This entry was posted on 8/8/2008 11:06 PM and is filed under All Posts.
Well, that was pretty damn rough. A few thoughts.
When Bob Woodruff asked Edwards why he was interviewing alone, without Elizabeth Edwards at his side, Edwards gave perhaps the classiest answer possible: "I have seen these public figures who bring their wives along when they're saying they did something wrong or confessing something wrong. ... Elizabeth didn't do anything wrong."
I can't tell you how disgusted I have been over the years watching the David Vitters and Bill Clintons of the world drag their wives along to be publicly humiliated every time they fucked up. I have heard from a lot of women (and men) who feel the same way. It was a classy and brave thing for Edwards to do the interview alone.
When Edwards continues to dismiss every allegation made by the National Enquirer as "supermarket tabloid journalism", he is forgetting that they now have more credibility than he does. They haven't been proven—at least on this story—as full of it. He, however, has. He really should drop that defense with regards to the Enquirer. They got this one almost completely right.
Am I crazy, or would the Edwardses have been far better off just admitting the story was true back in late 2007, when the Enquirer first broke it? Think about it. According to them, Sen. Edwards had begun and ended the affair in 2006. He confessed it to his wife and children in 2006. When the story broke, he hadn't yet lied publicly about it to anyone.
He also happened to be getting almost zero press coverage of his campaign. Had he pulled a Bill Clinton, and embraced the controversy, the press couldn't have gotten enough of him. And since he had only committed a grievance against his family, already forgiven, that he hadn't yet lied about to the public, it would have been a lot easier for the public and the media to forgive him—especially after a few Clintonesque speeches premised on "they want this campaign to be about me. I want it to be about you." He then could have used the added press exposure to his advantage, talking up his populist economic programs instead of talking about the affair.
Sure, he may not have won the nomination, but I bet he would have done a lot better than he did by lying.
What a shame. What a waste of a great progressive talent.
8/9/2008 11:26 AM
sandy dumbrowski wrote:
I thought the interview was pretty crappy. He seemed to be in too good of a mood, and did a terrible job answering the question about the picture of him holding the baby. I kept waiting for woodruff to answer whether he has ever met the baby, held the baby, etc.
I also read this morning that her family is upset that she is being portrayed as promiscuous. She may or may not be promiscuous, but she has certainly used bad judgment by getting involved with possibly two different married men - I've read that Andrew Young is also married to someone else.
Yes, I agree, a waste of an incredible talent, but I am pretty angry at the idea that he ran again this time knowing this was out there. What a disaster that would have been. Reply to this
Leave a comment
Copyright . http://TODAYSLIES.COM. All rights reserved.
