National Enquirer Was Right
21 January 2010 9:14 am by Taylor Marsh
Anyone think they’ll get a Pulitzer Prize for their groundbreaking reporting? A story so big that it could have ended in a disaster for the Democratic Party if Edwards had gotten the nomination. The what ifs of the primary season ring through this story on many angles. The New York Times missed it, the Washington Post and everyone else. Or maybe they just didn’t want to follow something because the National Enquirer was on it?
“I am Quinn’s father,” Edwards said in the bombshell statement this morning. “I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves. … “I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace,” Edwards’ statement said, referring to the little girl. “It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me,” the statement said. “To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry,” he said.
Even today, everyone wants to look away.
What John Edwards did makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout. Both betraying the amazing woman who stood by them and helped make their career possible. But even as Bill was profoundly stupid and careless, getting impeached for his idiocy bad enough, but at least he didn’t get caught fathering a child that birthed a lie that went on and on for years and years. The unthinkable element that it John Edwards’s story happened while his spouse was fighting for her life against terminal cancer. If this was fiction nobody would read it.
Progressive new media is mostly ignoring it (though the right is not). Too tawdry. It doesn’t matter anymore people say. They don’t care. It’s all too sad. It sure is, but not just for the excuses currently being given.
It’s the politics of sex and the protection racket of the mainstream and new media press, all aided by gullible enablers on campaign teams who put the personality politician up higher than policies and what’s at stake.
The punch line? Not only are the Edwardses consummate liars, but so are the people around them who helped perpetrate the charade that allowed him to continue running for president when so much was at stake. Elizabeth Edwards a primary culprit in this remarkable fraud.
The Edwards story a part of why the book “Game Change,” by Halperin and Heileman, who got on background material because people close to campaigns, politicians, but those who know dirt, want to work again in politics, did so through sourcing now being scrutinized and questioned by many. As they talked to people with stories to tell about what the politicians are really like when the gloss is off, but did so providing cover so the people could tell their tales. A lot of criticism being laid at their feet about sourcing, even if, so far, the players in the book who are being portrayed aren’t coming out saying the two reporters are lying. Elizabeth Edwards’s friends even saying it’s all true, same with Harry Reid, while others portrayed are simply staying mum, including the entire hierarchy of the Democratic Party.
Last year I dared to take on Elizabeth Edwards role in it all, feeling terribly sorry for her physical challenges with cancer, which I believe in no way excuses her role in this blockbuster, sordidly scandalous chapter in modern politics. Edwards supporters came out from all quarters to vilify me, which I’m used to after 14 years on the web, and writing about relationships, marriage and sex, attacking me personally for daring to write the truth about a major force in a political story that impacted the entire Democratic process in the 2008 primary season, whether it changed it or not.
We’ve got a lot of problems in politics today. One of the major ones is making gods and goddesses out of mere mortals and elevating politicians above the policies we hope to enact through the people who get elected. Being seduced by gimmicks, slogans, heady marketing, and simple good looks and charm, when there is no evidence the politician we’re supporting has the character or can actually do the job.
Let’s not forget Elizabeth Edwards passing judgement on Hillary Clinton’s life during the democratic primaries: “She and I are from the same generation. We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I’m more joyful than she is” Mrs. Edwards said at a luncheon sponsored by the Ladies Home Journal.
Here’s the link, including that the backlash was so furious that Elizabeth Edwards apologized:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102100657.html
An interesting little nugget from ‘The Run Down’ this morning. Scott Brown’s nickname around Boston is “Downtown Scotty Brown”. Savanna said it was for his ability to shoot three pointers. Chuck said there were rumors it was for more than that. Savanna quickly shut him up saying,”We don’t want to start something.” Hummm,wouldn’t it be hilarious if he had feet of clay so soon?
I’ve been so busy this morning, LakeLady (even missing Sect. Clinton’s event where she’s slamming China – because Obama & his economic team don’t have the stones to do it). ANYWAY, your comment is EXACTLY to what I’m referring. The rumors are already flying re Scott Brown. If they turn out to be true, well, the character issue looms large.
Michelle Obama did the same sort of thing. I can’t remember the exact quote but it was something like,she knew how to keep her own home straight. It was mean and showed a lack of heart. I understand that things were hot and heavy at the time and Michelle probably felt that the Clinton camp was unfairly attacking her husband but it was below the belt IMHO.
Evidently Mark Sanford used his State of the State speech to sing the praises of the wife he utterly humiliated. Of all of them he is the biggest piece of work I have ever seen! He must have been in love for the first time in his life. I have no other explanation for his behavior.
‘At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part “to model what it means to have family values,” adding “if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.” ‘
LL
“If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House”
Michelle Obama
I understand what you are saying about idol worship and how dangerous it is to the body politic. On the other hand I really wish our country would grow up on all things sexual. Our extreme hypocracy and purtianism on the subject creates these ugly situations.
Speaking of hypocracy and adding to that our double standards. Can you imagine if Martha Coakley had posed nude in her youth instead of building a career in public service?!
Newsflash…the Conservative Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to complete corporate control of our political process. Striking down McCain /Feingold. Currently we have no institutions trying to protect the american people.
Thanks ladies
5-4
America=Corporate America
The epitome of an activist court
–Please keep this thread on topic–
Use In the News for off topic comments, please.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/in-the-news/
Well as you have said time and time again,Taylor, that arrogance and ego are intimately involved in the character of politicians. John Edwards apparently thought this would blow over and he could cover it up. Saying that, Edwards is not the first and won’t be the last to be caught up in something like this. We just need to remember that and leave John and Elizabeth Edwards to their lives and wish them good luck and thank our lucky stars we didn’t elect him President. I wish them the best of luck picking up the pieces and in caring for the newest addition to their family.
Brown runs for reelection in 2012. He’ll never be reelected. So who cares about this joke of a politician? Hillary is a loser. That’s because she lost to Obama. Webster’s definition of of loser is one who loses. She will never be the president or the vice president or anything other than a hack political operative. That’s because she, and her husband, play the game of politics in a “take no prisoners” manner. She, and he, can not be trusted in any way, for any reason. Once they leave the room you’d better have someone tailing them and listening in or the consequences for you may be very unpleasent. In otherwords it’s not a good idea to turn your back on either of them. Especially if you’ve disagreed with what they’ve had to say even slightly. I’m begining to believe that their supporters also suffer from these same odious character flaws. Lately it has become more and more obvious that the Hillary supporters would like nothing more than to see Obama destroyed completely. It seems to be a personal and obsessive quest that they’ve taken on. Almost a derangement of mind. Cases in point: Paul Krugman. Peace
Imhotep “It seems to be a personal and obsessive quest that they’ve taken on. Almost a derangement of mind”
These words apply perfectly to you when it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Do you remember the saying “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones”? That’s a sound advice for you.
alinosof says:
21 January 2010 at 11:12 am
lol
alinosof, my dislike of the Clinton’s is well grounded and very well thought out. Unlike the ‘Jim Jones follower’ obsessiveness that seems to be so pervasive amongst the Hillary worshipers. I ain’t going over no cliff for nobody. Not even Michael Jackson. But, you Hillary people really worry me. Peace
I though that “game Change” from the excerpts that I have read is one of the most disgustingly misogynistic things I’ve ever read.
Then I read this..
You know, it seems to me that the real villian in this story is John Edwards period.
Ya’ll sound like a bunch of self-hating feminists
It warrants repeating:
“We’ve got a lot of problems in politics today. One of the major ones is making gods and goddesses out of mere mortals and elevating politicians above the policies we hope to enact through the people who get elected. Being seduced by gimmicks, slogans, heady marketing, and simple good looks and charm, when there is no evidence the politician we’re supporting has the character or can actually do the job. ”
We would do well to recall the words of Edward Abbey, an anarchist, before we ever swoon over the too-sweet prose of some political talking head.
Edward Abbey: “No man is wise enough to be another man’s master. Each man’s as good as the next — if not a damn sight better.”
That means that we are as good as they are, if not better, they being politicians and other talking heads. We can’t be expected to judge a politician’s morals, usually, but we can and should focus on the facts of actual job performance as opposed to paying too much attention to appearance and flowery speech. It’s tough to do in this visual age, which is why I threw out my teevee long ago.
Regarding “gimmicks, slogans, & heady marketing” — Thoreau nailed it, as usual: “Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous.”
BuckHill, is a “self-hating feminist” any like a self-hating Jew? Peace
BuckHill – Absolutely right, but Elizabeth joined in to perpetrate a huge fraud on their campaign staff, the public, the Democratic Party, and the electorate. As sad as the story is, she has to take her share of the blame.
Using that same logic wouldn’t Hillary be culpable for her husband’s fraud on the public? Or are you claiming that Hillary never knew about any of his affairs including the seven year affair with Flowers? Peace
The most recent thing I wrote on the subject:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/01/09/a-side-of-dish-from-election-2008/
It makes you ask whether even Elizabeth and Hillary, as powerful and educated as two females can be, still feel self-defined by the famous, handsome, charismatic man they each married, unable to let go of the image of the man they first met, as well as the young woman they were, because their own identity and sexuality are so intertwined and fixed with his that their sense of self disappears without him. Sounds crazy, I know. Neither of these two strong women give an impression of being so emotionally dependent, but it’s clear they won’t let go. It’s tragically pathetic that marriage and love are wrapped so tightly in such packages of betrayal and co-dependency, which both wives accept and enable, even as they’re the only ones holding their marriage together. For what reason? Love?
Imhotep “alinosof, my dislike of the Clinton’s is well grounded and very well thought out.”
Unlike people like Paul Krugman and other commenters whose criticism of the president is policy oriented? Since when ad hominem attacks are considered “thought out” arguments?
I guess she bears some responsibility, but it seems to me that the degree of responsibility has been blown way out of proportion. I’m also struck by how blithely you dismiss her cancer, and the fact that she might not have been as rational in thought or action because of treatment, or medicinal reactions, or fatigue. I realize that compassion has no place in politics anymore, but what I find disturbing is that you champion calling her out months earlier.
You can frame this as it’s all about John Edwards, but it reads like you always had the goods on that harpy Elizabeth.
Imhotep- I was gonna go there, but every thread on this blog ends up with some reference to HRC (many times by you) but I agree with your assessment. The focus should be on John Edwards
alinosof, ad hominem attacks are in the eye of the beholder. If I were to say that Hitler was a sadistic butcher, some good Nazi might think that that was an ad hominem attack. A Jew, on the other hand, might fawn over my very wonderfulness. Peace
BuckHill, I’m not a real fan of enablers. Both Hillary and Elizabeth are classic enablers. What’s worse is that they enabled these two dirtbags not because they loved them, but because they both saw a big payday at the end of the process for themselves. And in the process neither one of them could have given a damn less about the “public trust” involved. Peace
Via Marc Ambinder’s tweet, John Edwards just arrived in Haiti?
http://twitter.com/taylormarsh/status/8034885432
Well, I feel like Edwards did a huge servcie the party in enabling us to have the disastrous Obama presidency. So not only did he stupidly think that none of this would come out, he enabled the party to nominate a mediator who couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag.
That should be disservice to the party.
Buckhill I agree with you that people should consider all of the things working on EE and I have writen about that before. I also agree from what I have read of it that the book is sexist. I can’t agree that any woman on this thread wrote any woman hating words. Where do you get that?
The reason the MSM missed/ignored the Edwards story is that they were much too busy trying to destroy Hillary Clinton at the time.
Where did TM get that photo, the one that has Edwards in a button-down royal blue shirt holding a baby with an adult face that looks suspiciously like Dick Cheney?
When there is another photo about, very similar, and shot at the same LA Beverly Hilton hotel, where Edwards allegedly met his mistress, except with Edwards wearing a light blue T-shirt and holding a baby with an actual baby face?
http://sensico.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/58768.jpg
Enquiring minds want to know.
Ga6thDem
By the time Edwards came out for Barack Obama, it was all done except for the shouting. HRC’s last best hope (and it was a very slender reed) was The North Carolina Primary. She needed to win it in a walk, she scraped by on the thinnest of margins. Edwards did provide a buzz kill after the WVa primary and may have pushed a few Supers over the edge. Mostly he ended HRC good news cycle coming out of WVa.
His tag-teaming with Barack in NH actually backfired as the voters saw right through that and gave HRC a second life. After NH Edwards evaporated, his NV showing was hideous and his showing in the Dixie Primaries prior to CA disproved Mudcat Saunders chief argument for Edwards. It turned out that white male Southern voters actually preferred HRC over the Breck Boy.
Ga6thDem Hillary’s loss can be summed up in two words: Mark Penn. Better yet it can be summed up: Her team. The people who ran her campaign were criminally incompetent. They were an albatross around her neck. Taylor is right ( as she usually is about these things) she was miles better than the people who ran her campaign.
I wonder if Elizabeth still believes that she has a happier life than Hillary?
As for the “revelation” about Quinn, oh please, did anyone not see that coming? The minute that Edwards came out with that weasel worded, hair-splitting, over lawyered non-denial denial of his anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that Quinn was his daughter.
What is pathetic is it took him this long to admit to it. Color me cynical but the only reason he did so now is because no other options were open to him. There is probably a legal settlement with the mother for child support that any slightly motivated intern can dig out of the local county court.
Maybe the story arc will finally end with divorce proceedings between the Edwards, maybe not. The relationship, from what can be discerned from the tabloids, is seriously ruptured and seriously dysfunctional. Still John and Liz may stay together for all sorts of foolish reasons. Plenty of marriages stay together long after the relationship is deader than Marley’s ghost.
This was a tale of epic hubris, by both parties. Others may empathize or sympathize with Elizabeth as it their right. The woman leaves me utterly cold. Nothing excuses the grave danger she placed the Democratic Party and the Nation by trying to foist her horn-dog husband on an unsuspecting public. Nothing excuses that, not the loss of her son, not the cancer, not being a woman wronged, not a one. She was her husband’s willing accomplice. Could you imagine what the fix the Nation would be in if John Edwards was in the Oval Office and this affair had exploded? It would have been Monica Lewinsky on steroids.
Those who knew or should have knew about this affair should never again be placed in any position of trust. They had an obligation to inform the public about John’s reckless behavior. They had an obligation to reveal the lies of John and Liz. That they did not, that they dawdled, and delayed, and let the farce continue revealed serious character flaws in those individuals. It revealed a lack of morality, of common sense, and of prudence that was extremely dangerous. They allowed millions of people to be deceived; to waist the time, effort, money and hope on a man who was nothing more than a preening, callow, randy fraud. The message that should have been delivered was “One America, meet one empty suit.”
The last stage of mourning is supposed to be acceptance. It would be best for all of us to just accept that no good can come out of either John or Elizabeth Edwards. It is best to accept that neither of them either is worthy or needs our sympathy. Elizabeth does have a disease, that much is true. Still she has more than enough money to get the very best cutting edge treatment. There are forty million U.S. citizen who have a much better claim to our sympathies as they have no medical coverage what so ever. Yes cancer is awful, but it is so much worse when you are jerked around by a heartless system that grinds you down worse than the disease.
Shed a tear for Elizabeth Edwards if you must,but remember she made her bed and now she must lie in it. She, of all people, knew what her husband was capable of and she still supported his political ambitions. Think about that for a few minutes, it makes her a much less likable person doesn’t it? She might be better than her husband but that really is a very, very low bar one has to jump. It is a bar so close to the ground that not even a small bug can get under it.
J.E. in Haiti? Have those poor people not suffered enough?
Utter cynicism whispers in my ear that J.E. is attempting to rebuild his image. He is using Haiti and the Haitians as a prop, as the beginning of a rebuilding strategy.
Take it for what that’s worth, take it from a person who saw J.E. as a hero and now sees him as less than zero.
If this is off-topic, then please line out.
Not being a relationship guru like T.M., I am not going to even guess why HRC stands by Bad Boy Bill. Far too many ingredients in that particular mix to even start. I am certainly not going to assume that the marriage is some nefarious bit of political convenience for both parties. Bill’s early upbringing in Little Rock left its mark, that much is certain. Childhood abandonment, one’s sense of worth, political and social ambition are in the mix. The need for confirmation, that is a big part too. Oh and ego, lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of ego. Hard to say where personal ego ends and political ego begins.
It is no secret that Bill has a zipper malfunction issue. He is forever dropping his pants at the most inopportune times. HRC puts up with it because she puts up with it. It is personal and its political. These are flesh and blood people, not political cardboard cut-outs.
As politicians both Clintons are ruthless and paranoid. HRC lacks Bill’s common touch. Bill lacks HRC steely resolve. Many times, both are too clever by a half. Still Bill is doing a good job as Ex-pres, and HRC is doing a good job as SoS. As they both are serving the common good, so far, let’s cut them a little slack.
You can cut them slack, spincitysd, absolutely. That’s not my job. I just call it as I see it.
No spin city. I wasn’t talking about when he suspended his campaign and then later endorsed Obama. I was talking about him ganging up on her in the debates and the fact that had he not ran Obama might not have even won IA much less the primary.
Oh, I have no doubt that Hillary had issues with her team but some of the things coming out now are showing that there was more than that going on. In the end though she earned more respect and votes despite it. Shows what kind of a politician she is.