The cheating on his wife is disappointing and tawdry but at least he (finally under pressure) owned up to that. The really repulsive part of his behavior is his absolute silence on the paternity of the child born to his mistress. It’s like the child doesn’t exist. A man would step up and take responsibility for his actions.
This is what repulsed my about Clinton’s lying and Edwards duck and cover behavior. These guys are supposed to be our highest leaders and yet they behave like such pathetic, dissembling cowards and liars when caught with thier penises wandering.
Agree about Edwards. It’s time to acknowledge that there’s an innocent baby at the center of this scandal, and step up to a paternity test. Similarly, I think Elizabeth Edwards’ current sympathy tour would be more compelling if she weren’t freezing out the baby.
I think mentioning Clinton is going to derail the thread.
This makes it sound like his most important failing was lying to the public. While he hid the whole thing from the public for a long while, the cheating on his wife and lying about that were worse. (Recently she said he admitted the affair only partially, by saying they slept together just once. And she still doesn’t know if he’s the father of the child.)
Depending on your point of view, the woman either went to California with her daughter’s father, an Edwards aide; or was bought off and went along with a cover story. If the kid is provided for, does his public dithering really matter?
In other words, they act like most other people do when caught in these situations. The bolded part is your problem, though: accepting politicians as capital-L Leaders, and moral leaders in particular, is a bad strategy in my opinion.
It was also pretty bad that he proceeded with his presidential campaign knowing that this woman was out there, and the situation was sure to blow up in his face sooner or later. That kind of screwed over all of those people who believed in him and worked on his campaign.
I’m always more than a little skeptical about cites to The National Enquirer. If that article is true, then his baby-mama has every right to demand a paternity test. BUT ISTM equally possible that she and he know the paternity, be the child his or not, and have made whatever private arrangements they deem appropriate in light of that.
I don’t believe he owes the public any explanation regarding whether he’s the father or not, so long as he does right by any child that is his. So, no I don’t find his “absolute silence” to be at all “repulsive.” He has an obligation to support his children – all of them – and he has an obligation to acknowledge them appropriately, as agreed between him and the mother, and the child once the child is old enough to care. But he doesn’t have an obligation to talk publicly about it.
At this point, all we have to say that (a) he is the father and (b) he has refused to acknowledge the child is the Enquirer article. I say we wait for a little better cite before climbing into the Seat O’ Judgment.
I think he really convinced himself it was going to stay a secret. It does shed a different light on her illness, though: when her cancer returned, much was made of how she wanted him to stay in the race. In point of fact, it turns out she asked him to quit when she found out about the affair and he said no, so it didn’t matter much.
Well, actually, it does affect me. Because Edwards took public money to finance his campaign - that comes from taxpayers. And the evidence is pretty strong that either campaign money or public money was used to give Hunter a job and to set her up after the affair. This is the basis of a current federal investigation.
Sex lives are rarely just sex lives - I wouldn’t care about that either. In the Clinton case there was corruption involved, as agents of the government were used to cover up the affair. Here public money or campaign money may have been used for a similar purpose, which is illegal and should be prosecuted if it is found to have happened.
If people only cared about things that “had to do with them,” the media, the Internet, and quite possibly the entire political system as we know it would crumble overnight.
It’s the the dishonesty and moral failing that makes it important. The fact that it’s tied to sex just makes it salacious. If John and Elizabeth like to get all freaky-deaky in the bedroom, there’s nothing wrong with that. But it says something about a politician’s moral code if he is willing to carry on an affair. It’s one thing to be like Jimmy Carter and say you have lust in your heart. It’s completely something else to be knowingly deceitful in order to have an affair.
You should be very interested anytime a politician is caught lying. Unfortunately, most people have no interest unless the thing he’s lying about is scandalous.
Since it was the Enquirer that first reported the affair and it did turn out to be true (much to the traditional media’s shock as well), I am in this case a bit more likely to actually believe what they say. Though that baby sure looks a lot more like the aide who claimed to be the father (Andrew A. Young) than it looks like Edwards, so who knows.
While a lot of the Enquirer is lightweight gossipy innuendo, oddly enough the Enquirer is generally quite accurate when they come out with a specific and definitive statement about notable people behaving badly. Rush Limbaugh’s drug addiction was another story they broke where they were 100% accurate.
I think the way a politician treats his loved ones provides useful information about his judgment and character more generally. Particularly when it is a minor child at issue.
For better or worse, Edwards’ affair with Hunter put that baby in the center of a public scandal that will follow the baby as (s)he gets older. In my view, Edwards now owes it to that child to clarify paternity publicly.
Ah yes, the you-people-are-such-Puritans cooler-than-school defense. Generally I agree with that and I don’t look to politicians (Repbulican or Democrat) to provide me with a sense of moral direction. But John Edwards pissed me off on a completely different level.
Can you imagine what would have happened during this election if the information came out after he won the nomination? Do you really think it was responsible for him to go on the campaign trail with this scandal in his very very recent closet? Or do you think it speaks to gross levels of entitlement and narcissism coupled with very poor judgment? And that John Edwards is more important to John Edwards than the Democrats regaining the presidency ? (I mean, screw the people he represents I don’t believe either party cares about us) I very much care that any person I vote for demonstrate commitment and loyalty to something, the party, their ideology, their beliefs. That they are driven by some guiding principals that factor into their decisionmaking process, even if they can’t be good to their family. I will never vote for someone who shows no principals whatsoever.
Aside from all that, yes, I find men like Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards vile, although I think both of their wives probably ignored the red flags for years.
It certainly was reckless of Edwards to conduct an affair while running for office. Had he won the primary it could have been an incredible clusterf-- for his party. Frankly, I don’t want a man in the Oval Office who puts his own needs ahead of his party or his country, thankyouverymuch.
Now that he’s out of office, though, I honestly don’t care who he sleeps with or lies to. And if his baby mama wants to remain private, too, that’s good with me. In fact, I prefer it that way.
I do wonder why his wife decided to publish her book knowing it would conjure up all this crap.
When presented with such obvious claims to the high road, I’ve learned to shamelessly embrace the low road.
I am interested in lots of things that don’t affect me personally and have nothing to do with me. I am not “worried” by the sex lives of politicians, but I am occasionally entertained by juicy gossip and/or flagrant examples of public hypocrisy. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I sleep okay despite it.
I believe that public figures have absolutely no obligation to be honest about their sex lives in public. If we ask, we deserve to be lied to. And I believe that their sexual peccadilloes have zero to do with their fitness for office, except to the extent that they themselves make sexual behavior a public issue.
Perhaps. But even so, the public revelation of such peccadilloes (should it happen, and there will always be those salivating to make it happen) will inevitably disrupt their ability to lead, which is a legitimate factor to be considered, both by the candidate and the electorate.
I watched a primetime “news” show whose lead story was about Britney Spears’s new yellow hat. The would-be lechery of public figures will always be big news.