Filed under: politics | Tags: adultery, John Edwards, love child, PBS, politics
last night the PBS program “NOW” featured John Edwards and his war on poverty.
Mostly this blog is about my eating disorder or my fiction writing. but once in a while i do get political, and most of the time when I get political it means something so far to the left I have to stop short to just barely avoid entering communism territory. I consider Barack Obama basically a conservative.
I considered all of the democratic candidates for president (apart from Kucinich) conservative, in fact, which left me free to support the one I liked best and/or thought was the most electable. Hence, Barack Obama. But I had a soft spot for John Edwards because he talked about and seemed to really care about poverty.
Another thing I have a soft spot for is PBS, because I can’t take most TV news sources (I get too annoyed too quickly to absorb any information). So I love my News Hour and on friday nights I watch with nerdy glee as Washington Week follows the McGlaughlin group. NOW is the last of the half hour shows, and I like it okay except for the fact that it’s so biased towards progressive issues that it’s like watching my brain being fed back to me. Don’t think I’m weird but I actually enjoy hearing a diversity of viewpoints in my news sources.
Last night John Edwards was on NOW, and most of the time that would have been great! I had a soft spot for the guy, I care passionately about the issue, I love the PBS in depth sort of coverage.
The thing is, John Edwards just got caught by the National Enquirer sneaking into a hotel late at night to visit his mistress, who they allege is also the mother of his illegitimate child. John Edwards was accused of having an affair with this woman during the campaign, and denied it. I remember reading about it and thinking it was awful- the guy’s wife has cancer, he’s running for president, and if it was true it would just be too horrible for words. But since he wasn’t in any danger of actually winning the nomination I basically decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. No harm, no foul, and hey the guy was talking about poverty!
The thing is, now there seems to be pretty good evidence that it was all true. Now, I’m not some fancy pants PBS reporter or anything, and I’m sure the interview was taped before this all happened, but don’t you think a thing like that would rate a voice over mention in a show that gives Edwards such an admiring portrait and a gigantic platform? I think poverty is important- way more important than who a guy sleeps with even if his wife does have cancer- but, c’mon people. Tell me about his war on poverty, but don’t pretend this guy is clean and perfect. Mention the fact that he just got caught the night before with his pants down (metaphorically. find out more by following the link at the beginning of this blog post).
John Edwards, poverty fighting scumbag. If that’s the real story then that’s what I expect to hear from NOW with David Broncoccio, no matter how progressive leaning his show is.
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
The National Enquirer is not known for it’s accuracy and honesty in reporting. Not saying it couldn’t be true, but I’d question the source.
Comment by anne July 26, 2008 @ 10:57 amyes anne, i know the enquirer isn’t particularly reliable, which is one reason i didn’t link directly to the enquirer itself. (i linked to fox which is hardly more reliable, but oh well).
in this case, while there is much in doubt, the basic facts are that enquirer reporters were tailing edwards and caught him in the wee hours of the night visiting this woman alone in a hotel room, and when they caught him he hid in a bathroom to try and avoid them. so, that part is true and while it doesn’t prove he was having an affair or that the child is his, it certainly merits mention on an otherwise very laudatory program, in my opinion.
whatever the truth, i think it’s time that more mainstream media outlets get out there and find it instead of letting the story stay in the enquirer which has such a mixed record.
Comment by vive42 July 26, 2008 @ 11:05 amI don’t care what any politician does in their private life, unless it is criminal. Some of our best leaders had affairs. This story resurfaces every time Edwards tries to help average Americans. Corporations will do anything to disenfranchise the average citrizen. The oligarchy is terrified of Edwards.
Comment by jeanruss July 26, 2008 @ 3:27 pmi have to disagre, jeanruss. i agree with most of the sentiment, although cheating on a spouse who has cancer seems particularly low and there has to be a line somewhere that says this just isn’t the sort of person we want as a leader.
however, the reason i disagree is more because the level of risk taking involved when someone like edwards or spitzer does things that would ruin their political career and the lack of self control to me says something about whether or not they’ll do a good job. doing a good job includes not doing things that could blow up on you and derail all the good work you’re doing.
if he had got the nomination and then this story was confirmed and it had handed the nomination to john mccain i don’t think i’d care that it was his personal life- i’d want to murder the guy for being so stupid. thank god the democrats didn’t pick him.
Comment by vive42 July 26, 2008 @ 4:11 pmGeorge Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald, google it. I don’t believe a shred of this.
Comment by Todd July 26, 2008 @ 5:39 pmI have a strong bias for bridges. The flying bridge is my favorite so, needless to say, I really enjoy your new web site. I’ve sent you a message earlier that wouldn’t go through. We’ll see about this one.
