The Edwards affair

Posted at 5:57 PM on August 8, 2008 by Bob Collins (8 Comments)
Filed under: Media, Politics

That's a fascinating local angle -- or maybe it's only fascinating to media types -- surrounding the affair that John Edwards has finally admitted to with vlogger Reille Hunter.

Local filmmaker Chuck Olsen (The Uptake) had some footage of Hunter in a film he shot. He posts a still image of her here, and wrote:

She was very outgoing, maybe even flirtatious, but really nice. I asked how she got the gig filming webisodes, and she said she met him in a bar and they clicked, and she proposed some online documentary showing his authenticity. She told me about some Hollywood sitcom writing and other weird projects she'd been involved with - nothing I'd ever heard of.

Chuck's Twitter page documents how quick the big media moves in to wrap up the rights to the photo.

Edwards statement on the subject reads like a Microsoft Word template for political apologies. There isn't one, of course, but there probably should be.

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake, and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006, and today I take full responsibility publicly.

As for Ms. Hunter's video capabilities, judge for yourself:

Where men are concerned, there really are two Americas: those who cheat and those who don't.

Edwards isn't running for anything now, of course. But a lot of folks saw him as an attorney general candidate in a Barack Obama administration.

---

Comments (8)

>>Edwards statement on the subject reads like a Microsoft Word template for political apologies.

That is without a doubt one of the two or three funniest things I have read all of this year. Good one Bob!

Posted by JohnnyZoom | August 8, 2008 9:05 PM

---

Nothing about this whole situation is funny.

Posted by a.m. hunter | August 8, 2008 10:21 PM

---

The whole, err, affair is rather disappointing. I really looked up to John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards as a sort of political ideal. Turns out John is just a man, but Elizabeth may well be a saint.

Posted by Chuck Olsen | August 9, 2008 3:22 AM

---

Even outside the realm of political drama, it's disappointing. Men are teaching their sons how to be fathers and husbands and this doesn't make it any easier.

I've always quipped that Washington is made up of 435 of the worst parents in America. Edwards has made it far too easy to justify the cynicism.

We eagerly await the next ascendant to the pedestal.

Posted by Bob Collins | August 9, 2008 7:18 AM

---

So wait, John Edwards' affair automatically disqualifies him from being attorney general (or VP, or any cabinet position), yet John McCain, who had his own series of affairs in the 1970s (including courting his now-wife Cindy while he was still married to his first wife) and he gets the nomination? Extramarital affairs may make you a scuzzy person (especially if you tout the importance of the 'family') but does that mean their political careers are over?

I mean this in a general sense, of course. Edwards probably deserves whatever he gets; there was always this underlying sense that he was putting up too much of a facade. This should validate those who felt he was a little too 'golden' to be true.

Posted by Mac Wilson | August 9, 2008 12:09 PM

---

Re the Word template for political apologies, Edwards statement was as good as any other apology because as Brian Lambert says "there's no good way to say I was horny."

What is the statute of limitations on a sex scandal anyway? Many folks apparently think McCain has been cleansed somehow and is now suitable for high office.

Posted by MomKat | August 9, 2008 1:38 PM

---

Mac:
It's unlikely McCain would be appointed to any position by Obama so comparing one to the other in terms of liklihood of being appointed to something is irrelevant.

Does it disqualify someone to serve? It depends on whether the person doing the appointing (1) Views one's moral character as a factor in such a decision and (2) Whether one believes cheating on your wife is evidence of a character flaw.

The discussion reminds me a bit of an old debate we used to have in Sunday school when I was a boy. If you can be forgiven and still get to heaven, why not just live the lifestyle that'll get you sent to hell, and then ask for forgiveness just before you die? That way you get to have your cake and eat it, too.

The teachers never did come up with a good answer to that.

Posted by Bob Collins | August 9, 2008 4:48 PM

---

So wait, John Edwards' affair automatically disqualifies him from being attorney general...

Perhaps not, but as is often the case, the lying about it does. Fair or not, those are the rules they play under. Some do it better than others.

Edwards isn't running for anything now, of course.

It would be interesting to compare the dates of the affair with the dates of the period when he was running for something - like the Presidency.

The other big story here is how the internet yet again brought this story into the open while the NY/LA Times and various Posts refused to report on it. The NY Time, at least, proved earlier in the year that they had no issues with printing innuendo; amazingly they seemed to become far more scrupled about it very recently.

Posted by daveg | August 9, 2008 7:33 PM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories