The strangest thing about John Edwards’ admission that he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife with a plaything on the his payroll is… that he says he “didn’t love her.”
There is a volume behind that line.
First, it is ungentlemanly and cowardly to say it. Even if he never loved her, in some important metaphysical sense, he should never say so. It means he thought of poor Rielle Hunter as an object to be used. And then thrown away. Plus, he paid her. That makes her a whore. Surely he has done her injury enough; why add this insult? Remember the Democratic Congressman caught in the ABSCAM scandal who refused to reveal the name of his paramour, even if doing so would shave two years off of his prison sentence? The quality of our rogues has dropped in the past few decades.
Second, it seems like the kind of thing extracted by his wife. A kind of desperate grabbing for the feathers when loyalty has flown. But, whimper, you didn’t love her, did you? Did you? No, of course not, honey. Still, why did he share this no-love verdict with the public? Because she demanded it, like one does a plea agreement. (He didn’t love her, he loves me!) That makes her complicit and it suggests that this was not the first time.
Third, it means that the feminist moment is over. When a man can have sex with a female employee, deny the paternity to her love child and, even, deny that he ever had a tender feeling for her–and the folks at the Feminist Majority and Ms. Magazine are not calling press conferences, not even batting an eyelash– well, it means that their credibility is gone too. It turns out that the Clinton wound was mortal.
All of his public life, John Edwards has acted as if life is a trial with a gullible jury. Maybe he was right.
UPDATE: A clever blogger actually phoned a senior L.A. Times editor and asked him why the paper wasn’t covering the Edwards scandal, even advising their bloggers not to link to it. Seems even funnier now.
PJM Home
Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror
Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror
Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror
The Myth of Market Share: Why Market Share Is the Fool’s Gold of Business
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
16 Comments
1. Pajamas Media » Edwards Confesses Sexual Affair; Claims He Didn’t Father Child:[...] Richard Miniter: “It’s Okay, He Didn’t Love Her” [...]
Aug 8, 2008 - 3:12 pm 2. Elle:I had the same thought: The “I never loved her” pronouncement is exactly the public statement an offended wife might extort from her straying politico husband. Unfortunately,unwise men who attempt to minimize their emotional involvement with their mistresses face the wrath of those women in addition to the anger of their aggrieved wives. (see Gennifer Flowers/Bill Clinton). Edwards denial of the child is likely to bring forth additional humiliation unless he takes a DNA test that eliminates him as the biological father. Furthermore,his statement that he intends to “investigate” whether friends or staffers may have paid hush money without his knowledge reminds me of OJ vowing to catch “the real killer” of Nicole Brown Simpson.
Aug 8, 2008 - 3:57 pm 3. Commentary » Blog Archive » The Edwards Abomination:Maybe Elizabeth Edwards did give her husband “permission” either tacit or spoken to fulfill needs which were no longer possible or desirable to her. However, his handling of the matter, including his failure to prevent pregnancy,shows a terrible lack of judgement and foresight. It also demonstrates enormous hubris to think that he would be able to keep the whole mess secret in the age of information. John Edwards’ stance of being morally superior to others (pay attention Senator Obama) should have warned him that people might take an interest in whether his character was equal to the image he tried to project on the public screen.
[...] than answers (The biggest: if the affair was over in 2006 what was he doing at the hotel?) He has piled insult upon insult. (Like a bizarre tort exam in law school, you can hardly count all the negligent [...]
Aug 8, 2008 - 6:04 pm 4. 11B40:Greetings:
Nobody reads Conrad’s “Lord Jim” anymore.
Aug 8, 2008 - 8:02 pm 5. It turns out that the Clinton wound was mortal >> liberal.family:[...] Miniter – It’s Okay, He Didn’t Love Her: Third, it means that the feminist moment is dead. When a man can have sex with a female employee, [...]
Aug 8, 2008 - 8:56 pm 6. RJ:Meet up with a shrink at the bar, engage in talking about marriages and you will hear stories that will make you blink more than once! Mr. Edwards, and his wife, are both lawerys: They have been trained to admit nothing, deny everything and to say such with straight faces. Is Mrs. Edwards the kind of woman who truly loves, in intimate ways, her husband…and has been for years? Was their marriage one of deep and compelling intimacy? Doesn’t every former lover drop by to see you even when you are bringing along a child that he says is not his? Can lawyers learn how to hide monies for special needs? Do as I say, not as I do!
Aug 9, 2008 - 3:31 am 7. Roy M:Here is my favorite contrast in the piece.
“First, it is ungentlemanly and cowardly to say it….”
“That makes her a whore”
Here is the nastiest line in the piece
“It means he thought of poor Rielle Hunter as an object to be used.”
Leaving aside that ‘poor Rielle Hunter’ is the women Richard just called a whore, it is nasty because of what it tells us about Richard’s mind. Apparently there are two kinds of people in his mind those who are loved and objects to be used. Scary.
Aug 9, 2008 - 6:45 am 8. Jerry T.:She’s a starfucker. He’s just a fuckin idiot!
Aug 9, 2008 - 7:00 am 9. Virginia Harris:Sex and the Suffragettes
Elizabeth Edwards can choose how to handle her husband’s philandering – she can stay or she can go. That wasn’t always so.
Thanks to the suffragettes, women have choices in their lives.
But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.
Betcha don’t know which president had a love child while running for office, and how that helped women win the vote.
Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.
“The Privilege of Voting” is a new e-mail series that follows eight women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.
Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes — Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.
There is a ton of heartache, and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.
Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes discovering history fast and FUN! Each exciting episode is about 10 minutes – perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html
Aug 9, 2008 - 8:32 am 10. GeoffB:Roy M: Richard was summarizing what Edwards said and what it added up to, not making his own judgments.
Aug 9, 2008 - 11:57 am 11. MarkO:John Boy loves only himself. Did you see the way he is holding his love child? It reminds me of a Peter DeVries line that goes somethng like this: “We’re not lovers, we’re f**kers.”
Maybe the only true thing in the entire interview. I’m looking for illegal use of campaign funds. Coming to a supermarket near you because the MSM will not go there while the Big O is on parade.
Aug 9, 2008 - 12:57 pm 12. RJ:I think his wife has very dirty hands in this mess. I think that such a reality might come out if they both enter into that dark world of shrinks and decide to tell the truth and answer all questions put forth honestly.
However, should we expect “lawyers” to do such? Are they even capable? Plato had his ideas, written 2300 years ago: I’m not sure truth is part of a lawyer’s very being!
Aug 9, 2008 - 2:09 pm 13. j green:Roy M is analyzing Miniter’s mind by saying that’s the way Miniter thinks? Miniter said that’s the way no-longer-gay-Johnny abviously thinks. Miniter is recounting facts and attributing the theory based on his actions. Miniter didn’t have the affai–but that Roy M takes offense with the mindset proves that’s its disturbing, but the deep offense should be directed at John Edwards the perpetrator, not Miniter the writer about the perpetrator. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger. By your logic, anyone who wrote about the Son of Sam’s mindset is a sicko even though we all know who the sicko is. Perhaps the critics who make these unfair criticisms of writers are also equally qualified to be labeled as sickos like the Son of Sam himself.
Aug 9, 2008 - 5:17 pm 14. John:The reason there was no peep from the feminist movement is because of the D that appeared on every ballot after Edwards’ and Clinton’s names. If that letter were an ‘R’ they would be having cows in great quantity, demanding penis control legislation, etc.
Aug 11, 2008 - 4:57 am 15. At least he didn’t love her — Cranach: The Blog of Veith:[...] that he didn’t love his mistress, as if that someone made it better. I was glad to find Richard Miniter explaining why saying such a thing is so contemptible. I mean, I would also find it despicable if [...]
Aug 12, 2008 - 6:10 am 16. Roy M:j green,
yes, I think I was unfair to Richard on that point. Very unfair. I apologise.
Sorry.
Aug 13, 2008 - 1:32 pm