Comment by NChe July 27, 2008 @ 1:55 amJohn Edwards – let he (or she) who is without sin throw the first stone. I don’t believe the story although it is possible it is true. Does a persons
person’s limitations negate the good he or she does in the world. Not usually. I sure would hate to have any positive contributions I may make thrown out because of my indiscretions. What is disturbing to me is that high paid or no paid snoopers will go to any length to draw an audience. As far as hurting Elizabeth – well let the Inquirer (which I deplore and Fox News which I deplore) keep their dirty, sensational, anything for a buck “news” to themselves.
Hate is working hard to rub out Obama as well. I wonder, come November if Obama or if Hate will win the election. I squirm, knowing how dark the right and the righteous often are. Oh help, Edwards is a cheating slime, Obama is a muslim terrorist, and on and on.
I missed PBS last night because I was working on a project. I usually don’t miss the programs you mentioned.
I will try and send this now, but may not get through. If not, I’ll send you an email and see if you can teach me how to use your new site.
NChe, I’m surprised by you. i don’t like the story either, but as far as i can tell, it’s true. that is, it is true that he was caught visiting a young woman he had been previously linked to alone in the wee hours of the night. what they may have been doing and whether or not he has an illegitimate hild by this woman is in no way confirmed.
i’m surprised my feelings of relief that we dodged a bullet by not nominating this scum aren’t more widely echoed. it’s GOOD news, people. not that he did it, obviously that sucks, but it is good news that he isn’t in a position where this coming out is going to hurt the cause of progressives in any way. *whew* no thanks to him- it was a close one!
just because we don’t like things like the enquirer or fox news doesn’t mean we can stick our fingers in our ears and close our eyes and hold our breath whenever anyone reports something we don’t like. being on the left shouldn’t give you any more right to ignore unpleasant truth than being on the right does. i just don’t understand people who don’t see that.
does it matter if i, personally, believe that some men are just constitutionally unable to be faithful and that it has nothing to do with their political abilities? i do feel that way, strongly, but i also know that most americans care a lot if someone is cheating on their spouse who has cancer, and any candidate i support ought to be able to control himself for a few months if for no other reason than to prevent the right from taking him down so easily.
so hurray! we didn’t nominate edwards! his fall will hurt him and elizabeth, but not the country. it’s a happy, happy moment for us on the left. rejoice- they haven’t got obama yet. throw edwards from the train.
Comment by vive42 July 27, 2008 @ 10:42 amI’m not sure my communication was effective in what I was trying to say. By the way, I learned in my hospice training that many men either abandon or cheat on their spouces who have cancer.
Comment by NChe July 28, 2008 @ 2:52 pmI can understand why you are so relieved Edwards, if the story is true, that he is not in too large a position to darken the chances of our cause to thrive.
The last thing I do is to put my head in the sand because I don’t like something. I was trained, shall we say, at B.U. where I got a degree with a major in psych and in gov’t, to consider the source of information very carefully. I deplore the Inquirer and Fox because they distort most every “fact” they can. I consider both filthy. However, they couldn’t to their “journalism” without a huge audience. Sad, sad reality. Do you really think I reject information simply because I don’t like it? There is a world out there that breaks my heart daily. I spend considerable energy trying to make my miniscule contribution to mitigating suffering. Unfortunately, I sometimes think I add more to the suffering of in my small world than I diminish it.
glad you responded and clarified, che, because like i said i was surprised by your earlier reaction because i don’t see you as the head-in-the-sand type!
as to the accuracy of the enquirer and fox news, i don’t claim to find either of them reliable, but i first hear about the story on slate and i also heard about it on beat the press on pbs, plus like i said i had heard it at the “edwards denies rumours” level way back when edwards was a candidate. so while i certainly don’t know one way or another, i now believe there to be at least some level of truth behind the whole thing and like i said, mostly i feel relieved that it won’t be torpedo-ing the election of a democrat.
obama has enough to contend with what with his being black and all the disgusting lies and innuendo about him. i believe he can win despite the lies that are spread, but if he has any skeletons in his closet that pan out we are sunk. edwards, i think, had one of those actual skeletons.
and again, to me, it doesn’t matter as much what he did and whether it is “common”. it’s his inability to control himself while running for president when he can’t help but have known that getting caught would destroy his candidacy. that’s the part that for me would disqualify him from being my choice for president.
Comment by vive42 July 28, 2008 @ 4:09 pmYes, I see what you mean – last paragraph.
Comment by NChe July 29, 2008 @ 9:06 pmI am so hoping Obama can survive the racist sector of the USA, can overcome it’s small, cheap hatred, full of anger and vitriol. Obama is like a breath of fresh air. I fear for him. I can remember so clearly and painfully the days of shooting three of our best in a matter of weeks, it seemed. Anyway, Obama is not letting fear stop him, so I better get over it and continue to work for him.