWorm]

84. I think you're off base about Dean.

Edwards has rendered himself irrelevant to politics for the indefinite future.

[katkat]

100. Dean?

WTF does Dean have to do with this? He's the only national Dem leader who doesn't lie out of all four sides of his mouth.

[defendandprotect]

79. Hope to scan it quickly tonight/back tomorrow -- however . . .

we seem to be seriously deficient in our understanding of man!!

[Radical Activist]

81. The cartoons are tacky.

I'm no Edwards fan but the over dramatic cartoons sensationalize the story in a way that makes me question the author's bias and credibility.

[debbierlus]

86. The cartoons are comic book pathetic.

[debbierlus]

85. This reads like something out of the National Enquierer

He isn't President. He is out of politics.

His wife is dying of Cancer.

America is in red emergency crisis and this type of gossipy distracting crap does nothing but steer the discussion away from the vital conversations we should be having about real issues.

This has been gone over and over again.

What are we? A bunch of cackling hens?

[Divine Discontent]

89. thank you, I read the excerpt to see the big fuss of this thread, and was like, puh-lease...

exactly - we're in a huge shithole, our pres. hasn't got us out of this, and there's a lot bigger goose to cook than the final tearing down of every last brick of the "Edwards" power structure, to the point of humliation on top of humiliation.




I'm more disgusted that we're in Iraq & Afghanistan, and wall st. and big biz got all they wanted from the treasury... but that's just me.....

[Dorian Gray]

113. I found the article

fascinating on a human interest level. It's in NY Magazine, which is pretty well known for this type of article. Mr. Edwards was the architect of his own demise.... and it was the first political article in NY that I've read in awhile from front to back. (All ten pages on the internet.) I found it extraordinarily fascinating.

[BurtWorm]

90. Can you list all the topics vital enough to discuss so I don't make this mistake again?

;-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

170. debbierlus was a giant Edwards supporter

She doesn't like it coming out because it ultimately displays her gullibility and foolishness.

[Divine Discontent]

87. the media is sellin' it so it must be true! EE is a totalllll vindictive hag because we know that

husband cheated on her in his egocentric world.

Look, my opinion of him is pretty low. But, is it possible that they just weren't in love anymore, and that had they divorced, they knew he wouldn't become president, and she believed he'd make a good president, and could push through liberal policies that she believed in, and as tacky and arrogant as that is - it's simplistic enough to be believable - I get tired of the pedestal O's fans put him on and he's a human being just like you and me. These people aren't perfect, no matter how much you want them to be. And yes, John is a lot less perfect, morally, than many of you are in you marriages, but it doesn't change the fact about what made them go forward with him running, since they knew he had everything that it would take to win an election. They obviously didn't want to believe the negative consequences - having it all come out in the news 2 weeks before the election or something.

But, really, this almost seems like glibness here about this - and the final tearing down of an actual candidate who was far more liberal in the policies being pushed by his wife, than mabye (or equal to, overall) HRC, and certainly more than the moderate, and eventual new president.

Edwards story is not something that is to be enjoyed - it's a painful story of human failing, but ultimately, I see Halperin being so gossipy and sinfully happy about this and that makes me sick. If Elizabeth is still with John when they have nothing left to gain politically, then why is it really anyone's business.

By the way, the cartoon is so 1950's ridiculous. Fitting for the story, no matter how trashy John's sexual behavior was in cheating with his mistress.

[BurtWorm]

92. Of course it's possible they weren't in love. It's possible they were never in love.

Who knows? Who cares? That's no one's business either.

This story interests me because it gives some insight into what we don't see (but can sense) about these characters who ask us to make them our leaders. And all I can say when I think about Edwards is, thank goodness he never had a chance.

[Raine]

91. Edwards is scum, whatever they say about him he deserves but

LEAVE Elizabeth ALONE!!!!!! :argh:

[aquart]

102. Because she is a saint.

Our images are so precious to us.

[Raine]

188. No not cause she's a saint

but because she's terminally ill and she doesn't need to be dumped on when she's fighting for her life. People should use some discretion especially when it really serves no purpose I guess though as long as it brings them in more dollars that's the important thing to them.

[katkat]

97. Elizabeth

I'm no fan of John Edwards, but the stuff about Elizabeth rings false. The writers don't seem to have the slightest idea of what it's like to be dying.

By the way if I had terminal cancer and someone was screwing up my health insurance, I'd be pissed off too. Assuming that episode even happened.

[cali]

108. uh, you do realize that the Edwards had plenty of money to buy insurance, right?

[Adelante]

114. This is a multimillionaire threatening the health ins of people who work for a living

If she doesn't have hers. Please.

[CreekDog]

259. Look, dying and cheated on and possibly not a nice person to begin with

I wouldn't wish this on anybody, but it's possible to feel badly for her.

It's also possible she was not such a great person to begin with.

I don't see the need to make her some archetype.

[mnhtnbb]

109. Wow. The revelations about EE's behavior--especially to staff--are surprising.

The whole thing is a sad, sorry, sordid mess.

It reinforces how difficult it really is to know the truth about public figures.

[karynnj]

212. I think what you say is true

The political process forces candidates to develop easy to understand narratives that really are simply facades. Anything else is too complex to easily sell. In some cases, this undersells who people really are - as happened with John Kerry and Al Gore, both of whom surprise people with their genuine niceness, senses of humor and real purpose when they meet them.

