Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I have several reactions to John Edwards admitting that the National Enquirer actually got it at least partially right when they claimed he'd had an affair. Let me start with this: no, I was not wrong to criticize the Worldnetdaily for reprinting the National Enquirer's accusations without any supporting evidence. That they turned out to be right one time out of (at least) 100 does not mean that news organizations should be citing their accusations as credible. That they occasionally get one right does not make them a credible news source.
And no, this does not contradict with my linking to the story about Jesse Helms being a cross dresser. I said explicitly in that post that there was no evidence to back up the story and I did not present it as true. I merely pointed out that given many other similar situations with anti-gay bigots like Helms, it certainly wouldn't be a shock if it was true.
And no, I am not the least bit surprised that the story is true. If you do not recognize the incontrovertible fact that wealthy and powerful men, whether married or otherwise, pretty much have their pick of sexual partners, you are far too naive. Same is true if you do not recognize that 90% of men (maybe more) are going to take advantage of those opportunities when they present themselves as long as they think they can get away with it. That's an ugly truth, but it's still the truth. We really need to get over this notion that people we support for office are saints; they never have been and they never will be.
I also don't buy for a moment Edwards' claim that he had this affair only in 2006 and that he ended it and admitted it to his wife long ago. He also admitted that he just met with the woman at a hotel two weeks ago. Folks, he didn't meet that women at a hotel recently to have a chat. Nor do I buy the notion that he betrayed those who voted for him. He betrayed his wife; he didn't owe anyone else a damn thing.
Comments
I am reminded of a quote from Chris Rock concerning meeting president Clinton (paraphrased): "He's a charming man, I'd have slept with him if he'd asked me."
Posted by: khan | August 9, 2008 10:32 AM
Now let me get this straight - he is no longer in the Senate, no longer running for president, yet FOX news covered this story with a 'Campaign '08' placard on the screen.
Where were they when Larry Craig was trying get banged by a man in an airport?
Posted by: slpage | August 9, 2008 10:36 AM
Actually, he did owe the rest of the media something: the phrase "none of your damn business" should have been said instead of the denial.
this culture of celebrity worship, spread into our politics, has just gotten out of hand. it's an archaic remnant of the peasantry gossiping over the nobility, and it serves no purpose at all.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | August 9, 2008 10:38 AM
"He betrayed his wife; he didn't owe anyone else a damn thing."
In terms of his adulterous behaviour, yes - of course. But given the probable (if hypocritical) response of the Republicans, it showed an astounding lack of judgement. Further, he does owe those who voted for him the truth on something that will get dragged out and used against him in the general election (not that I would expect him, nor anyone, to tell the truth about an affair).
There's a bigger question; "Is it any of our business?". As with Clinton and Gary Hart (remember him?), the answer is, "No". It *isn't* our business. It shouldn't be brought up at all (unless the person in power is using that power to either pay for or force sex on others - but that's a much different issue than simple adultery).
On the other hand, until we, as a nation, grow up, presidential hopefuls and even presidents should either keep to their wives or admit immediately what they are doing and help us grow up by repeatedly saying, "and it's none of your god-damned business".
Oh - and to those who would say that if he broke his vows to his wife, then he would break his oath to the country; look at Bush II. I haven't heard any rumors of his infidelity, but look what he's done to the country!
cheers-
Eric
Posted by: Eric | August 9, 2008 10:43 AM
We really need to get over this notion that people we support for office are saints
Boy and howdy! This is the biggest problem with the modern American electorate. The framers of the constitution anticipated the tendancy of some people toward authoritarianism and thus focused on separation of powers, limiting authority and emphasizing "we the people". My blood pressure rises every time I hear or read "commander in chief" as it is rarely correctly used and betrays the authoritarian bent of the user.
I don't trust politicians. Anyone who thinks they should be a leader needs to demonstrate to me they have sufficiently suppressed their own ego and self-promotion. I don't expect them to have vacated those drives, as anyone who wants a political office has to have a bit of a over magnified self-esteem.
Posted by: Spirula | August 9, 2008 10:46 AM
He did this while running for president. In an ideal world, it wouldn't matter, but it does matter in this one.
I wish a politician would light up a cigarette on camera and say; "I'm a right bastard in my personal life, but that isn't the office I'm running for. Now let's talk about the issues of the office I am running for."
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 9, 2008 11:24 AM
"Yes", or "Nunyabizness", would have worked, had he not criticized Bill Clinton for the very same thing.
What's appropriate now is, "I am a liar and a hypocrite", followed by apologies to the Democratic Party, and then a retreat to privacy.
Posted by: Patrick | August 9, 2008 11:44 AM
I agree. Edwards owes his wife and children one hell of an apology (and I would cheer Elizabeth on if she threw him out on his ass), but he has no need to express his regrets to the American public at large. He will, to save face, but that doesn't mean he has any moral obligation to do so.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 9, 2008 11:55 AM
As far as the adultery goes, I agree with you, to a point. But he did betray his supporters and the country in three key ways:
1) He lied - he flat-out denied the allegations, and his attempt at parsing those denials now is ludicrous. A simple "no comment" would have maintained his integrity and his privacy, but he chose to cover it up. We've seen too much secrecy and lying in this administration, we don't need any more.
2) He opened himself up to blackmail - first by having the affair and then trying to cover it up.
3) He had surrogates out there defending him and blasting the allegations as false when he knew they were, at least partially, true. He caused others to damage their own integrity - because there will always be those who smell a conspiracy.
Coincidentally, these are also the exact reasons I thought Clinton should have resigned back in 1999 - not because of the affair, but because of the attempts to cover it up.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 9, 2008 11:58 AM
On second thought, Edwards did lie--repeatedly--about the affair, and I do believe that he owes his supporters an apology for that, but not for the affair itself.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 9, 2008 12:03 PM
People lie about affairs. All people. There are no exceptions. Any person who gets holier than thou about someone else lying about an affair will themselves lie about an affair at some time in the future, already has, or would if the situation arose. No exceptions.
Ed: Your post is dead on except I suspect maybe you have a thing for Jesse... Admit it...
Posted by: greg laden | August 9, 2008 12:13 PM
Well...this is real trouble for Obama. Now John Edwards is the most qualified to be the presidential nominee for the Democrats.
Posted by: kevin | August 9, 2008 12:24 PM
Most of the comments state in one fashion or another that adultery by Sen. Edwards and other public officials should be between them and their families, and is not any of the public's business. I tend to agree more with Captain Doom about the covering up of the affair is more damaging that the affair itself. I was wondering what people's thoughts on adultery being a crime under the UCMJ is (Article 134). Should the private life of military personnel be under tighter scrutiny than those of elected officials? I realize that adultery SHOULD only be prosecutable when it is prejudicial to good order and discipline, but the reality is that the highly moralistic senior officers will view most adultery as fair game for non-judicial punishment. (Incidentally, Kelly Flinn got in trouble for continuing her affair with the Airman's husband after being ordered to stop, not for having the affair in the first place).
As an aside, one wonders how many congresswomen have had inappropriate affairs with their staff or in general?
Posted by: Mike | August 9, 2008 12:37 PM
In Bill Clinton's case, his little fling was also just personal, private business - but, in our screwed-up but predictable moralistic society, it had the real consequence of tying up national politics for almost two years.
(Fortunately, nobody in DC was trying to do anything constructive anyway, so the net effect was trivial, possibly even positive.)
Edwards's errancy meets the same conditions, but the possible political results (a presidency of any of the seven Republican candidates) would have been devastating to the nation and the world.
At the time, I was angry that the corporate media's fixation on the black-man/white-woman pseudostory squeezed Edwards out of the race, but now have to concede that they accidentally did us a big favor.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 9, 2008 12:47 PM
I'm not surprised in the slightest to find out a politician has had an affair, but I will absolutely hold it against them if they've make moralistic judgments about the private lives of other politicians previously, or even about social practices in general-- if they've been trumpeting on and on about family values and the sanctity of marriage, then they deserve every bit of mockery they get if they're caught with another woman (or man). If the politician in question has never done so, or has an open marriage (it's possible, you know-- not every extra-marital affair is cheating), then it's really none of my business.
As for Elizabeth...I don't think it's anyone's place but hers to say whether she should divorce him or not. I do think, however, that she should consider going out and having a few affairs of her own. Sounds like she's due.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 9, 2008 12:55 PM
"It's an archaic remnant of the peasantry gossiping over the nobility, and it serves no purpose at all."
I have to disagree. It permits the cable stations to fill their "news hole" without having to report on issues that might actually be important to the electorate (e.g., a side-by-side comparison of McCain's and Obama's proposed energy policy).
"No sponsors were offended by this newcast."
Posted by: NJ Osprey | August 9, 2008 12:57 PM
How long as this been going on? Wasn't Thomas Jefferson skewered for his bastards when he was running against John Adams.
Posted by: Hathor | August 9, 2008 1:08 PM
Gretchen:
This statement is positively breathtaking: it's not anyone's place to tell Elizabeth Edwards that she ought to divorce her husband, but suggesting that she have her own affairs is perfectly fine (and "due"!). Yeah, that'll help their marriage a whole lot.
Also, I do wonder somewhat in passing whether or not anyone has considered that Elizabeth Edwards is a politician as well rather than the hapless wife as in so many other cases of cheating politicians (James McGreevy, Eliot Spitzer, David Vitter, et al.).
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 9, 2008 1:17 PM
Christian Cynic,
The difference, in my view, is that whenever some prominent politicians is found out to have an affair, the media immediately becomes filled with people shrieking that his wife should divorce him, and disparaging her character if she doesn't. But the fact is, adultery doesn't have to be a death sentence if you have a strong marriage. Nearly everybody wants to stray at some point or another, and statistically most people eventually do. That being the case, forgiving an affair does not make a person weak or a doormat. It can simply mean acknowledging that your partner is human, and demanding that they owe you the same. If I'm being presumptuous by suggesting an alternate way to deal with Edwards' affair-- well, so be it. I somehow doubt Elizabeth is going to listen to my opinion anyway.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 9, 2008 1:26 PM
I agree with you that calls for Elizabeth Edwards to divorce her husband are misplaced and that marriages can (and very often do) survive infidelity. All of that is perfectly fine, but I just can't see any reason to suggest further infidelity as a proper response (even where I also agree that she's not likely to take your advice); there's that basic moral dictum "Two wrongs don't make a right" to consider, and for E.E. (who I understand to be a Christian), the command "Do not repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good." If E.E. believes her husband's repentance to be sincere, then forgiveness and pushing forward is the appropriate response.
(Sorry if my responses have seemed rather moralistic, but this is one of those issues that I feel very strongly about, too strongly to let a comment like that go by without responding.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 9, 2008 1:36 PM
In a perfect world, nobody would care about the sex a politician was having or not having; hell, I don't think they'd care about their sexual gender. In that same perfect world, I think we'd support people with open marriages, because they tend to be happier, and establish a Department of Hookers as a perk for the executive branch (it would make these flings more secure.)
But unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. These affairs matter to a lot of Americans, many of whom are hypocritical enough to criticize even while doing the same.
This election is just too important. I'm convinced that if we had to suffer four more years of Republican rule, our country will fail and may never recover. So many of our rights are hanging by a thread that we can't afford another conservative on the Supreme Court. Our military can't take the strain of being in Iraq for another four, or eight, or hundred years. Our economy can't take the tax breaks the wealthy enjoy any longer.
So to me, it's not about the sex. It's about the judgment of John Edwards. Did he really think that this wouldn't come to light? Was he really so stupid as to trust everything I mentioned above with someone whom the public knows nothing about? The hubris is staggering. No, this shouldn't even be a story right now (the fact that CNN ran with this while virtually ignoring that Russia has invaded Georgia is appalling.) But neither should John Edwards put the entire country at risk by running for President with this sort of skeleton in his closet. This election is just too important.
Posted by: David | August 9, 2008 1:44 PM
Gotta laugh at the way Edwards brought up John McCain as someone whose political career was able to overcome a sex scandal. Doesn't hurt Obama's chances to remind the voting public of McCain's less than illustrious personal past.
But I suspect that Edwards will have a tougher time recovering from scandal than McCain did. Today's 24/7 news coverage is brutal compared with what McCain had to deal with. Edwards is probably finished as an elected official.
Posted by: tacitus | August 9, 2008 1:50 PM
The Christian Cynic,
Okay, well, I at least thinks she deserves a "get out of jail free" card. ;-) If she's able to forgive him for his indiscretion, then if at some time in the future she does the same, he should be able to forgive her.
David,
Wow. Is Obama putting the entire country at risk by running for President while black? After all, he knows full well that plenty of people won't vote for him because of it. Sorry, but I don't consider a presidential candidate guilty for the downfall of a country if people refuse to vote for him for stupid reasons. Regardless of how immoral you consider an affair to be, it is not a valid reason for any sane person to refuse to vote for someone they otherwise would've.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 9, 2008 1:53 PM
So the National Enquirer got the fact that a fairly good looking popular politician was having an affair. Gee, I'll bet that was a hard one. [/cynicism]
Posted by: BaldApe | August 9, 2008 2:39 PM
I can agree with that, Gretchen.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 9, 2008 2:56 PM
"People lie about affairs. All people. There are no exceptions. Any person who gets holier than thou about someone else lying about an affair will themselves lie about an affair at some time in the future, already has, or would if the situation arose. No exceptions."
