Kathryn calls my attention to a piece at Salon written by a former Edwards campaign worker, which says in part:
It’s become customary in politically obsessed circles for observers to preen about how they knew that Edwards was bad news all along. His lawyerly ways! His sentimental stories about growing up working class! His hair! How could his silly supporters not see him for the philandering phony he so clearly was?
Of course, a quick perusal of the John Edwards of 2007 demonstrates that this sort of hindsight owes more to revisionist wishful thinking than a correct assessment of the evidence at the time….
Sorry, Amanda. You’ve got that wrong. There were no halcyon days when Edwards was great. Certain not in 2007. Here’s what I wrote about him then.
But you’ve pegged what I’ve thought going back to the 2004 campaign: “How could his silly supporters not see him for the philandering phony he so clearly was?” How, indeed? I used to wonder at it, and worry over it a good bit.
And I may agree with her that his trial was a waste of time and money. Justice was done with regard to John Edwards some time back. All the nation needs to know is that he’ll never hold high public office again, and that’s assured.
The piece ends:
Even those who’ll never be able to forgive Edwards for nearly destroying his legacy should be grateful for the good sense shown by the jury today. Let’s hope the Justice Department takes their lead and lets this one go.
What legacy?
Related Posts
Only time will tell but I thought Edwards stepped up in his response to the verdict, accepting total responsibility for his actions and pledging to work the rest of his life to atone for them.
It is certainly to be hoped that he will live his life in the future differently from in the past.
Talk to people in the medical community about what they think of John Edwards.
Doug, what else could he do… he had to do something to try and save his tainted image. He’s still “all about me” and he’s going to say anything he can to make himself look good. Maybe he can go into acting.
Yes, Doug, thank you. And the piece is very clear on what his “legacy” is or should be–he beat the drum about income inequality and poverty, long before the Occupiers came to be.
Maybe it’s from reading Brad’s “phoney” portrayal of Edwards but my opinion of his speech yesterday was one of astonishment. How can he stand there and get all chocked up about his young daughter while denying his fatherhood of her 3 years ago. Maybe he really is a new man but that speech didn’t give me much faith in that. Time will tell.
Coming soon: Edwards joins (fill in the cable network here) as co-host of political talk show. Or: John Edwards on Dancing with the Stars.
I expect him to do the usual route of proclaiming his faith. For me, let him actually do something to make amends, like disappearing and working in a soup kitchen, actually helping people, giving away his money, or something like that. Otherwise, its just word words words.
Have no idea if it’s true.
I’ve read in the past that some of the neighbors that live near John Edwards (apparently his house is huge- but some areas and neighbors very close to him aren’t well off at all)- didn’t know him and had never met him.
Was John Edwards someone that did more talking than anything when it came to helping out other people? I can’t answer.
The people that impress me the most aren’t people that tell me how much they care about their neighbors that are in poverty. The people that impress me are the ones that work to help their neighbors first.
I agree with Tim on this one. Get caught with your hand in the cookie jar and the first response is to run for the nearest church, kneel at the altar, cry and beg forgiveness, and then declare your ever loving devotion to your wife and children. Show up with your pastor or religious mentor in tow, make a few well chosen words of contrition for the public and disappear long enough to reinvent yourself.
When I read the story of Edwards and some of his courtroom tactics when he first run for office, I spoke to a few friends back home in North Carolina and they told just how damn phoney this peacock really is. He and Kerry deserved each other.
Great visual of John Edwards on Dancing With the Stars. The hair, a white suit….
How about one of those Court TV shows?
Down the line, pervert Edwards will be offered a high-paying job by his lifelong party for the usual reasons:
1. To demonstrate professionally (e.g. Les Aspin) lifeline of loyalty for service rendered by party lawyers.
2. To reinforce popular notion that moral failure is rarely a Democratic party concern for their clients, role models or supporters (e.g. Alvin Green for U.S. Senate).
Disclosure: The Republican party is equally corrupted by R.I.N.O.s, mostly lawyers, anxious to cross party lines. Caruso supports lawyers in neither party.
@Juan Caruso—WHOA–John Edwards is in no respect a “pervert”–he had ordinary garden variety adulterous sex with a woman well into her adult years, of full capacity to consent. Where is the “pervert” in that?
KB,
How many “garden variety” sex tapes have we personally directed and then been so careless as to allow to fall into the hands first of a “staffer”, and then strangers?
Edwards is either an incompetent husband and father or a pervert. I stand by “pervert”, thank you, and allow you to assess whatever garden varieties of moral relativism you see fit in this pathetic little excuse for a man, much less a lawyer.
Sex tapes? That’s not perversion. It’s stupid, but it’s quite common.
He sinned, no doubt about it, and he has confessed, for what it’s worth. That just doesn’t amount to perversion–look at the statistics on adultery–well within the bump of a bell curve, and that’s hardly moral relativism, and his being a lawyer has nothing to do with any of it.
“Sex tapes? That’s not perversion. It’s stupid, but it’s quite common.”
– ‘Kathryn Braun
Non-lawyers must take your word for that, Madame.