creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
24 May 2012
In the House, Is 80 Over the Hill?

When Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., lost the GOP primary to challenger Richard Mourdock this month, Beltway … Read More.

22 May 2012
Democrats' War on Money

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J., came across as a moderate, sensible Democrat when he said on "Meet … Read More.

20 May 2012
FTC vs. Skechers: Overhyped Meets Overkill

The Federal Trade Commission announced Wednesday that Skechers USA Inc. will pay $40 million to settle … Read More.

The Not-So-Pretty Boy

Share Comment

John Edwards is done.

The pretty-boy candidate always was the biggest phony at any Democratic debate. He was the $400-haircut poster boy for poverty. The 28,000-square-foot mansion owner who preached about global warming. The candidate who demanded that other Democrats swear off accepting contributions from Fox News baron Rupert Murdoch, after he pocketed a $500,000 advance — with an extra $300,000 for expenses — from Murdoch's HarperCollins. The man who ran as the doting husband of the cancer-battling Elizabeth Edwards while he was boffing an overpaid campaign aide.

If I were a Democrat, I would be spittin' mad. If Edwards had won his party's nomination for president, news of the affair most surely would have gotten out and the Democratic Party's chances of winning the White House would have evaporated instantly, as would-be supporters would have realized they can't believe a word the man says.

Edwards had asserted that National Enquirer reports of an affair with Rielle Hunter were "completely untrue." In admitting to the affair — but not the lovechild, if you care to believe him — Edwards explained in a statement that he relied on inaccuracies in the story to deny it, "But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough."

99 percent honest? Even when he is coming clean, he's a snake.

And a cad. If he'd won the Democratic nomination, Edwards would have damaged his party. Having lost, he could only be a drag on his wife's reputation, and he was. By announcing that he told Elizabeth about the affair in 2006, Edwards has allowed his better half to share in his big lie.

Now neither Edwards is credible.

Edwards said in a statement, "If you want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up any more than I have already beaten up myself." I doubt that.

See how Edwards beat himself up during Friday's interview with ABC's Bob Woodruff. He tried the everybody-does-it approach: "Well, what I was thinking was this was something that was personal to my own family.

My family knew everything about it. Everything. And on top of that, if you look back, Bob, I mean, I've seen people like, for example, John McCain talk about the mistakes that he's made in his past, with respect to his first marriage and left it, I think, basically at that. I mean, I'm not the first person to do this, but I don't want to — I don't want to talk about that."

Yes, McCain was married when he met his current wife, Cindy, in 1979. The former prisoner of war did pay a political price for his behavior. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported how the breakup of McCain's first marriage "fractured" his relationship with President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

That the L.A. Times would devote a story to a political rift that occurred almost 30 years ago only feeds the perception that there is a double standard in newspapers. Of course, the best exhibit of the double standard is the bogus New York Times piece in February that alleged, but failed to prove, that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.

I believe The Chronicle was right not to report on rumored Edwards' story until his confession. Better to be late and right than early and wrong.

That said, only a double standard explains why the New York Times and other biggies failed to jump on reports that National Enquirer staff had caught Edwards after he met with Hunter at the Beverly Hilton during the wee hours of July 21. Sure, they first had to verify the story, as ABC News was working to do, but Times editors couldn't be bothered.

On the one hand, Democrats should feel good about having dodged the Edwards recklessness bullet. But the story has only served to feed the rage of Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters, some of who believe that without Edwards in the Democratic primary race, their gal might have won.

Or as former Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told ABC news: Without Edwards, "I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee."

If only the cad had stayed home.

As they say, live by the sword, die by the sword.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am does it ever occur to you that many of these government people represent all form and no relationship? That is what happens when marriages die, that is what happens when clubs die, and that is what happens when societies die. The forms stand, built for the ages, with massive impediments later generations will marvel at and water color. The rings stay on, an icy silence decends, and the relationship dies. Some times the idea of marriage, or of party, or of society is more durable than the people within. Some times it is like the skeleton that frightens people long after the fear has left it. We all need structures. We all need forms. We all need ideas to keep our relationships focused. But once the form has killed the relationship; no amount of more form will bring it back. Isn't that what you see here? Isn't that why you hate your neighbor, and do unto others first? We've lost that loving feeling. Oha,oh that loving feeling. All that is holding us together, and off of each others throats is this idea called America. You seem to celebrate some ones failure of relationship. What does that do? Does that prove your point? Isn't a tragedy for him a tragedy for all?... I think we are going through the same thing as nation. We are going through a breach of faith that has been long in the making. Only the scale is different from what Mr. Edwards is going through with his wife and children. His is not a worse tragedy or more personal. We all have a lot of feeling invested in this relationship called America. So what do you think? Shall we continue indefinetly with the abuse? Will we play this game of dominance and submission till we drop? Will we blame each other like so many co-dependents, and justify violence? Hasn't the truth suffered more than any of us? Isn't it time that we drink some draught of honesty and say to each other: Darling, It is Over. There is no we the people. There is only you and me, and its time to get to Zeeero. Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:29 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

26 May 2011 Are Voters As Stupid As Insiders Think?

10 Oct 2010 Boxer's Fiction vs. Fiorina's Facts

9 Sep 2009 Van Jones Meets America