Saturday, August 9, 2008
Amazing but true?
He says he exercised "an error in judgment."  That's how John Edwards explains his now-acknowledged affair, the one he insisted only last week was an appalling trash-tabloid-paper rumor smearing someone for whom family is the most important thing.  He insisted/insists that he is devoted to family and tradition.
  • An error in judgment???  He betrayed his family's trust and he lied, a lot.  How is that like choosing brands of string beans or butter?
  • He says he didn't love Rielle Hunter.  How does that make it better?  How will that play with Hunter?
  • He says Elizabeth's illness was in remission when he had the affair with Hunter.  How does that help?
  • He says the affair has been "over for a long time."  (a) How does that help given the egregiousness of his lying and (b) are we really supposed to believe it's been over a long time when he was seen and photographed coming out of Hunter's room in the Beverly Hills Hilton two weeks ago?
  • He says he's not the father of Hunter's baby; he says Andrew Young is the father.  Huh?!  Was Hunter the campaign's night-time groupie??  How many people in Edwards' campaign did she sleep with?  Is she following the troops?  Are we really supposed to believe this?? 
  • He says he doesn't know who's been paying Hunter or covering her hotel bills around the country.  One's credulity is strained.  And anyway, why does she stay in hotels instead of her own house or apartment?
  • If Young is the father and the affair is long over, why was John Edwards visiting Hunter's room in the Beverly Hills Hilton just two weeks ago?
  • Edwards says he'll take a paternity test.  Risky challenge, that.  Remember Gary Hart's "follow me" invitation?
What's the relevance of all this to anyone other than the Edwards family?  I suppose a candidate might be an intelligent, careful and socially concerned legislator even though a cad.  I suppose a person's personal life is just as legislatively irrelevant as whether one *likes* a person one is voting for.  But trust is delicate in personal relationships and, whether it makes a ton of sense of not, is a component of how one evaluates who to vote for.  In this case, it's not the affair, it's the condescension, the assertions of family and traditional values. 

It all comes down to arrogance and an assumption that one can do something not even close to what one asserts is being done, all the while adamantly asserting moral rectitude, all the while insisting one is doing only what one insists one is doing, and all the while denying doing what is actually being done.

Labels: ,

Permalink | | posted by jau at 2:15 AM


0 more:

Post a Comment

< home