A moment's thought about John Edwards & Elizabeth
I'm not sure why it occurred to me this morning, as opposed to any other morning, but I suddenly realized that, given the way Obama is incorporating his competitors into his administration (except Dodd who is needed in the Senate), there is little doubt that John Edwards would by this point be the Attorney General-designee or have been named for some other high post, if only .... I'd always looked forward to seeing what he would do in a position of real power (having not paid attention to him when he was in the Senate) and was hoping for AG, since certainly had those instincts in a brilliant way. I'm sorry we won't get to see that, that he won't get to do that.
But he won't (I hope) and he shouldn't. I don't disagree with those who say that private life should remain private, that we shouldn't have a morality test for our public officials, and so forth. All that is true. But we do, and I think we should, have a plain-good-common-sense requirement for them, and I think we should avoid people who are comfortable with very, very high-risk actions. His disregard for his family is something private and I pray they are able to work through to some peace. But - given the FACT of how the public would react to disclosures of this sort, especially when they seem hypocritical, the disregard he showed toward his supporters, his party and, quite possibly, for the country (depending on who the Republicans nominated) forever bars him from a position of real responsibility, in my opinion.
It's one thing to have a transgression that you hope to keep secret but know is a potential stink-bomb that *could* go off any moment. It's an entirely different thing, however, to run for President, to try to beat out other, qualified people and become the sole standard-bearer for your party knowing that a big, nasty blow-up could happen at any time. Knowing that if it did come to light at the wrong time, election of the Republican nominee would be simply guaranteed. So, it isn't the morality of what he did that is the problem when it comes to leadership --- it's the rank stupidity and lack of caring for the welfare of others (a country-full of others!) that disqualifies him.
And yes, I'm consistent in this view --- felt exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton, that the risks he was willing to take with our Country, not just his conscience and his marriage -- simply "because he could" -- showed a lack of judgment, a lack of caring that I hope never to see in a president. Both of them were certainly entitled to take risks with their future, and even with their family's future ...... but NOT unnecessary and guaranteed-to-have-effect risks like that with the loyalty of millions of people and the future of our country!
But - it would have been nice if it had turned out differently. It just seemed fitting to pause, if only for a brief moment, and recognize that.
Back to reality, I don't know what I hope for John Edwards -- peace with his family, I suppose. It would be nice, however, if Elizabeth's health is such that she will have many more active years, if she were offered and wanted to accept a role in the Obama administration, most logically in the area of health care. (Not with the fanfare of the announcements being made now - which would only expose the wounds - but a bit later on). For a while I was angry at her also, for acquiescing in his effort to run even after she found out about the affair (something that occurred AFTER he had announced he was running). But with a little cooling-down and perspective ..... how do you fault someone - for anything! - whe, within a few short months (Jan - Mar 2007), she found out about her husband's unfaithfulness and that her cancer had returned and was incurable. It would be good, I think, if there could be another on-her-own place for her in public leadership -- if she wanted it, that is.
I suspect I'm not the only one who gets a slight jolt when they show a clip from one of the primary debates or something and suddenly Edwards is there. It's irrational, but for a second I'm surprised that he didn't disappear from the taped record as well as from our minds (most of the time, at least.)
But he won't (I hope) and he shouldn't. I don't disagree with those who say that private life should remain private, that we shouldn't have a morality test for our public officials, and so forth. All that is true. But we do, and I think we should, have a plain-good-common-sense requirement for them, and I think we should avoid people who are comfortable with very, very high-risk actions. His disregard for his family is something private and I pray they are able to work through to some peace. But - given the FACT of how the public would react to disclosures of this sort, especially when they seem hypocritical, the disregard he showed toward his supporters, his party and, quite possibly, for the country (depending on who the Republicans nominated) forever bars him from a position of real responsibility, in my opinion.
It's one thing to have a transgression that you hope to keep secret but know is a potential stink-bomb that *could* go off any moment. It's an entirely different thing, however, to run for President, to try to beat out other, qualified people and become the sole standard-bearer for your party knowing that a big, nasty blow-up could happen at any time. Knowing that if it did come to light at the wrong time, election of the Republican nominee would be simply guaranteed. So, it isn't the morality of what he did that is the problem when it comes to leadership --- it's the rank stupidity and lack of caring for the welfare of others (a country-full of others!) that disqualifies him.
And yes, I'm consistent in this view --- felt exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton, that the risks he was willing to take with our Country, not just his conscience and his marriage -- simply "because he could" -- showed a lack of judgment, a lack of caring that I hope never to see in a president. Both of them were certainly entitled to take risks with their future, and even with their family's future ...... but NOT unnecessary and guaranteed-to-have-effect risks like that with the loyalty of millions of people and the future of our country!
But - it would have been nice if it had turned out differently. It just seemed fitting to pause, if only for a brief moment, and recognize that.
Back to reality, I don't know what I hope for John Edwards -- peace with his family, I suppose. It would be nice, however, if Elizabeth's health is such that she will have many more active years, if she were offered and wanted to accept a role in the Obama administration, most logically in the area of health care. (Not with the fanfare of the announcements being made now - which would only expose the wounds - but a bit later on). For a while I was angry at her also, for acquiescing in his effort to run even after she found out about the affair (something that occurred AFTER he had announced he was running). But with a little cooling-down and perspective ..... how do you fault someone - for anything! - whe, within a few short months (Jan - Mar 2007), she found out about her husband's unfaithfulness and that her cancer had returned and was incurable. It would be good, I think, if there could be another on-her-own place for her in public leadership -- if she wanted it, that is.
I suspect I'm not the only one who gets a slight jolt when they show a clip from one of the primary debates or something and suddenly Edwards is there. It's irrational, but for a second I'm surprised that he didn't disappear from the taped record as well as from our minds (most of the time, at least.)
Advertisement
Edwards wanted to be Poverty Czar. And he's still waiting for that Poverty Tour Obama promised to do before the election as part of his endorsement deal. Of course Edwards isn't really in a position to be bringing that up now anymore.
The tone was admittedly harsh, but accurate:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/edwards_secured_private_commit.php#comment-2821875
December 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is a scumbag and I can't believe anyone cares about him anymore.
He tried to justify the affair by saying that he only cheated on her after her cancer went back into submission.
WHAT A SCUMBAG!!!!!!!!!
December 5, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
For people such as me who supported him prior to his withdrawal from the primary campaign, what happened is for the most part just a source of embarrassment. As in: "Boy was I wrong about him."
The people I really feel for are folks like David Bonior, who gave up time with family and friends and on behalf of other valuable opportunities and valued commitments they can never regain, all in the service of a presidential campaign upon which John Edwards should never have embarked. As well as their children.
He could do some good by donating a large portion of all that money he earned to good causes he supports.
December 5, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite your valiant attempt to disguise it, the moralizing about Edwards is pointless and reveals the real damage hypocrisy and puritanical American attitudes have on people and how they formulate decisions. And of course everyone agrees his actions were stupid, but quite frankly what difference does that make and why is it so stupid (assuming you primarily mean politically stupid)? It is politically stupid in America to engage in such behavior because a media and public far more interested in salacious gossip will relentlessly hound you as though it were 1950 until you are destroyed or driven from office, etc... Our media is no better than a pack of 13 year old girls gossiping and our public eats that shit up. It's far more interesting to pick apart the personal failings of a public figure than to think about what their positions on the issues are. AND far too many people are willing to go along with this hypocritical public morality as though they agree with it when their own lives demonstrate quite clearly that they do not and thus back it up and give it legs.
In most of our industrialized partner nations this sort of thing would not have the same impact on a political career which is in no way a commentary on the rightness or wrongness of his actions. It just wouldn't. I do not approve in any way of what he did so don't assume I do and that I'm rationalizing it because that would not be accurate. The point is that it is our set of hypocritical public standards that ruin political careers in the US over such matters. It is our insistence on reacting to such news like children as opposed to adults or as Puritan judges that declare one's soul damned whether it is for adultery or violating the sabbath laws, etc...
I am livid with Edwards for the damage he did to all his previous work to bring poverty to the fore. After all that effort and the millions raised, he took poverty off the public agenda much faster than he put it on the agenda. That's the real damage here, the real problem. All the personal stuff such as how I or anyone "feels" about what he did or his relationship with his wife is simply none of our business and not fair game for speculation or pontification. It is not relevant in any way to the things that concern us, our public policy and the like.
I do agree that Elizabeth Edwards is a woman of great ability and it would be great if she could play a role in Obama's adminstration but it is doubtful her health would allow this. Furthermore, her cancer means that no matter how well she is doing at the moment she will always have her eye on the clock now and she has children that simply have to be of far greater interest to her than any public task she might take on. Others can do those things but only she can be the mother of her kids. Anyone, if given a choice, would do everything they could to be with their children if they knew that time was at a maximum premium.
December 6, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink