Not at John Edwards, who’s just a fallible person, but at the press who effectively acted as his beards during his affair.
Take a look at this picture, shot by Robert Scoble from the Washington Post today:
WTF?
Who are the two reporters sitting and talking to them? Either they are the most clueless and disinterested men on the planet – and thus unqualified to be reporters – or they were in the tank for Edwards and covering up his behavior – and thus unqualified to be reporters. Someone help me figure out who they are so I can publicly shame them.
Like I said, I’m uninterested in paying for crap media. How in the Wide World of Sports could a thinking reporter have sat there, looking at the two of them, and not gone “hmmmm…” and done a little digging or maybe asked a question or two?
Of course the Edwards story is about the media, not about Edwards. (From now on every story that mentions Edwards will be about something other than Edwards, because Edwards is suddenly the biggest Nobody in the country – and nobody deserves it more than he does.)
What surprises me is how unsurprised everyone is. The Establishment media covered for another vapid pretty boy, just because he’s a liberal. Only this time the story exploded anyway, to such an extent that they have to eat their crow in front of the public.
Not too many years ago, this would have been huge. Now we’re so jaded that the duplicity and willful ignorance of the MSM is just another “Sand Discovered in Saudi Arabia” story.
I don’t know about that.
It’s easy to misinterpret close male/female friendships as affairs: they have many of the same outward signs, such as body language, physicality and playfulness. Sometimes you might genuinely love a friend, and therefore express tenderness, concern, or aggressive defense, any of which might be misinterpreted as a signal of an affair.
That being the case, it is unfair to spread gossip without proof. In the military, that kind of thing can damage a career unfairly; politicians seem to be hardier, these days, but it’s still a potential bomb when you represent somewhere like North Carolina. You ought to be sure, absolutely sure, before you suggest such a thing.
Now, as for the suggestion that reporters should be “curious” and try to prove it? Um, thanks, but no. I know more than I really wanted to already about the private lives of our political class.
All my liberal friends insist the MSM is either a corporate/republican machine, or “balanced.” They hoot if I suggest it has a pervasive liberal bias. They have bought so heavily into the “victim” culture they can’t even admit it when they have a decided advantage.
Reminds me of the Seattle Times admitting that 95% of their reporters were Democrats and then patting themselves on the back over how “balanced” they were.
Absolutely nothing the media does to white wash adverse news about the left surprises me.
I will revise and extend my earlier remarks.
I can “get” why the Edwards story needed to be out there, while he was a major candidate for President. He was basing his credibility on moral issues in part on his relationship with his wife — I remember a number of people commenting on the beauty of their relationship, including my mother.
So, OK, if really the truth is that he’s run around on his wife, maybe we should know that he’s not the loyal and faithful man he presents himself as being.
Certainly the one thing I’ve constantly praised about Sen. Obama — the one thing I genuinely admire — is the loyalty that he has shown to his wife. I’ve been critical, and even sometimes very harshly critical, of the man: but that one thing is something that even I can appreciate. I imagine people who aren’t as critical of him also admire it, and may even be basing their support in part on his family life. I remember Prof. Althouse once referred to a picture of him with his family as his strongest argument (IIRC).
So if it proved that he had cheated on Michelle, yeah, I guess that would be news; and yeah, I guess it ought to be known, because it would alter our perception of his reliability on moral issues. Even for me: I don’t think he has shown a great deal of reliability on moral issues, _except_ in the case of his wife. It’s the one argument for his moral center so solid that I am willing to accept it uncritically. If it proved to be an illusion, that would be an important fact to know.
Only, though, if the proof was 100% clear — I would have little patience for passing unproven rumors on the subject. You’d have to be absolutely sure in order to run the story. The fact that his ‘body language’ suggested it wouldn’t be enough for me to justify talking about it in public. A reporter who even raised the question to him in a public forum without such evidence I would regard as a scoundrel.
Grim;
The suggestion wasn’t to run a story based on the body language, but to _investigate_ because of that. I certainly agree that body language can be very misleading (e.g., my wife and I have worked in close group situations with other people for years without them realizing we were married) but — given the subject and the person I can see playing a hunch to see if there’s anything to it. And clearly, one should run the story only with strong evidence. But, note how that kind of proper reticence didn’t stop similar stories about Bush and McCain with extremely poor sourcing from running as major news stories.
_”It’s easy to misinterpret close male/female friendships as affairs”_
Ask John McCain. The NYT had a front page, 3000 word story about his relationship with a lobbyist.
Tell me there’s no media bias.
Yes, I understood the suggestion. I just meant that it’s — I believe the word is _humane_ — to recognize that people can be close friends, physical and playful with each other, depend on each other, even be sexually attracted to each other, but not in fact be having an affair with each other. Punishing every playful male-female friendship with an investigation, whether at work or in politics, is hardly going to encourage the kind of society I want to live in. I’ve seen people hurt by such insinuations, particularly in the military, where folks are a little too eager to imagine wrong behavior and start “investigating.”
Again, in certain cases where a politician (or a television preacher, whatever) is actually putting himself forward as moral based on the example of his married life, OK: but you ought to be very careful and completely certain before you go public, even with an Edwards or a Rev. Mr. BigSmile.
The military has to do it because it has a formal code of conduct on these matters that has to be enforced — which is why it’s so important not to spread whispers without being certain. You can really tear someone up even if they’re finally cleared with just an incautious word.
In cases like McCain’s, where his claim to virtue is not at all based on his marital conduct, but rather on his martial conduct, I’m far less tolerant. I’m not at all tolerant of the NYT buffoonery of running that piece Mark mentions, which not in any way proven.
That was just… well, bad behavior. Investigating it may not have been (though again, I’m not sure I even see the point in McCain’s case), but bringing the investigation into the public eye on such thin reeds was simply not honorable.
Now I suppose this part of what I said is contentious:
“…even be sexually attracted to each other, but not in fact be having an affair with each other.”
I suppose that technically, according to Jesus, that would constitute adultery. We did once have a President, Mr. Jimmy Carter, to whom that standard was applied, because he applied it to himself: and surely once was enough. 🙂
Grim, I’ll agree, but suggest that there’s kind of a “Caesar’s wife” issue; both because in any organization, the leaders have to be careful about the kind of relationships they have with subordinates, and because in a politician, the simple fact is that we’re not French and that any kind of sexual – um, license? – is a very real issue in most of the country (I’d imagine that, for example, a polyamorous person could be elected in SF or Berkeley, Santa Cruz, or Cambridge – but not too many other places). And for Edwards to play with that issue shows colossal, stupendous, supersized bad judgment. And for the press to ignore it when it is as blatant as it appears to have been is just a violation of whatever professional standards they claim to have in order to fancy themselves a profession.
A.L.
We had all seen the clip of beret-wearing Monica making goo-goo eyes at Bill at the rope line, and with 20-20 hindsight we were supposed to know that what looked like female rock-star fan infatuation had already escalated to the female rock-star groupie level.
Could someone clue me in what I am supposed to see in this picture?
AL:
The thing about ‘a polyamorous relationship’ is that presumably it’s open — there wouldn’t be a lot of reporting needed on it. It’s really the dishonesty and betrayal of trust that is the issues with adultery, the reason that we (as a society) might consider it a factor in choosing our leadership.
Now, some people would say that they want someone who shares their core religious beliefs, which might be opposed to plural marriage, whether Mormon or otherwise. That’s fine; you’re free to vote one way or the other based on your own conscience. Testifying to mine, though, I’ll take the man who has convinced two women to love him, openly and in full knowledge of each other, over the one who has snuck around on his wife in order to falsely maintain the regard of his neighbors.
Could such a man be elected? Probably not. Would it show better judgment, though, for him to lie and cheat instead of being open and honest? Speaking for myself, certainly not.
Would it show better judgment for him to deny his love for one of those women, in order to fit in better with the mores of the larger society? Now, that’s a genuine ethical question.
Well, by “deny” do you mean (a) not follow through on the sexual attraction, or (b) do it but cover up the evidence? If (a), then the genuine ethical answer is, “Well, duh!”. If you meant (b) then I don’t know, they both seem equally contemptible.
They turn a blind eye because they have forsaken all pretense to having a moral compass. It is just a little sex after all. Right?
Obama is loyal to Michelle because it serves his purpose. He threw his pastor and supposed mentor of 20 years right under the bus — THUMP! I have said before in other places I would have more respect for him had he stuck by Wright. At least I WOULD HAVE KNOWN HIS TRUE CHARACTER. Now, not so much.
As for Edwards, did not your own alarm bells go off when listening to him? Mine sure as hell did. As they did with Clinton – both of them – and a whole host of other members of the usual suspects club (want the list?). I learned long ago to listen to the interior of my own thoughts and trust them. It comes with the territory.
You know, it just occurred to me, that we are even having this type of discussion may tell us something about where our society has gone and is going. That we discuss whether Edwards should be shunned may tell us something about ourselves. Moral equivalence anyone?
And before anyone trots out McCain’s first wife, well, I am not sure I like how he handled that whole thing either. The one thing I can tell about GW Bush is that he seems to be loyal to his wife. And she is to be a truly classy Texas Lady. If you don’t know what that is, I suggest you spend some time in the Great State of… Then you will be able to recognize such when you see them.
Maybe Bush is loyal to his wife because he remembers what happened to her ex-boyfriend. (Can you imagine what Jerome Corsi would make of that, if his interests ran the other way?)
Robohobo:
Agree. I said at the time of ‘the great Race speech,’ at Grim’s Hall, that I really liked the honor he showed by standing up for his pastor. My serious disdain for Sen. Obama began the moment he revoked that promise.
Kirk Parker:
Here’s what I mean by the question:
Let’s say that you personally believe that polygamy is a righteous and moral undertaking. You can quote the sections of the Bible that praise it or assign rules for it; you can show that you have two women who love you, and would be willing to accept freely a marriage in which they were both your wives.
I asked, “Would it show better judgment for him to deny his love for one of those women, in order to fit in better with the mores of the larger society?”
What I mean is, should you — solely because a lot of _other_ people believe it’s wrong for a man to love two women — refuse to stand up for your own principles? I don’t mean the sex, but also the love: should you refuse to _love_ a second woman, even if you think it right, simply becasue the larger society is opposed to it? How much do you owe to the general consensus?
I can see two arguments, both of which hold water:
1) That American society is founded on freedom of conscience and free inquiry, and that therefore a man ought to fight for what he personally believes is right. As with capitalism, where we each pursue our own interests — yet thereby improve society as a whole — so in morality, if we each defend what seems best to us after serious inquiry, we may improve the whole society.
2) The American society admits people of all creeds and colors, but in order to make that work, we need also a certain submission to basic mores. Anyone wanting to participate in the society has to hold certain truths as self-evident. As a result, a man ought to shove things out of his heart in order to maintain the common value-set that allows us to maintain such a diverse society.
As I said, it’s a genuine ethical question. Frankly, I’m inclined to #1; but #2 is not obviously wrong. We do need some common values, truths we hold self-evident, in order to remain functional as a polity.
Two more serious observations:
First, I think we need to know a little more context about the photo before drawing conclusions. We know Rielle had a job making films for the Edwards campaign. What if the films were the subject of the discussion that’s happening here? Then it would be natural that she would be next to Edwards in the discussion. They’re not exactly making out.
Second: It was Obama’s pastor who placed Obama in a bind. I can’t find the original, but someone excerpted a piece (by Ross Douhat?) on Wright as jealous of Obama as a younger, better man who will be able, as a result of a long struggle, to reach a place that black men of Wright’s generation could not. Obama was faced with a pastor who was become more and more provocative. Somehow, Wright didn’t hear the Great Race speech in the same way, and upped the ante. Obama isn’t connected in the same way to Jesse Jackson, Jr., and as Marion Barry once said of him, “Jesse doesn’t want to run anything except his mouth,” but the same intergeneration issue is at play with the open-mic remarks Jackson was forced to walk back. While AFAIK, Obama and Jesse Jackson III get along just fine.
AJL: I think you’ve got the timing wrong on the Obama/Wright thing. One of Obama’s first decisions was where and how to announce his candidacy and he invited Reverend Wright to come down to Springfield to lead the invocation. Just before the ceremony began, a decision was made that Wright should not speak because of his past comments. Senator Durbin described this as a painful scene to witness due to Obama’s closeness to Wright.
I was there and it was a damn cold day for a long drive from Chicago to stand in the elements, but surely Wright must have felt that this would be a day that would cap the end of a long, successful career. And there must have been a moment just before taking stage where a decision laid in the balance. And Obama made the call.
I frankly think it was the right call (assuming a time machine wasn’t available to not invite Wright in the first place). And that might have been the moment that Obama decided not just to run for President (and raise his national stature), but try and win the thing.
the press should turn a blind eye, its not our business, its for him and his family to deal with, we have more important things going on