Elizabeth Edwards has a post at Daily Kos about her husband’s confession of earlier today that the accusations about him having had an affair are true. I don’t she she has helped the situation. She complains that “a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.”
Elizabeth Edwards is in a poor position to accuse anyone other than her husband of lying. The National Enquirer may or may not have been right on every accusation but it has not yet been proven that they were lying. In contrast, it is clear that John Edwards has been lying since last October when he has denied having had an affair with Rielle Hunter.
Her main accusation that The National Enquirer lied is based upon the denial that Edwards is the father of Hunter’s child. Possibly they were lying, but it is also possible that either they are correct, or that if they were incorrect they did believe that Edwards was the father. Knowing that Edwards has been lying about the affair since they exposed it last October, it is understandable that anyone would also suspect that Edwards was the father. There has still not been an explanation of the pictures–which may or may not mean that Edwards is the father. Short of a paternity test, Elizabeth and John Edwards are going to have to live with the fact that there remains reason to believe John is the one lying on this point. He very will might also be lying to Elizabeth as if John is the father it would mean that the affair continued after the recurrence of Elizabeth’s cancer was known, and after John claims the affair was over.
There’s this thing about being caught in a lie. People tend to assume, often correctly, that other things you say are also lies.
Lee Stranahan brings up another good point. If she knew about the affair she should have never let John run for president this year. Imagine if Edwards had won the nomination, and then this story broke. Besides, it still might have been possible for Edwards to run in the future if he had admitted the affair. Knowledge of an affair in one’s past does not prevent one from running for president. John McCain is proof of that.
I think there is good reason why Edwards did not take this route. He has been more interested in immediate gratification in his search for power. While I agree with Stranahan on this point, I disagree when he writes “I believe that the Edwards are both sincere in their stated positions about poverty, health care and other issues.” Even before this scandal, I believed Edwards was one of the biggest phonys in politics of either party, as I have often written in the past. This is a guy who has shown no real interest in public service unless he could have the big prize.
Edwards’ major talent has been in enriching himself while conning supporters into believing he was acting altruistically, beginning in the days in which he specialized in convincing southern juries that birth defects were the fault of medical malpractice. He served a single term in the Senate and used this purely as a stepping stone to run for president or vice-president in 2004 and then got out. While running with Kerry he was more interested in positioning himself for a future run than in helping the ticket. He quickly changed from a moderate Democrat to a populist progressive based upon gaining support in Iowa and in the netroots. I don’t think that Edwards was capable of sitting out and waiting to run down the road. This route would also require that he do something of value to keep himself in consideration for the future, and I don’t think Edwards is capable of that.
In the past when I have written of my opinion of Edwards, some on the left agreed and many disagreed. Today’s events should give more people reason to reconsider their opinion of John Edwards. This is especially true of those of you who might have contributed time or money to his campaign under false pretenses.