John Edwards

The breaking of the news that John Edwards had an affair with a woman involved with his campaign was not exactly a surprise.
After all,the rumor had been around for quite a while and these things tend to happen with younger looking and more charismatic candidates for the presidency.
John Kennedy,Gary Hart,Bill Clinton,Edwards etc and there are not exactly a lot of knocking on the doors for guys like Mike Dukakis,John McCain,Bob Dole etc,so history showed that this was a possibility at the smallest end at least.
These candidates have huge egos as well,if you didn't not have a huge ego,why then you would presume that you among all the citizens in the United States are best suited to be the leader of the most influential country in the world?
With such an ego,high visibility and possibly being leader material,many of these men have beautiful and smart women involved in their lives (although for the life of me,I cannot figure out what Edwards saw in his flame) and (being human) have tremendous difficulties refusing these advances or in some cases,they have problems that they create by being the initiator.
I can even marginally understand,at times,because the political life can be a lonely one often times and many times to maximize exposure,the candidate could be sent to Omaha while the wife is shipped to Memphis and things could happen in those situations.
Plus,I can excuse Bill Clinton a little bit,I mean being MARRIED to Hillary Clinton?
I might have to wander too,but he made that decision so he will have to live with that one.
But the Edwards affair was in 2006 before he had even announced his candidacy,so that excuse doesn't wash and Elizabeth Edwards seems like a terrific lady,so the "Hillary Exception" gets unused here.

I hope the woman was worth tossing his political career overboard for,but from what I read in Newsweek,she seems borderline strange.
An average looking "seeker and new age spiritualist"?
Oh Boy,now I can see why she was so important!
Edwards can kiss his elected office hopes goodbye although with some years of image rehab,I think he could eventually hold an appointed office of some importance.
This is unfortunate,as Edwards would have made an excellent Vice President or Attorney General possibility.
Edwards also eliminated any chance of speaking at the Democratic convention in Denver and therefore losing opportunities to showcase himself and his platform of ideas.
That is a real loss as Edwards has been the only candidate to truly talk about the problems of the less fortunate in this country.

I do give Edwards credit for taking the hit alone during the ABC interview that he admitted the affair in.
I have always found it sad when scandals hit politicians and they drag the poor sad wife up there to show support.
When usually it is the wife that has been hit hardest by these affairs (no pun intended).
I think John Edwards did the right thing by enabling Elizabeth to avoid adding further insult to her injuries.

Now to the media coverage.
Now many are screaming about liberal media bias in why this only came out in the National Enquirer during Edwards primary run and that this is the final "proof" that the media is liberal.
Pure Bunk and here is why.
There was not ONE iota of proof that Edwards had done anything wrong.
No admission from Edwards or his paramour.
No pictures or evidence from an outside source.
Just rumor.
No different than the George Bush cocaine rumors in 2000.
Rumors?Certainly.
Proof?None..

Take that and consider the consequences of reporting the affair without having facts to back things up.
Put aside that it turned out to be true and think about if it were not.
The "liberal" press would have destroyed a candidate and his parties primary process on rumors that were not true.
Talking personal rumors about a politician in print is not like floating rumors about who the Pirates are talking about trading-this can ruin careers and it simply is not fair to report these types of rumors without anything to back it up besides hearsay.

You think the media is liberal?
Well,on this topic-I disagree.
Without mentioning names,there is a candidate that was in the presidential hunt in 2008 other than Edwards that has this type of issue in his background over the years and yet it is not being reported.
Fox news is all over Edwards and rightfully so,but they did not mention the affair before,not even the far right O'Reilly and Hannity crowd.
Why didn't they? Because they couldn't back it up!
Nothing to do with bias on the political spectrum,just that they had no proof-just speculation.

As a supporter (although not financially) of John Edwards (Full disclosure,we endorsed Edwards on Dec 20,2007),I must admit a small feeling of betrayal.
Not on the affair,but that he lied about it.
I am realistic enough to know why this happened,but it is tough to deal with the fact that after listening to eight years of lies,the candidate I supported was truth twisting before he ever won the job.

As a political junkie since childhood,I could never understand why so many became apathetic with the process.
One always hears "they are all the same-all crooks and liars" and variations of the statement and I try to not become cynical.
It is clear to see just how easy it can be to be a cynic.

Photo Credit
Edwards:Unknown
Cartoon:Kevin Siers-Charlotte Observer