Is it really possible I can most accurately describe him as having used his campaign funds to finance an extra-marital affair with a campaign worker while his wife was dying from cancer?
I mean, I want to call it an illness not because I think it is okay, but because the behavior just seem so f'g irrational.
I mean, think about Bill Clinton. I mean, WTF. I understand that Robert Kennedy, Jr., BTW, is an absolute dog as well. That's from a couple of people that have attended some sort of after event after he spoke somewhere.
It's absolutely a sickness in the sense of it being behavior so much on the fringe that it's hard to argue it isn't a disorder on some level.
The Edwards thing is more shocking to me on its face because of Edwards' image prior to this--he did completely fool me, as embarrassing as it is for me to admit. I never liked his politics even a little bit, but I did like his personality.
Clinton we knew about. The big shock with that is the audacity and Lewinski's age. The older I get, and I'm still what, 15 years younger than he was then, the younger she looks. She was a child, I can't imagine what she'll look like to me in 15 years. That's flat creepy.
Sadly, it's not behavior on the fringe. Infidelity is super super common. Infidelity in powerful men may be even more common. I mean, think about the politicians who are known to have had affairs, off the top of your head: Clinton, Hart, Gingrich, Hyde, Spitzer, Vitter, Gary Condit, Fossella, Mahoney, Newsome, Kwame Kirkpatrick, and that's off the top of my head. That is only the relatively recent, simple extramarital affairs, leaving out the super-scandalous Foleys, Craigs, and McGreevy's of the political world.
It's also just the ones we know about.
So, yes, it's a sickness on a lot of levels. But this sickness seems to be endemic among powerful men, not fringe at all.
and yeah, it's totally worse with Edwards because of the Boy Scout looks and gee-whiz earnestness. Just like Spitzer, the better your reputation before, the farther you fall.
I hangout in Left Blogistan a lot, and the Edwards revelation was really traumatic to the locals. They really believed in him, were invested in him personally, and were totally devastated, both by the betrayal as well as the incredible stupidity. there was an equal mix of grief and anger at him.
I have to confess to watching the Elizabeth Edwards interview on Oprah yesterday (I know...but Susan had it on). E. Edwards seemed to be very frank and honest about the affair, about her husband's lies and betrayal, and about why she has decided to try and work through it. I was very impressed with her. I have never heard someone make the case so sincerely for sticking with a marriage after infidelity. And of course her illness, which she spoke very frankly about as well, informs her decision making.
As staged as the "chance" encounter with John Edwards in their house after the interview was, he looked genuinely terrified when Oprah started to ask him a few questions.
Shadowfax's focus on the infidelity of powerful men disturbs me. It is probably important to understand how power does impact such behavior, but emphasizing the infidelity of the powerful can slant peoples' perspective a bit. Sadly, I know plenty of every day people that have cheated or been cheated on.
I have read that gaining a new position of authority dramatically raises a person's testosterone level. This has to affect someone's openness to infidelity, especially in the direction of older men and younger women.
Luke what fascinates me the most in this whole episode is how compulsive seems the Edwards' need to share all of this with the world.
Elizabeth Edwards' description of how she felt the moment of finding out about his affair made me really, really uncomfortable. I have no doubts that in that description she was honest and charitable. But why on Earth would a person publish it?
And why would John Edwards allow himself to be indignantly taken to task in the most public of venues?
The answer I think is that these people take so much of their feeling of worth and *identity* from their "relationship" with the media and the public that they can't deal with something like this without the perspective lent by the media spotlight. I think they've literally stopped being private citizens in a way that is more rare than simply being politicians as their day jobs.
7 comments:
No, because you also forgot to mention that it was an extramarital affair in which he (apparently) fathered a child. Then it would be most accurate.
Sad political epitaph for a guy who did a lot of good in putting poverty and health care back on the front burner of the national conversation.
Yeah, it is shocking.
I mean, I want to call it an illness not because I think it is okay, but because the behavior just seem so f'g irrational.
I mean, think about Bill Clinton. I mean, WTF. I understand that Robert Kennedy, Jr., BTW, is an absolute dog as well. That's from a couple of people that have attended some sort of after event after he spoke somewhere.
It's absolutely a sickness in the sense of it being behavior so much on the fringe that it's hard to argue it isn't a disorder on some level.
The Edwards thing is more shocking to me on its face because of Edwards' image prior to this--he did completely fool me, as embarrassing as it is for me to admit. I never liked his politics even a little bit, but I did like his personality.
Clinton we knew about. The big shock with that is the audacity and Lewinski's age. The older I get, and I'm still what, 15 years younger than he was then, the younger she looks. She was a child, I can't imagine what she'll look like to me in 15 years. That's flat creepy.
Sadly, it's not behavior on the fringe. Infidelity is super super common. Infidelity in powerful men may be even more common. I mean, think about the politicians who are known to have had affairs, off the top of your head: Clinton, Hart, Gingrich, Hyde, Spitzer, Vitter, Gary Condit, Fossella, Mahoney, Newsome, Kwame Kirkpatrick, and that's off the top of my head. That is only the relatively recent, simple extramarital affairs, leaving out the super-scandalous Foleys, Craigs, and McGreevy's of the political world.
It's also just the ones we know about.
So, yes, it's a sickness on a lot of levels. But this sickness seems to be endemic among powerful men, not fringe at all.
and yeah, it's totally worse with Edwards because of the Boy Scout looks and gee-whiz earnestness. Just like Spitzer, the better your reputation before, the farther you fall.
I hangout in Left Blogistan a lot, and the Edwards revelation was really traumatic to the locals. They really believed in him, were invested in him personally, and were totally devastated, both by the betrayal as well as the incredible stupidity. there was an equal mix of grief and anger at him.
But he seems really sorry about it.
I have to confess to watching the Elizabeth Edwards interview on Oprah yesterday (I know...but Susan had it on). E. Edwards seemed to be very frank and honest about the affair, about her husband's lies and betrayal, and about why she has decided to try and work through it. I was very impressed with her. I have never heard someone make the case so sincerely for sticking with a marriage after infidelity. And of course her illness, which she spoke very frankly about as well, informs her decision making.
As staged as the "chance" encounter with John Edwards in their house after the interview was, he looked genuinely terrified when Oprah started to ask him a few questions.
Shadowfax's focus on the infidelity of powerful men disturbs me. It is probably important to understand how power does impact such behavior, but emphasizing the infidelity of the powerful can slant peoples' perspective a bit. Sadly, I know plenty of every day people that have cheated or been cheated on.
I have read that gaining a new position of authority dramatically raises a person's testosterone level. This has to affect someone's openness to infidelity, especially in the direction of older men and younger women.
Luke what fascinates me the most in this whole episode is how compulsive seems the Edwards' need to share all of this with the world.
Elizabeth Edwards' description of how she felt the moment of finding out about his affair made me really, really uncomfortable. I have no doubts that in that description she was honest and charitable. But why on Earth would a person publish it?
And why would John Edwards allow himself to be indignantly taken to task in the most public of venues?
The answer I think is that these people take so much of their feeling of worth and *identity* from their "relationship" with the media and the public that they can't deal with something like this without the perspective lent by the media spotlight. I think they've literally stopped being private citizens in a way that is more rare than simply being politicians as their day jobs.
Post a Comment