I guess the best we can do is look at what they have done in their lives and how they tend to treat others.

[Lex]

111. Don't like Edwards, but that reads like sour grapes from a former staffer.

And I guess that's what it boils down to.

[BurtWorm]

205. If you were an Edwards staffer who was treated the way these people say they were treated,..

would you consider it disloyal to John to tell the truth about how you were treated?

[Lex]

217. Much of it sounds like pile-on whining. Why'd they stay?

I'm completely willing to believe some of it is true--ALL of it, not so much.

[CreekDog]

260. It would be a character flaw *NOT* to tell

I have a coworker who blows up at me like this and I kind of kept it to myself for a long time.

Until a call from a colleague complaining of the same thing made me realize I was enabling the behavior by being silent.

[earth mom]

116. I'm disappointed in Edwards, but he does NOT deserve to be raked over the coals like this.

What happened is a personal matter for the Edwards family.

I feel sorry for Elizabeth the most because it's not fair that she have to deal with this while fighting cancer.

I agree that this is just National Enquirer type trash.

[cali]

119. you mean NE trash that was absolutely true and which the MSM

ignored for months?

[earth mom]

122. What I said was the National Enquirer is trash. Not that the story wasn't true.

Quit trying to stir shit up.

But what else did I expect?

I should have known you'd be all over anything I posted like white on rice. It's what you do. :eyes:

[ElmoBlatz]

133. Why is the National Enquirer "trash"?

It had the story, it had the story correct, and it had it before anyone else. Just because you didn't like the story doesn't make the outlet that published the story "trash".

[Lex]

204. It's a tabloid, plain and simple.

It got this story right. But just like Drudge got a story right once doesn't make his site anything other than trash either.

[ElmoBlatz]

207. Yeah, its a tabloid

A tabloid that is remarkably accurate (see Tiger Woods). You can define "trash" however you want, but if the "trash" is accurate... then is it trash?

[Lex]

209. Trash:

Remember the Obama mutiny?!!!11one
And how Robin Williams died?
And how Octomom destroyed Dr. Phil's marriage?

[ElmoBlatz]

213. Fail

Thats the Globe. Not the Enquirer. And yes, there is a difference.

[goldcanyonaz]

118. He's a smiling talker and I never trust anyone who always smiles when they speak.

Perhaps it was part of his "southern" charm but I never trusted anything he said.

Even during the interview on NightLine after the affair was exposed he would continue to smile when he spoke about it.

[GreenArrow]

152. I remember him smiling when he was "taking responsibility"

for his IWR vote. Perhaps if he'd actually considered the deaths, destruction, lies, and pain that his expedient salesmanship for Bush's Iraq fiasco helped cause, he wouldn't have found it something to smile about.

"A man may smile and smile, and yet be a villain." The dude was always smiling inappropriately. He is and was a self centered, shallow, and manipulative weasel. I never had any use for his wife either. Maybe they'll learn from this.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. Honest John Edwards on why he opposes marriage equality

"It is ... because I'm 53 years old. I grew up in a small town in the rural south. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It's part of who I am. I can't make it disappear. ...I think it's from my own personal culture and faith belief. I struggle myself with imposing my faiths-my faith belief. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church, my dad was a deacon. It's, it's just part of who I am."

[harperlee]

142. He was smug about it too.

As if his 'faith' somehow made the bigotry more reasonable. "It's just part of who I am." If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable.

[XemaSab]

145. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[harperlee]

156. Thanks!

:)

[salin]

121. blech....

I read it. And since I read it an hour or so ago, I have seen a bunch of links/stories to additional tidbits from the 'Game Change' book - and am already saturated. Blech.

Per this article.... Steve Benin at the washington monthly site sums it up well :Perhaps most strikingly New York magazine ran a fairly long excerpt from "Game Changer" on John and Elizabeth Edwards, who appear to be ... how do I put this gently ... stark raving mad.

[ellie]

127. I thought this was fascinating

I was a huge Edwards supporter. I can't believe I was so wrong about the guy! I guess I believed what I wanted to believe.

[AngryAmish]

128. I always admired Elizabeths quiet dignity

Quite a woman, that one.

[bobbolink]

181. That's not an acurrate picture. There was the time she broke down in grief in a grocery store

aisle.

What I admired was that she was HONEST, and didn't try to be a Jackie O cutout.

[madrchsod]

130. and what is the moral of the story?

[cali]

131. Same as it always was.

Fly to near the sun on wax wings and you plummet back to earth.

[madrchsod]

134. well said.....

[shimmergal]

139. Perhaps we were better off when

the Press didn't routinely expose the affairs of politicians?

Let's see--by today's standards (and to our knowledge), since the '30s we'd only have Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, George W. Bush, and Obama. No FDR. No Eisenhower. No JFK. No Lyndon Johnson. No Clinton.

Maybe Reagan, depending on whether his later devotion to Nancy gave him a pass for earlier indiscretions.

But there'd be no New Deal, probably no steady leadership in WWII, no "Ask not..." challenge, no Medicare and presidential support for Civil Rights... the list goes on. Actually, at best there's little relationship between this sex stuff and admirable presidential accomplishments. So why do we let the MSM manipulate us with these stories, esp. when they're twice as hard on erring Dems as Repubs?

As for Halperin's tales about EE's behavior, anyone who'd been thru all she has--sudden loss of a teenage son, battering her body with hormones to get pregnant again (actually I always wondered why they didn't try adoption at that point, but it's their choice), the _personal_ betrayal by her husband, at the same time as receiving a diagnosis of terminal cancer -- anyone who could always stay sweetness and light in the face of all that WOULD be a saint. And she's never claimed to be one.

[GreenArrow]

153. I couldn't care less about his affair.

I don't doubt that the picture of Elizabeth is essentially true. That side of her was visible during the campaign for those who were willing to see it. The trouble with Edwards is that he's a two-faced, unprinicpled, self-serving, manipulator. I'd have voted for Joe Lieberman before I'd vote for John Edwards. When dealing with a snake in the grass, it's preferable to deal with one that rattles before striking.

[karynnj]

211. I would guess that neither this picture or the sweetness and light EE picture is true

There is no way that this picture could be 100% true. John Edwards would have divorced her years before he became a politician. What is really strange about all these relatively intimate stories concerning EE is that it is hard to understand who the source is and what their motives are.

Many stories are obviously from anonymous staffers. I have tried to picture how being a staffer in the inner circle of this campaign might have been. The stories we heard in early 2008 were not what we are hearing now. My guess is that some top people are trying to salvage their reputations - and I suspect they are making things worse.

Imagine a campaign where gradually it becomes obvious that there is this overwhelming problem where people are beginning to see the anger between John and Elizabeth and seeing the continuing flirtation with Hunter. They say, they started to speak of how they would take down the campaign if JRE looked like he would win. From time lines, they knew this in mid 2006. Why waste more than a year and a half of their own lives on a campaign, they would kill before they let him win. Why not force the issue then and there.

They stayed quiet even in late 2007, right before Iowa - a time where the media though JRE could take Iowa. Imagine that the hard work of all the Edwards workers in Iowa panned out and he won. What would they REALLY do then, after staying silent for more than a year? So, I suspect that Edwards staffers have plenty of reason to be angry at the Edwards now - they are in fact compromised as political operatives because of that campaign. No one should trust anything they say.

[GreenArrow]

214. I dunno...

the ex-Edwards staffers seem pretty above board at this point. There may be some who are interested in salvaging their reputations, some of them may wish to put the whole sordid affair behind them, and some of them, now disilusioned and feeling honestly betrayed perhaps, may wish to dig the shiv a little deeper into JRE's back at this time, but the essentials of what's coming out certainly resonate with what I was able to observe of both Edwards's during John's two primary runs.

As for JRE divorcing Elizabeth, who knows? There are lots of reasons people stay together in unhappy marriages, the rich and powerful no less than the rest of us.

[barb162]

132. That sure was an eye-opener. Yikes.

I hope most of it is not true as to character.

[dgibby]

138. The lengths to which people will go to attain power is astounding. n/t

[Darth_Kitten]

147. Right, because no other Presidential candidate has been ruthless or ambitous?

:)

[winyanstaz]

143. So why is Edwards being singled out..when this is rampant in Washington?

Why is it so much worse what he did then what the people did that are getting blow jobs in airport bathrooms and trying to screw under aged kids in their offices?
Let the gossip mongers gossip with each other.
IMO this is not newsworthy..especially while we are under attack on so many levels and our economy is in the tubes.

[ElmoBlatz]

144. Why?

There's a big difference between your average philandering politician, and someone who came (arguably) very close to becoming President of the United States. Also, have you read the article? The level of narcissism, arrogance, and quite frankly self delusion is surprising even by Washington standards. So much so that his own STAFF was trying to figure out how to blow the whistle on him.

This goes beyond bad judgement. Edwards clearly had a Messiah complex.

[Darth_Kitten]

148. Oh, you are a psychiatrist now?

EVERY world leader has to be a ruthless son of a bitch. EVERYONE has had a dark side.

[laughingliberal]

185. Yes, we have never had to endure a philanderer so close to the Oval Office nt

[ElmoBlatz]

189. Read closer

We've had lots of philanderers. Its the self delusion thats so concerning. Edwards actually thought he had a shot at AG after he admitted the affair. He wasn't dealing in reality. I've had enough of Presidents who live in a fantasy world. How about you?

[saracat]

191. Yeah like no AG;s have misbehaved? And you believe everything you read?

[karynnj]

200. It isn't the behavior it is failing to estimate the political cost that Obama would incur

nominating him. The fact is that, even before the affair was known, Edwards had little support in the Senate, which would have had to confirm him. You do remember that Feingold trashed him and not one Senator endorsed him. It was also significant that Kerry spoke very highly of Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden every time he was asked in 2007 once he opted out. He avoided saying anything about Edwards.

In addition, given that there would be this high political cost, what did he bring to the job that was special? A long career heading as a DA heading a well regarded crime fighting unit, preferably one he built up? No, if Obama wanted a tarnished politician who had done that - Spitzer is one. Did he investigate corruption while in the Senate? No His legal career was as a corporate lawyer for a short time, then a trial lawyer.

It seems Obama was not trading positions for endorsements, which is the responsible, right thing to do. Not to mention, by the time Edwards endorsed Obama - there was NO real value to his endorsement, even though the media was obsessed with it. It was too late and Edwards' ability to deliver many people was long gone.

[saracat]

234. Some of what you say may be true but as for Obama NOT trading appointments for endorsements, are you

even aware of who is in the cabinet and why?Or who was nominated and didn't get in? Seriously? What do you think the team of rivals was really about? And some of the others? Janet Napolitano started campaigning for Obama immediately as soon as she thought he had a shot because she wanted to go to DC.

[karynnj]

266. Of course I know who is in his cabinet

The team of rivals was an idea the media became infatuated with. In reality, the team of rivals seems to have been limited to Hillary Clinton. If you want to really reach you could mention Biden, but that pick had nothing to do with bringing in rivals - rather the idea that foreign policy/national security was Obama's weakest suit and Biden brought both a solid working class/middle class background and 30 years of foreign policy. Richardson was offered Commerce, a position that the Hispanic lobby thought too insignificant. He had had 2 Clinton cabinet appointments and was the most prominent Hispanic- so it is hard to argue that it was quid por quo. (Note that Dodd got nothing and was scapegoated by Geitner et al on the AIG bonuses. He endorsed Obama after he left the race long before Edwards did.)

It is completely normal that some of the people who work to build a campaign end up being part of it - give me an example of a campaign where that didn't happen. Obama, to some degree did LESS of that than the norm. Look at the more high profile positions. Rahm Emmanuel stayed neutral because he had strong links to both Obama and Clinton. Then there is Hillacy Clinton, state, and people like Geitner (Treasury) and Summers were Clinton people. In fact, for major positions, there are likely as many who favored Clinton as favored Obama.

Napolitano might be the only one you can point to who was an early endorser of Obama. You know her as your governor and you know that she was even suggested for VP in 2004 and was a strong candidate for Homeland Security. The only negatives I saw here when she was named was that you would get a Republican governor.

If Obama was trading positions for endorsements, what do you think the value of Edwards' extremely late - after NC (which was really the death knell of Clinton's campaign) - endorsement was? This was not John Kerry, a far more significant endorser, calling him in December 2007 to offer his endorsement when wanted - notice he gave Kerry nothing. By late spring, the vast majority of Edwards voters had already gone to HRC or Obama, what Edwards would likely have gotten was a DNC speaking slot - the same thing Kerry gave each of his opponents.

[ElmoBlatz]

206. Fine. Great. Terrific.

You're willing to excuse this type of behavior, thats your right. In fact, I highly encourage you to actively support and donate to Mr. Edwards whenever he slithers back out from whatever rock he's crawled under and announces he's making a comeback.

As for me, I tend to hold public servants to a slightly higher level of conduct. I personally couldn't care less about a girlfriend or two on the side. As long as there's a bit of discretion. There was little if any discretion here. Bad judgment in private matters usually translates to bad judgment in public matters.

I believe what I read when the preponderance of evidence supports it. Given his behavior in 2008, everything here makes perfect sense.

[saracat]

249. Bad judgment in private matters translates to bad judgment in public matters? So JFK, Teddy,Bill

Jefferson, FDR,,and even Washington all had lousy judgment in public matters? I am not excusing adultery, I just don't see that this event has any bearing on any individuals ability to make sound public policy.

Clinton didn't exercise any discretion either. It used to be the media exercised some discretion. Now the media just chooses who they want promoted or destroyed at the behest of the Coporocracy.

You seem to have disliked Edwards previously and is fine.You are obviously entitled to feel however you want.

Edwards as a person doesn't really matter much in the scheme of things but the eEdwards platform was the most threatening to the coporocracy and the damage done to that platform as the result of the utlization of a worthless sex scandal is reprehensible.

I am sure that in my lifetime we will never again see another politician take up the mantle against the corporations.And that is a tragedy.

[laughingliberal]

192. I've had enough of worrying about what anyone else does in the bedroom.

And damned enough of a nation that thinks what anyone else does in the bedroom (so long as it's legal and consensual) is anyone else's business. It's like living in a fucking theocracy.

edited title to remove 'nt'

[jbnow]

269. This is just one chapter. All of the major candidates will get

covered in it and there will probably be a lot we don't find newsworthy or think should have been revealed.

I'm sad that this chapter is the one the magazine printed. It's ugly and they are out of politics. I don't think TV news or cable will talk about this part much

[Blasphemer]

149. Jeez... this story is dead. He's not a public official anymore nor a candidate for office... nt

[cali]

150. Obviously, it's not dead.

stories are dead when there's no interest in them. Clearly that is not the case here.

[McCamy Taylor]

151. I had to stop after 3 pages. The press trashes a Dem...and DU eats it up.

For shame. If you missed it, here is "The Press vs. John Edwards" a little something I wrote during Campaign 2008.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4306897

[Inspired]

160. It seems to me that it has been John Edwards vs. John Edwards all along.

[cali]

169. that 2008 post of yours is ridiculous. The MSM gave Johhny a whopping big

free pass for fucking months. JE trashed himself. It's as simple as that.

[Major Hogwash]

251. This is just a warm up for what the media intends to do to Obama this year.

They've already started, saying that he didn't create jobs last year.

DU is going downhill, and for no damned reason other than a few people who can't keep from posting several times in the same thread keeping a nasty thread alive.

