Now that the GAC (Great American Creep) John Edwards has done his version of the “limited hangout” on ABC, we can immediately access what we have learned so far, who the big losers are:
1. The MSM. When it comes to the news, the National Enquirer (and various blogs) are vastly superior to the Mainstream Media and functionally more honest. The New York Times is no longer where you go for the news… but we knew that. I predict the Times and others will not examine their own values and ideology after this because they have too much vested in their world view. They fear personality disintegration.
2. The far (but very bourgeois) left. Moveon.org, the Daily Kos and the gang that thought Edwards was the bees’ knees when he was spouting his banal pseudo-populist rhetoric about the “two Americas” ought to look inside themselves and consider what kind of man they were believing and idolizing. They ought to examine the role of highflown rhetoric in general. Will they? I doubt it. But they should.
As for Edwards himself, he is one of the more contemptible politicians to come along in some time (and that’s saying something). There is no reason to believe anything he has said. That he claims not to be the father of the child without taking a paternity test is laughable.
PJM Home
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.
23 Comments
1. Jim Harris:Whoo hoo!
I win my Edwards comes clean pool. Anyone not picking the Friday of Olympic Opening Ceremony for this half-hearted admission was a fool.
Aug 8, 2008 - 12:45 pm 2. Promoguy:Senator Edwards: You say you cut off the affair quite a while ago and that you’re not the daddy? Is that correct?
Yes, that is oh so ture.
So why would you be hanging at the BH Hilton lower basement bathrooms just a few weeks ago.
Aug 8, 2008 - 12:47 pm 3. Pajamas Media » Edwards Confesses Sexual Affair; Claims He Didn’t Father Child:[...] Roger L. Simon: There is no reason to believe anything he has said. That he claims not to be the father of the child without taking a paternity test is laughable. [...]
Aug 8, 2008 - 12:49 pm 4. Mardukhai:Actually, his wife’s illness is a legitimate reason for the press to embargo the story — he isn’t a candidate anymore.
I’ve changed my mind. I now see no purpose to this story.
Aug 8, 2008 - 12:55 pm 5. Promoguy:Mardu, you left out the smiley emoticon when you wrote those comments. Or the /sarc under your last line of posting.
Know what bothers me the most in this whole deal, other then he did it while his wife was sick or at least in remission……….he says he didn’t love her. Gawd, almighty
Aug 8, 2008 - 1:04 pm 6. K T Cat:I don’t understand your conclusion that since Edwards was a dishonest creep his conclusion that there are two Americas is wrong. There are two Americas. Married parent familes vs. single parent families. Income, prison populations, crime, educational achievement, all kinds of social pathologies are dramatically different in these two populations. That Edwards betrayed his wife or mangled the source of the two Americas doesn’t change the fact that they exist.
Aug 8, 2008 - 1:19 pm 7. jedrury:KT:
I will let Roger speak for himself but I see the two Americas theme as populist leftist politico talk for the simple minded. With your analysis of the societal divisions in America, you may feel comfortable with that type of baby talk, most do not.
Aug 8, 2008 - 1:26 pm 8. J.J. Sefton:KT Cat – You may be right, but the fact that a bald-faced LIAR is the one who is the spokesperson for this position delegitimizes it completely.
Too bad…
Aug 8, 2008 - 1:30 pm 9. CFB:Yup, ole Silky made every cliched mistake in the book on this one.
Extoll the virtues of his perfect marriage for political gain? Check.
Sordid affair with nutball employee? Check.
Provide hush money? Check.
Lie through teeth? Check.
Bastard child? Check.
Lie again? Check.
While confessing to “indiscretions,” insult the woman who was kind enough to welcome his odious advances by: 1) announcing to 6 billion people that he never loved her; and 2) making sure everyone knows she’s a whore who sleeps with whoever, whenever? Check.
The cherry on top: deny paternity.
With a couple of etiquette lessons, Edwards might even be able to aspire to rapper-level gallantry.
As for it being legitimate for the media to “embargo” the story in order to protect Elizabeth Edwards, I think the reverse is true: Elizabeth Edwards should have protected US from her fraud of a husband.
The media is supposed to gather and disseminate news, not minister to sick women who find themselves married to assholes. By that token, they would have left Lady Di alone, and we know how that turned out.
Aug 8, 2008 - 1:32 pm 10. Lightnin' Hopkins:Poor Silky. Well, at least he didn’t “commit adultery in (his) heart” like Jimmah – only in New York, around the country, and in Africa – give or take a few places.
Lying about sex only makes him a bigger hero than ever to the “progressives.” Don’t take my word for it – check back later after the trolls have their say.
The number one sports activity over the next few weeks will be all the CYA performed by not just Edwards, but also the legacy media who were first duped and then scooped, which is appropriate considering what their collective reputation is worth these days.
Aug 8, 2008 - 2:04 pm 11. jedrury:CFB:
Aug 8, 2008 - 2:18 pm 12. Greenie:Very funny at the end of a long day.
Can only be topped by watching Keith Oberfuehrer soil himself tonight on this one !!!!
So if I understand you correctly, Roger, what you’re saying is that we shouldn’t pay attention to the rhetoric of a candidate who’s been known to cheat on his wife, particularly when she has suffered a devastating physical setback, one that has made her less physically attractive?
Cause there’s still a candidate in the race who fits that bill.
Aug 8, 2008 - 2:30 pm 13. Elle: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 - 4:06 pm 14. Captain Hate: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.
13 comments and nobody’s mentioned that John’s father worked at the mill.
Aug 8, 2008 - 4:22 pm 15. Mike G:Let’s not forget the role played by objective Wikipedia in this!
Aug 8, 2008 - 4:41 pm 16. Promoguy:Hey Lighten’, I’ll do some research. Comments from the underground. Read them and weep, LOL
“I am definitely surprised to hear this from Edwards. But his revelation seems to be quite graceful, certainly more so than the average affair scandal.”
“Why would having an affair and lying about it be an issue with the American Sheeple…oh wait”
“Right . . . an “affair” beats illegal war and TORTURE . . . !!”
“Get somebody in the media to put a spotlight on McCain’s affairs right now!!!”
Want more. Go to DU. It’s actually fun reading, but not while you’re drinking coffee.
Aug 8, 2008 - 5:25 pm 17. Mark Poling:Shorter Greenie: “Na na na na na I can’t HEAR you I know what you are but what am I????”
Actually, Greenie, the message you should have gotten, had you been paying attention, is that populist demagogues like Edwards will bend you over, have their way, leave a lousy tip, maybe give you a little gift that keeps on giving, and deny they ever loved you when the shyt hits the fan.
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Aug 8, 2008 - 5:58 pm 18. nodak boy:The National Enquirer does not get the props it deserves. It became clear years ago they do “a heckuva job” as they say, in reporting, often sparing no expense, alas, of course……
they are crass and mean and rejoice in others’ misfortune in an utterly sinful way, but their reporting almost always is accurate, if couched in purple prose.
(Aside from exxagerating with computer or other types of faux art of the cellulite of celebrities…)
They are a ways from such as “The Globe” and “Weekly World News,” and really don’t report on aliens invading earth, etc…
Since the O.J. trial, they have led the way on most major (if tawdry) scandals, etc.
More than is realized, the Enquirer represents a real old-fashioned and American type of balls-to-the-wall reporting, damn the torpedos full speed ahead kind of journalism that has slowly leached out of mainstream media.
It’s not nice but maybe it’s indispensable.
Reasons for the MSM sitting on this story: A dash of the downsizing effect: it’s easy to say no to such stories when you feel more beleagured, short-staffed, low on budget, etc….