This is utter nonsense. Affairs are commonplace and lying about affairs is commonplace, but not only are there people who decline opportunities to have affairs, there are people who confess immediately when confronted. There are also people who are so overcome with guilt over infidelity that they confess on their own. And there are people whose motives are hostile -- in a bit of psychic judo, their confessions expiate guilt while also inflicting distress on their partner.
Some people would reasonably challenge the wisdom of the guilty confession as a selfish act, but having worked as a clinician for over twenty years, I've encountered the guilty confession, the confession when questioned and the hostile confession many times.
I've also encountered claims like yours many times. Sometimes the claim is based on narcissistic ignorance (the conviction that all psyches are just like one's own), but often enough the ignorance is nothing more than a transparent, guilt-alleviating, trouble-avoiding rationalization.
Posted by: Dr X | August 9, 2008 3:13 PM
I love that you tacked on that last bit. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | August 9, 2008 3:25 PM
Many years ago I read something, persuasive at the time, which explained that the National Enquirer does not deserve its reputation for shoddy reporting. It is the subject matter, not the quality of the reporting, which sets it apart. That the National Enquirer got this one right confirms this impression.
"That they turned out to be right one time out of (at least) 100 does not mean that news organizations should be citing their accusations as credible."
Do you have evidence on that? I don't follow the National Enquirer (not interested in its subject matter), so I really don't have a personal basis on which to judge whether their reporting is significantly less accurate than that of other newspapers.
Posted by: constant | August 9, 2008 5:47 PM
Well that pretty much covers about everyone doesn't it?
From my perspective I don't care what Edwards did privately and if it was ongoing he should have told his wife.
Posted by: JimC | August 9, 2008 11:42 PM
As I understand it, the National Enquirer is actually very accurate- if you read what they say carefully and do not make the assumptions they are leading you to make. Look carefully at what they actually say. It's usually something like "according to a close personal friend."
So they find somebody to say something wacky, and quote that person. As long as the story is that that person said some weird thing, and not that the thing is true, they are being accurate.
Accurate in a Bill Clinton sort of way.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 10, 2008 9:46 AM
So what about the repeated Enquirer stories about Dubious falling of the wagon and rambling through the White House drunk as a skunk, driving his wife off to spend the night in a hotel?
Inquiring minds need to know!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 10, 2008 12:12 PM
I feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards. This is the last thing she needs. This whole Edwards scandal will probably make the media dig up McCain's affair with Cindy McCain and ask why McCain left his first wife. Washington is a sad place.
~*~*~*~*~*~
Posted by: Rihanna | August 11, 2008 1:27 AM
Ed, I disagree strongly on the betrayal issue. Of course he betrayed voters and lots of other Democrats. Lots and lots of people put their blood sweat and tears into both him as a candidate and the political needs he represents. No, candidates aren't saints, but when they go and do something way off script, especially something so messy and sloppy that them getting caught is seemingly inevitable, they betray their campaign and their party no different than if a CEO takes a week golf outing instead of dealing with a financial crisis. Their public image is part of the product, like it or not, and part of their job is to not screw up, no different than it's their job to not pull major gaffes (like "maccaca") and make sure their donors are well satisfied and so on.
Imagine if Edwards had won the nomination. You really don't think primary voters wouldn't legitimately feel betrayed: having been sold a lousy bill of goods by Edwards that turned out to be a sure loser in the general? Edwards' affair was most certainly his business. But he also then chose to run for President and play a role in the Dem scene with that very obvious skeleton/closet liability hanging over his head. Whether or not we like the fact that candidates are judged on such behavior, they are. And as such, their conduct becomes a liability, and can very easily turn the work and trust of countless people into wasted effort in an instant.
Plus, those of us that don't cheat, even when presented with the opportuniy, just can't really have much sympathy for those who do: not just generally, but right in the midst of something extremely important to not just themselves, but countless people.
As for whether the Equirer was a credible news source or not, that's somewhat irrelevant. The nature of their allegations and their supporting evidence was such that it couldn't be ignored, and was legitimately a story of interest, regardless of their track record. It wasn't just some random unsourced claim that Maddona huffed crack. They actually caught the guy hanging around at a hotel with his former mistress there under a different name, and got him running from reporters.
Posted by: Bad | August 11, 2008 9:55 AM
Posted by: CheTaylor | August 11, 2008 11:00 AM
"I think that is the point, should he private behaviour be judged on such things, they are not elsewhere."
This is neither here nor there. They simply are judged on such things. That's just the way it is, and what everyone knows getting into the business. We can argue that they shouldn't be that way, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether someone knowingly does something that they know will be a huge liability for their party and entire campaign, and still pursues major political status.
Posted by: Bad | August 11, 2008 1:37 PM