Those people love this sort of shit.
They live for it.
They come here every day and seek it out, to make themselves appear to be better than the people they ridicule.

If DU went down for a 24 hour period, those people would be afraid of losing their lust for the hateful, backstabbing ignorance that they display here like a trademark at a forum that was designed to build up Democrats . . . not tear them down at every opportunity.

Liz Cheney and Mary Matalin are already busy telling the talking heads on tv that Bush "inherited" 9/11, that it wasn't really Bush's fault. Bush couldn't stop what was coming already. It was really Clinton's fault 9/11 happened, after all, Bush was on vacation in Crawford that August and he couldn't be bothered with attending to PDB's.

Oh, and this economy, that's Clinton's and Obama's fault too.
Clinton never really created any of those jobs in the 90s by raising taxes on the rich.
So, Obama had better not even try it.

And the banks, Clinton's fault and Obama's fault, too.
If Obama even tries to make any changes, we'll call it socialism, and everyone will know he is really a socialist.

And by the way, they just found out that Harry Reid said that Obama was a light-skinned black, and that he didn't have an "Afro-American accent" so he wouldn't scare off whitey from voting for him.

And this is just the start of January.

Just wait until Martin Luther King's birthday comes, a federal holiday, one that we didn't even need!
John McCain was against making it a holiday, don't ya know.

Oh, and McCain and Lieberman are now having to do Obama's job on security as they are globe-trotting in the ME doing an analysis of the threat to America of the Al Queda terrorist network.
Their assessment?
Obama's a traitor.

John McCain may have lost the 2008 election, but he doesn't have to act like it, by gawd.
Dick Cheney is no longer the vice president, but he doesn't have to stop acting like he is running things now either.

And the media, well, they'll be right here 24 hours a day to let us know that.

[Inspired]

155. It was rather stomach churning, wasn't it?

I'm pissed. While I was door knocking in sub-zero weather, scraping together another donation, and opening my house up as a field office in Iowa, insiders were secretly meeting trying to find a way to bring him down? Just in case my efforts, and efforts of other supporters, worked and he actually won Iowa?

And they carried on and asked us for MORE money?

Yeah, I'm pissed.

I believe every word written in this article.

[BurtWorm]

265. Your post is precisely to the point.

All this railing against strawman puritanism is so wide of the mark! I do wonder how many of the posters in this thread who steadfastly refuse to care about Edwards' self-destructive and mass-destructive behavior are Edwards supporters blinded by cognitive dissonance.

[Inspired]

290. Yes! I'm sick of the 'I still believe in JRE and EE's message'. WTF!!!!

[Alameda]

166. It's good to remember this, how so many of us were fooled....

I am one of the ones who donated $$$ to his campaign. I did have reservations about him based on that big house and his haircuts....but he was with unions and said some good things. What was particularly upsetting about this incident is that he either was stupid, blinded by arrogance or just had no control of himself to have gotten into this situation. I don't want to know about anyone's sex life, but when someone is in the public eye, presents himself as a "good boy", there is a responsibility. His behavior was reckless and foolish....as well as selfish. Those are not qualities I want in a POTUS.....we have had more than enough of that.

When I actually saw him in a debate with Hillary, Obama he looked desperate and a little crazed. Obama looked cool and better able to handle things. Fortunately, Edwards dropped out......not soon enough for my taste.

I'm very upset with him.

[AngryAmish]

167. OK, I read it. We dodged one there.

[saracat]

168. Halprin is a GOP whore and has zero credibility. Will those that support this also support him

when he does a hit piece on the President? I was and am still proud to have supported the Edwards message. The message was not flawed, the messanger, was but no more than any other politician. They are all flawed and all have skeletons in their closets.
I do not regret my conributions and have never considered who John slept with MY business. I didn't care about FDR having had his mistress live in the WH either when told about it, nor did I care that JFK was a serial philnderer. None of it detracted
from their stands on the issues and none of it made a difference to me.

It says a lot about what a lightweight and idiotic society we have become that we even take this into consideration. Left to the Americans of today, we would never have elected any of our greatest leaders because they couldn't adhere to a provincial code of morality that has nothing to do with ability.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

174. "I was and am still proud to have supported the Edwards message."

His message was ace.

None of his supporters should ever be ashamed they supported him... and if he had won the Presidency and this never came out, he might have been a fantastic President.

Like you said, most of the greatest leaders have terrible flaws (just like we ALL do). Some just keep them hidden.

[BurtWorm]

208. I don't think John Edwards had the stuff in him to be a great leader.

Frankly, it's hard not to laugh at the idea.

[BurtWorm]

203. Do you believe Edwards would have made an effective president?

I am guessing that he probably wouldn't have.

[saracat]

235. Frankly, I don't know. But I think he would have found Big Pharma harder

and wouldn't have caved to the insurance companies. And, as the result of his continuing efforts qworking on poverty, I think he would have made that a major issue.I don't think being an adulterer would have made him a bad president anymore than it did all the others.

[BurtWorm]

237. I don't think adultery is John Edwards's biggest problem.

I would agree with you that that is between him and his wife and family.

To me, what's concerning, is that he didn't seem to have the self-knowledge to see that he was not in a strong position in the unlikely event that he won the nomination to defend himself against Republican operatives. He was hiding an affair that resulted in a pregnancy while his wife was dealing with cancer. Never mind the morality of that--it's totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. However, what must he have been thinking in moments of lucidity when he considered what might happen if Republicans learned of the affair before Elizabeth did? Did he think, it's none of their business? Did he think they'd be as liberal as you or I and agree that his conduct in his personal life (setting aside his lying to his wife, which might have relevance toward his honesty in all other situations) has no bearing on his ability to be president?

Where you and I might also differ about Edwards is that I don't trust his sincerity and haven't since before 2004. I've always had reservations about him. Maybe that explains why I'm more inclined to believe this story and less likely to find Edwards's actions forgivable, let alone explicable.

[saracat]

239. Your entitled.But while I may agree about the GOP, why should he have had

any different thoughts than Clinton, or any other narcissistic politician? The fact is probably more of them than we know engaged in this behavior and still considered themselves viable. As for the GOP, they seriously considered Gingrich for Prez and might still do so even though he served his dying wife with divorce papers in the hospital! And he cheated with a staffer as well!Apparently it is really all in how it is spun and double standards prevail on both sides of the aisle.

What I don't get is why some like Gingrich emerge unscathed, and others do not.And it doesn't seem to be just a question of party either.

[BurtWorm]

242. John Edwards is no Bill Clinton.

If Edwards is diligent and lucky, he might be able to stage a Gary Hart style come-back, get appointed to commissions, write books on policy or spy novels, be a talking head on Sunday TV. It'll be a while. I don't care if he does or doesn't rehabilitate himself. I'm just glad he flamed out before he could do any damage during the last election.

[saracat]

248. I just used Clinton as an example of one who "knew" he was shagging around during a Presedential

campaign and didn't turn a hair as to the consequences.Everyone knew Clinton was boinking sundry gals during the primary and even when it was exposed, there wasn't the handwringing going on that there is today about how he would have ruined the party and what would the GOP say.Edwards wasn't going to do any damage anway.Sorry but I think that is just a bogeyman folks like to throw out.It is a shame however ,that Edwards didn't get a chance to do some damage to the insurance companies and Big pharma! But it turns out we really want to protect those folks at all costs!

[BurtWorm]

262. It's a little different when the wife being cheated on has incurable cancer.

And the mistress becomes pregnant. From a perception standpoint. That's not a good combination.

I'm not wringing my hands over this. I'm just wiping my brow and sighing with relief that he never even got close to testing the Republicans' (and media's and American electorate's) spirit of generosity.

[jbnow]

271. I'm sure it does a hit job on Obama. Clinton, even Palin

It's on the whole campaign. I think Halprin loves McCain so might be gentle there, who knows about others repubs

But this is just the start. A shame that magazine picked this chapter...the candidate who is now the very least on political scene.

[Ignis]

287. "also support him when he does a hit piece on the President?"

Yes, and as you said, it's not if, it's when. Count on it.

:hi:

[Vinca]

178. Elizabeth didn't come off so well, either. That was an eye opener.

I can see her being royally pissed after the affair was discovered, but it sounds like she was a major bitch beforehand to both Edwards and the staff.

[saracat]

193. Oh please. All the unattributed quotes? I have a friend who opted to travel with

Elizabeth because she couldn't stand THK. Big Whoop. People are human . I admire both women and think this is a targeted hit piece.It is diusting that people won't leave these people alone. John was a smuck and a cheater but trashing Elizabeth is just evil and typical of the GOP.

[ElmoBlatz]

210. She was the enabler

Clearly. She knew the impact this revelation could have on the Party, and in fact the country (if Edwards had gotten the nomination) but chose to push him forward. You can place her on a pedestal, but she put her personal interest WAY ahead of anything else.

[saracat]

233. Even if that were true, isn't that what all the politicians and their familes are doing?

Do you seriously believe they actually give a crap?

I happen to believe that having been apprised of her health conditions Elizabeth decided to dedicate her remaining time to furthering a platform that offered the best options for most Americans and despite his marital failings, I think she believed that John would have been best suited to implement that program.And I have always thought that contrary to the belief of some, that she made an amazing effort of unselfishness to do so. I do not think I would have been able to either forgive or continue faced with the possibilites she had. People forget that even should Edwards have been elected, it was more than likely something that Elizabeth might not have been able to share in the victory.

If anyone in this sordid mess could be said to have acted with honorable intentions it is Elizabeth Edwards.I have reached the point that there are very few politicians I respect, and few of those associated with them, but Elizabeth Edwards will always have my respect and admiration.

[laughingliberal]

187. I don't want the government in my bedroom and I'd be damned glad if we didn't get drug into theirs

As long as our elected officials are not engaged in sex with under age people or in non-consensual relations, I don't give a tinker's damn about it and would be quite pleased if it ceased to be an issue. I thought this during the Clinton impeachment and I still think it now.

As our Australian friends are fond of remarking, they're glad they got the convicts and we got the Puritans.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

215. I dunno,

I think the story/backstory about a sitting governor who leaves his post AND his country to court his one true love, an exotic brazilian beauty and then feels like he has hasn't done anything wrong, no need to resign, would be a far more compelling read. But obviously, that's just me.

[bemildred]

216. This is shallow drool. nt

[FrenchieCat]

218. As much as I campaigned against John Edwards on these boards,

I'll be damned if I give Halperin even a penny's worth of a hit with this tripe....time coincidently "just right", to make the Dems look as awful as possible.

Fuck that shit! John Edwards did not become the nominee, and that is all I was interested in....
My BS meter picked up some disturbing shit long ago, he lost the nomination, and for me that was The End. No need reliving the 2008 primaries; as they were hell on Earth the first time round!

[Divine Discontent]

245. hear hear

[Neecy]

221. This is why I'm viewing this book as gossipy crap

This little snippet:

In one focus group conducted by Hickman in Edwards’s Senate race, voters trashed him as a pretty-boy shyster—until they saw pictures of Elizabeth, four years his senior. “I like that he’s got a fat wife,” one woman said. “I thought he’d be married to a Barbie or a cheerleader.”

This is a nobody from a focus group, but the authors couldn't resist the dig about the 'fat wife' who is 'four years his senior' married to a 'pretty-boy shyster'.

I'm not excusing anything Edwards did, but to throw everything including a focus group kitchen sink at them is pretty fucking low. Just these two sentences tell quite a story about how the authors approached the entire subject.

[Inspired]

291. A lot of women felt that same way! No just 'nobody's' from focus groups.

[nadinbrzezinski]

227. This is what makes me laugh about the US

we demand politicos be perfect in a puritanical way... and go nuts over a wardrobe malfuncion... but we continue on a path towards destruction.

Perhaps after the Empire finally collapses Americans will get it... what happens in the bedroom is NONE OF MY FRACKING BUSINESS, unless that happens to be MY FAMILY.

I expect our puritanical ways to actually get worst.

By the way, anybody care to check some of the themes in Hollywood movies? Or perhaps what is going on in the front lines of the war?

No folks, this puritanical instinct works only because we allow the distraction to occur. I just have to wonder if the country will ever learn? Don't think so...

[BurtWorm]

231. I don't think this is about horror over sex. This is about horror over a severely flawed character

who might have been the Democratic nominee at a time when he was extremely vulnerable to attacks--***about his severely flawed character!***

DUers who are feeling so superior to the rest of us because they have no interest in John Edward's private life and see no reason why anyone else should have an interest are missing the point by miles and miles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

236. I am just looking at US History

and by this logic, about sex, disqualifies almost every President since Washington...

Look the man was flawed, but all this is about sex...

[BurtWorm]

238. I disagree.

But then I've never been particularly charmed by Edwards. Never saw what anyone saw in him, as a political figure. He always seemed mighty thin to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

240. Then we disagree

and that is that.

but this is also re-fighting the primaries, and now by disenchanted staffers.

DC is a place where people keep sharpening axes for as long as it takes to get their next gig. This is also the ultimate insider, Halperin, sharpening that stone against what became the ultimate outsider.

I am sure historians in 50 years from now, assuming the country is still around (different trends), will have some fun with this campaign... as it has three ultimate outsiders (actually more if I take the second rank)... and in both the right and the left we have staffers going after candidates. It is partly about see... we didn't suck, our candidate did...

[BurtWorm]

241. Were you an Edwards supporter?

If so, I can understand that this may be a more unpleasant story for you than for me. For me, it's an interesting tragedy. I actually felt more for John Edwards reading it than I have since I first learned about him when he was a centrist in his one term in public office.

[nadinbrzezinski]

244. I am a historian by training so I am taking the long view on this

and comparing notes to the McCain campaign, the other one where the ultimate insider is coning out and telling us how horrible she was (and she was)

But this is beyond the candidates, this is DC and how it operates in the age of personal destruction.

Give thanks to Karl Rove, and we can go back to Nixon and the 1960 defeat to Kennedy... this is part of the long trend in US history.

Clinton (and the impeachment) was the first example at the presidential level of this new age.

Well, Edwards is just another one, with the rest of them... at the Senate level (mostly on the right, and in that case more a case of double standards, which in this case there is as well)

But this story is another notch in the trend.

Clinton, they kept it with him and mostly left the rest alone. Now they have also gone after Elizabeth.

What do these stories have in common? Halperin.

As I said, historians (and I happen to be one by training) will have a hell of a time with this campaign and the tell all stories.

And yes I liked him on IDEOLOGICAL grounds so did Kucinich. This country will not vote for men with a social democrat ideology because they will simply be destroyed... again, part of those trends. But as a historian, this is what I am looking at... trends and how these politics of personal destruction will take out many people, some for the right reasons (maybe) some for the wrong reasons. But damn it they are also damaging and the country needs to grow the fuck up about personal relations... no France is not a paradise, but have you ever asked yourself why the story with Clinton, or the story with Edwards, or for that matter vitter and the crew have never been a story in Europe? I'll tell you why... they don't give a shit about things like that.

[BurtWorm]

246. This isn't a taking down of John Edwards.

This is more of a Democrats-dodged-a-bullet story.

I don't trust Edwards's sincerity. I didn't trust his progressive noise-making in 2008. Too little too late as far as I was concerned. I was considering voting for him in the NY primary just for lack of any clear choice for a Democrat like me (a Dean supporter in 2004). But he flamed out before I had a chance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

247. Then you are looking at Edwards the Candidate

and I am looking at very long trends.

Different animals to a point

:-)

[foo_bar]

254. `Were you telling the truth then, John, or are you telling the truth now?’

And yes I liked him on IDEOLOGICAL grounds so did Kucinich.

MANCHESTER, NH — Revelations in today’s New York Times regarding John Edwards’ staunch pro-war stance as a Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 “raise serious questions about the credibility of his positions on every issue being debated in this Presidential campaign,” Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

“Voters have every right to ask, ‘Were you telling the truth then, John, or are you telling the truth now?’ And Senator Edwards has a responsibility to answer,” Kucinich said.

In a major story today about the relationship between Edwards and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, the Times reported, “Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.” Edwards was a co-sponsor of the 2002 war authorization resolution, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3751030

An angry Dennis Kucinich lashed out at John Edwards on Friday, saying his Democratic rival showed "a consistent lack of integrity" by suggesting fewer candidates should participate in presidential forums and then trying to explain his remark to reporters.

"This is a serious matter, and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/13/politics/main3056706.shtml

For what it's worth:

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. "This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/kucinich_urges_supporters_to_c.php

[nadinbrzezinski]

276. And halperin has other reasons

to come out with that shiny axe. This is a pattern going back to oh the silent majority of the Nixon Era... and earlier.

That's all I am saying.

And me liking him on ideological grounds does not mean I am blind to the reality that this sexual fixation of the US is as old as the first colony... it has gotten better, but that puritan strain goes back a LONG TIME.

And it is ultimately doing damage to the people. Some are brought down for "good reasons" some are brought down out of spite, some are just brought down because their ideology does not match that of the political elites, and some are brought down for multiple reasons. I can bet that this has to do with ideology (and the next gig) far more than whether you like Edwards or not. And the next one who dares to run on policies that are not liked by the ruling establishment will be brought down and you will lap it up too.

It is why I laugh. People complaint, but cannot see how damn hard they are manipulated.

Don't mind me, I am just the pointy head intellectual on the corner quite frankly laughing my ass off.

[BurtWorm]

277. Ask some of the former Edwards contributors about what it feels like to be manipulated.

I mean the ones who contributed their money and time. I'm sure some of them will have some interesting insightful things to say on the subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

278. My observsations are not just about Edwards

get it now?

The pattern of manipulating the population to bring down those that political elites do not like goes back a long time... and it is hilarious to see how people FIXATE on the current one.

This is about the United States and a pretty naive population when it comes to politics and what actually matters in politics.

Yes Edwards was a monster, but not precisely for the same reasons you THINK he was... and I am not defending his sexual indiscretions, they are none of my business.

So here is my question, who is the next monster to be destroyed? The next that gets any traction beyond the five percent...

[BurtWorm]

279. You aren't talking about Edwards? Who are you talking about then?

Do you think Edwards was really someone the elite didn't like? How did he get to be a VP candidate in 2004 then? How did he manage to keep the media glare off the affair-cum-love-child story from when it broke in the fall of 2007 until long after he was out of the running?

Do you actually believe in Edwards' sincerity as a crusader for the poor? Or was he just someone who was looking for a niche with a ready-made base already fired up?

[nadinbrzezinski]

280. No the elites did not like him in 2008

he started taking stances that were very dangerous to the elites.

Same pattern with Al Gore. He was the VEEP for eight years... care to examine the 2000 campaign from the politics of personal destruction?

Can you say Carter? He became President, care to tell me why he wasn't reelected? And why we had the malaise on him? And why DC insiders made him VERY INEFFECTIVE? And those are the RECENT ones.

Jesus age this is what I mean exactly by a very naive and chiefly easily manipulated population.

And as I said, he WAS a monster, but not from the perspective you believe. Sex was just a give me... to bring him down. He just made it easier because of our puritanical strain. If that did not happen, they would have found OTHER ways to do it.

[BurtWorm]

282. I wonder if it isn't naive to think guys like Edwards, Gore and Carter

aren't just different flavors of the same elite you think is manipulating us so easily. Isn't it naive to think of any of them as real men of the people?

[nadinbrzezinski]

284. Politics is a game to those in charge

and you are their play thing.

I am being extremely serious.

If you have a social democrat running... they will destroy him (and someday her) period. And they will use what works to do the deed. In the US that is sex.

As to Carter being part of the elite his family was. Care to see when he became ineffective? When he took on very powerful energy interests. Gore is part of an old family, care to check when he became ineffective? When he broke with the DLC. As far as Edwards, he is partially an outsider, when did he became a threat? When his progressive ideas gained traction.

Now if you cannot notice the pattern I cannot help you.

By the way a variation of this game is now happening with Reed, they are using race... and you got to wonder why? Chiefly he's being able to more or less lead and get some reform (maybe) which is a threat to the ruling interests. Don't think it will be effective in removing Reed, but I will not be shocked if he is not re-elected... see Dashell.

Poli sci and history should not be that hard, and patterns should be easy to see.

[BurtWorm]

285. I tend to think of Daschle and Reid as tools.

But maybe I'm deluding myself. ;-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

289. Just like any other powerful politician

they are not working for us... and when they try... well there goes the politics of personal destruction into full throttle.

[slackmaster]

274. YES! I Want My Stomach Churned!

Not.

[Hieronymus]

283. Apparently, Elizabeth is a shrew. She had me fooled.