Of course the partisan bias is impossible to ignore: Olbermann offered as an aside (as if, what else) that he had deep affection for the Edwards, and of course, his pained expression the whole time was as if he was telling his teacher that his mother had just been put into the booze rehab; his eyes sparkle and his lips tremble with desire and his nostrils dilate when he reports a Republican with his pants around his ankles.
The MSM has had a deep loss of much of the investigative juices, through both downsizing and laziness and maybe a litte bit of dumbing down, along with the homogenizing and echo chamber effect;; “if THEY are not reporting on it, we’re not either!”
One could make the case, in fact, that this story, actually, is a great petri dish of organic evidence of rot in our nation’s journalism. Despite the story being no big apples.
A quick, deft, thorough investigation of the initial story months or a year ago could have actually kept it within the bounds of decency and in the proper news hole, maybe A23.
Although the Enquirer’s tactics at the hotel of using multiple reporters chasing him down is embarrasingly crass, it’s dang effective and maybe worth it to hold national politicians up to the sunshine…
The snobbishness of the MSM ends up not working and making them look doubly foolish: they now are reporting the same damn story as the tabloid, just weeks later yet still with little original work of their own. They end up with neither end of the stick. They could just as well have repeated the Enquirer story much earlier.
Aug 8, 2008 - 6:14 pm 19. whiskey:And of course, Edwards admission today proves implicitly the $400 haircut paid off.
So he’s got that going for him.
Feminists at the usual places: Pandagon, Feministe, etc. love Edwards even more. Most of them wish they were Rielle Hunter.
Edwards will suffer little from women in this affair — many will find it “hot” and “fun.”
Aug 8, 2008 - 6:47 pm 20. jedrury:Nodak:
Apt comments ! Good read.
Huge rot in the press. Howie Kurtz in the WashPo explains that the Post did not go with the story because it lacks “corroboration.” What may I ask is that when the Enquirer has its reporters eye balling him in the hotel. In plain sight sure passes as corroboration in court. But not with the Post. ???
Since this is as much a press scandal as a sex scandal, it underscores the huge growing mistrust and alienation of the public with the press. The public has turned off the networks for cable, the newspapers for the internet, for Google news and niche reporting.
Aug 8, 2008 - 7:10 pm 21. srlucado:“I predict the Times and others will not examine their own values and ideology after this because they have too much vested in their world view.”
That, plus when have they *ever* examined their own values and ideology? Once you’re comfortable being Always Right, what’s the point?
Scott
Aug 8, 2008 - 7:55 pm 22. Judy, NYC:the nytimes, as all of us know (with the exception of obama zombies), is at least six degrees below the tabloids who seem to be the only ones in possession of any facts. once staffed with respected journalists and fact checkers, this New nytimes is its evil twin. the zealous editors blow off any story, like the Edwards scandal, that might muss a single hair of dear obama’s head. instead, they obligingly go about seeking racists amongst the baffled populace (as joe mccarthy sought commies under our beds).
Aug 10, 2008 - 6:46 am 23. Kevin R.C. O'Brien:I predict the Times and others will not examine their own values and ideology after this
Good call, Roger.
In the Times, Reporter’s Representative Clark Hoyt dismissed the idea that media bias played any role in the Times’s unwillingness to cover a story that reflected negatively on one of their beloved Democrats. This, after the selfsame Hoyt had 1,000 justifications for the Page 1, apparently fabricated story on “McCain’s mistress” who apparently wasn’t. I know some call Hoyt an “empty suit” but that’s a horrible insult to haberdashery.
In the Post, Media Cheerleader Howie Kurtz dismissed the idea that media bias played any role in the Post’s unwillingness to cover a story that reflected negatively on one of their beloved Democrats. This, by listing a number of personal scandals by various Republican dirtbags that got wall-to-wall above-the-fold play in his paper.
Are they lying, or are they blinded by their partisanship?
Here’s a look at the value that this kind of reporting adds:
Aug 11, 2008 - 2:32 pmhttp://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NYT#chart2:symbol=nyt;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined