Skip to content
Categories:

A tale of two affairs

Post date:
Author:

Everyone in the political world has weighed in on revelations regarding John Edwards’ extra-marital affair. Edwards has talked about it, his wife has written about it, and his former aides have criticized him for it. Hillary Clinton has commented; Barack Obama has commented. Every pundit within reach of a microphone, telephone, or keyboard has said at least something.

But when asked at a press conference yesterday for a reaction, John McCain would only say, “I don’t have any comment on it.”

I continue to think there’s a good reason McCain should be worried about this story: if adultery and presidential candidates becomes a topic of discussion, he has a lot to lose.

Some media personalities haven’t quite figured this out yet.

On the August 8 edition of MSNBC’s Race for the White House, host David Gregory baselessly suggested that former Sen. John Edwards’ (D-NC) disclosure of an extramarital affair has some relevance to Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Gregory opened the show by saying, “Tonight, more on Edwards and the fallout from his admission today about a sexual affair: Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?”

This was a pretty dumb thing to say, topped by Michelle Malkin using the revelation to attack Bill Clinton for the infidelity in his past.

In some ways, I couldn’t be more pleased. If Republicans really want to go down this road, Dems would be wise to follow their lead. Indeed, John Edwards himself quickly recognized the political salience of this angle.

I don’t know if this made the broadcast or not, but when Edwards sat down with ABC News’ Bob Woodruff, he pointed in McCain’s direction.

[Edwards], in explaining his view that his dalliance could remain private, cited Republican John McCain’s reported affair at the end of his first marriage almost three decades ago.

“What I was thinking was this was something that was personal to my own family,” Edwards said, citing other public figures having survived extramarital affairs. He recalled, he said, having heard “John McCain talk about the mistakes that he’s made in his past with respect to his first marriage…. I’m not the first person to do this.”

My friend Adam Serwer summarized the broader dynamic very well: “Personally, I don’t care what politicians’ marriages are like, but I really think that it’s a mistake for conservatives to make marriage fidelity an issue when their standard-bearer has his own share of problems in that arena.”

Indeed, for all of the media frenzy associated with yesterday’s revelations, this is really a tale of two affairs, one that news outlets want to hype, and one that news outlets want to ignore. One involves a senator who left public office four years ago, and who is not currently seeking any public office. The other involves a sitting senator who is about to become the Republican nominee for president. Both have admitted extra-marital affairs, and both have been dishonest about the circumstances surrounding their messy private lives.

And yet, one is a huge story, and one is a subject that is largely verboten in our public discourse.

Slate’s Christopher Beam was one of the few to pick up on the angle the McCain campaign desperately hopes reporters ignore.

Recall: John McCain returned to the United States from Vietnam in March 1973. His wife, Carol, had been in a near-fatal car accident while he was gone. She was overweight, on crutches, and 4 inches shorter than when McCain had left. McCain ended up divorcing Carol for Cindy Hensley, his current wife. Carol has remained mostly silent on her marriage to John, except for one notable comment to a McCain biographer: “John was turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again.”

There were legal complications, too. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that McCain obtained a marriage license while still legally married to his first wife. McCain suggested in his autobiography that he divorced Carol months before marrying Cindy. In fact, that period was about five weeks. He also said that for the first nine months of his relationship with Cindy, he still “cohabited” with Carol. Social conservatives were never McCain’s base, but yes, it could get worse.

For the most part, the media have politely skirted around this episode of McCain’s life. (Not to mention other unflattering moments.) For one thing, it’s long past. McCain has since developed a reputation for credibility and transparency. (Post-Keating Five, that is.) And, unlike Edwards, he told the truth about his deviance. “My marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity,” McCain wrote in his autobiography. “The blame was entirely mine.”

But with Edwards’ infidelity front and center, that could change. In recent weeks, McCain’s ads have taken a turn for the personal, comparing Obama to vapid celebrities like Paris and Britney. Now Obama is coming under increasing pressure to retaliate. The Obama camp has never publicly raised McCain’s marital issues, nor would it. But insinuation, coupled with euphemisms about “trust” and “commitment,” can go a long way. In an environment filled with personal attacks on both sides, you can bet McCain’s past will become fair game. The Edwards news even gives McCain’s detractors a convenient pretext to raise the subject. So you heard about Edwards ditching his sick wife? Wait till you get a load of McCain…

McCain wants to make the presidential race personal? That’s not what most Democrats had in mind, but if he insists….

Comments

  • shadou

    says:

    Two things pop out of the piece:

    But when asked at a press conference yesterday for a reaction, John McCain would only say, “I don’t have any comment on it.”

    and,

    My friend Adam Serwer summarized the broader dynamic very well: “Personally, I don’t care what politicians’ marriages are like, but I really think that it’s a mistake for conservatives to make marriage fidelity an issue when their standard-bearer has his own share of problems in that arena.”

    In the first, Sen. McCain is correct. The issue needs no comment. T’ain’t nobodies bidness but Edwards!

    In the second, Mr. Serwer is also correct. Something about “glass houses”.

    And what does any of this have to do with Iraq, national health insurance, the economy and education?

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    John McCain would only say, “I don’t have any comment on it.”

    Wimp. Weakling. Weasel.

  • Evergreen

    says:

    There is no direct link to governmental issues. What it does do is erode a feeling of trust in me, and probably some others. Maybe a magnified feeling because I supported Edwards after Kucinich dropped out. Might not have had the full emotional whammy if Elizabeth were not such an integral/soul part of Edwards’ campaign.

    Thus said: in and of itself adultery should not be a holier than thou stumbling block to future governmental positions. Particularly when in such august, outed company: Clinton, Gingrich, McCain. They continued to hold political offices so why not Edwards?

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    “McCain wants to make the presidential race personal? That’s not what most Democrats had in mind, but if he insists….”

    I want to see it become very personal. I want McCrap’s junkie thief wife made an issue. I want McCrap’s serial adultry made an issue. I want McBush’s temper made an issue. It is not as if McSame only cheated on his 1st wife once. His Navy career was deadended because of his womanizing and temper.

  • memekiller

    says:

    Also, the NYTs reported that two people on McCain’s staff independently confirmed they had become so concerned with McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist that they asked him to cease and desist, and told the woman to back off.

  • pol

    says:

    Sorry, as much as I’d love to see someone make an issue of McCain’s dalliances, it just won’t happen.

  • joepa

    says:

    Pathetic.
    The same people who complain about trivia and distractions are now acting like tabloid trash editors.
    And again missing the point. Its not about the affair it is about the lie. David Patterson’s career survived these admissions because when asked he was truthful.
    Edwards not only lied but pushed his supposedly idyllic marriage as part of his campaign.. Indeed Elizabeth was complicit in this. Remember she criticized Hillary for not having joy in her life like she did knowing about ths affair. They reaped what they sowed.
    In contrast
    Obama admiited to his drug use and it became a non issue.
    Mccain took blame for the failure of his first marriage more than 30 years ago.
    CASE CLOSED.
    To make an issue out of this means you think its okay to make an issue out of Obama’s drug use.
    Because hey it was Obama who broke the law not McCain.
    Really both past mistakes should be treated like they have been.
    meaningless non news.
    This election should be about the real issues.

  • episty

    says:

    Given that John McCain left his first wife because she was crippled and abandoned his three kids, I’d say sexual infidelity by itself would be the smallest of his problems.

    I emphasize with the people who say a person’s personal life shouldn’t matter in regards to his professional life. In a perfect world, it shouldn’t.

    But I think it’s laughable that any GoOper should be trotting out this canard, given their history of mean-spirited, personal attacks they’ve been levying against progressive candidates. I can understand their reasons, though: Republicans are deathly afraid that if personal history becomes a legitimate topic of discourse, John McCain’s history will sink him like a cement necktie. Consider, and decide which is worse:

    Bill Clinton got a blowjob.

    John Edwards got laid.

    John McCain left his first wife because she was crippled and abandoned his three kids.

  • Ian Thorpe

    says:

    We Anglo Saxons on both sides of the pond need to develop more of a French or Italian attitude to rumours of Ploitician’s extra marital affairs. In those nations it would be a great disadvantage to a politician not to have had a couple of well publicised affairs.

    Our prurient attitude encourages politicians to be secretive, and if they are secretive about love affairs what else are they secretive about?

    Sarkozy is a well know womaniser, Berlusconi is a lecher and a crook. But they till got themselves elected.

  • tiredofgreed

    says:

    Joepa If this campaign were about issues why does the Mccain hit squad talk about everything but the issues and the kicker is if the Obama campaign dares to fight back they are playing dirty. Same with Kerry in 2004. With McCain we have the lingering story of a RECENT affair and his not admitting to it. That is a valid issue since one of the main attacking points of the Mccain hit squad is character.

  • Winkandanod

    says:

    joepa:

    Its[sic] not about the affair it is about the lie.

    Then what about McCain’s constant lying about Obama’s energy policy?

    What about his campaign’s lying about visiting sick troops?

    What about his lying about when he started shacking up with the 2nd Mrs. McCain?

    Oh, those aren’t substantive issues

    OK, what about Bush/Cheney’s lies about WMD?

    IOKIYAR

  • joepa

    says:

    Tiredofgreed
    The point is that the Republicans want to distract because they have problems with the issues after 8 years of Bush. Following their lead and letting this election be about garbage is not beneficial to the dems.
    Also there is no evidence of any recent affair by McCain. That was gossip with no substance.
    Edwards did have an affair and more importantly as shown by todays news – a mistress who was trying to profit from it and who had a family that was feeding info to the tabloids. A situation Edwards created by lying about it when first confronted.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    Joepa:
    I agree, for a couple of reasons. (This is playing off my “We are Obama’s surrogates’ post in the previous thread, btw.) If we want to, subtly, make an issue of McCain’s infidelity and the way his first marriage broke up, the way to do it is to express total non-concern, to say ‘who cares about Edwards’ marriage, or McCain’s first one, that’s their business,’ and then, if we are asked, give the details, reluctantly and without too many details.

    But more importantly, we can use Cindy more effectively if we just keep mentioning how much she is present at every appearance, and how much she reminds us of a good nurse watching over her patient. Almost everyone probably has the experience of seeing this, and it will resonate far more deeply than a simple ‘well McCain cheated too, nyah,nyah,nyah’ response.

  • JS

    says:

    Personally, I think the media should not be digging into Edwards every move, but since they are, and since they say people have a right to know, then they are obligated to let people know about McCain’s affairs. So far they have covered for McCain at every turn, his gaffes, his forgetfulness, his lack of understanding the economy etc. Both sides should be treated equally.

  • Capt Kirk

    says:

    Poor John Edwards thought that cheating was not just for Mavericks anymore, good thing Dickhead Gregory is around to set him straight.

    It’s a network rule, you know, infidelity is impeachable for Democrats but for Republicans it’s a very private affair. After all there are no Democratic Ken Starrs. One need look no further than Vitter and Craig to see what kind of behavior is perfectly acceptable in the GOP, they are the party of the wide stance politician opposed to gay marriage.

  • Steve

    says:

    Marriage is a covenant; a fixed promise between two people who supposedly mean something to each other. If a politician cannot keep that commitment to his/her own life-partner, then how should the People believe that “same said politician” will keep an entire collection of commitments (campaign promises) to them?

    The scuttlebutt about Edwards has been floating around for what—two years—and everyone still pretended to be surprised about the revelations? Please.

    And the “glass houses” thing doesn’t work, either—at least not in my book. People have spent years flogging McCain over this; we spent months flogging Ghoul the Serial Adulterer—Edwards isn’t going to get a pass on this one. He’s a big boy now, and he knew what he was doing when he did it. He’s also gone out of his way to lie repeatedly about it—to you, to me, to everyone—and everyone is somehow expected to just give the guy a pass? Let bygones be bygones?

    The apology isn’t because he did something stupid. It’s because he got caught—and the answer to his request can be summed up in two words:

    REQUEST DENIED.

  • james k. sayre

    says:

    Why doesn’t the Republican corporate media want to talk about John McCain’s adultery with Cindy while he was still married to his first wife? Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican…

  • Dennis

    says:

    McCain says ‘no comment’, and with the cat out of the bag less that one news cycle already the strategy is to exploit John Edwards’ blunder and his dying wife’s turmoil by a sick attempt to make lemonade out of lemons. The same attempt that’s been made many times on this blog already, this same blog that until now had not reported on the Edwards’ story.

    Attacking McCain for something that happened three decades ago would be one surefire way to make the situation worse for Obama than it already is.

    But by all means, keep flailing away on a 30yr old story of infidelity.

    And stay classy doing it.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    Steve:
    The internal dynamics of every marriage are different. People don’t follow ‘stencil cut-outs’ in living their lies. I agree that Edwards was an idiot — because this election is one of the three most important in our history, with 1860 and 1932.

    But saying “Marriage is a covenant; a fixed promise between two people who supposedly mean something to each other. If a politician cannot keep that commitment to his/her own life-partner, then how should the People believe that “same said politician” will keep an entire collection of commitments (campaign promises) to them?” is nonsense.

    It ignores the fact that — as I keep reminding people — six of the eight Democratic Presidents since the Civil War — and a number of Republicans — were adulterers and that adultery and Presidential ability just don’t match up. FDR and Harding, JFK and Eisenhower were all “Adulterers,” Truman, Carter, and Coolidge probably weren’t. See any pattern there? Because I sure don’t.

  • joey

    says:

    Great American Hypocrites…McCain is a prime example. But why should he say anything when the corporate owned republican media will cover it 24/7 for him and never mention McCain’s name.

    So Edwards has an affair…admits to it to his wife…works it out to save his marriage and keep his family intact…but McCain has multiple affairs…divorces his wife and abandoning his children…but gets remarried to one of the women he was having an affair with…and somehow Edwards is the scumbag??? Let’s not forget that Mrs. McCain the first was also a POW but got abandoned when the war ended.

    Gregory is a gutter sensationalists…sold out to the GOP yrs ago for access, whose every word is aimed at demeaning democrats and liberals. He danced his integrity away for all the world to see with “MC Rove”.

    Edwards character is intact…only your view of it is demeaning. I’d still vote for Edwards in a heartbeat and he would make a damn fine AG. He’s still 10X’s better than McCain in all areas.
    Nance Greggs at DU has a very good piece on the pathetic priorities of the MSM. The real news is never what they report but rather what they refuse to report…and that is a huge list of much greater importance than the lifting of the corporate media blackout of Edwards’ issues.

  • joepa

    says:

    Many of you are still missing the point. The american people don’t care about the sex. They understand those mistakes and most people will forgive them.
    The issue with Edwards is that AFTER he had this affair that may have resulted in a pregnancy and AFTER payoffs to this woman to keep quiet alreadyhad started THEN while she was pregnant- he decided to run a presidential campaign focused on his marriage.
    That is why people feel betrayed.
    Its the same with Clinton if he had told the truth under oath the impeachment would have been a non starter.
    I notice none of you have responded to my noting NY Gov david patterson surviving infidelity accusations because he was man enough to admit it and deal with it. As did Ted Kennedy.
    once you understand this dynamic then you should realize attacking McCain because he admitted 30 years ago that he made mistakes after 5 horrifying years in a POW camp is a dumb move.

  • Georgette Orwell

    says:

    “This election should be about the real issues.”
    “Both sides should be treated equally.”

    So true. And so unattainable.

  • Hannah

    says:

    Surprisingly, Beam’s Slate article is linked on the Yahoo homepage.

    ‘Bout time Johnny gets some light shed on his judgment and loyalty.

  • Splitting Image

    says:

    “once you understand this dynamic then you should realize attacking McCain because he admitted 30 years ago that he made mistakes after 5 horrifying years in a POW camp is a dumb move.”

    Actually, what’s more worrisome is that he lied about the timing of the affair much more recently than 30 years ago.

    That IS an issue because he’s been lying about the timeline of the Iraq surge in this very campaign. In both cases his reason for lying is to make his actions seem better than they actually were.

  • Rielle Lovechild

    says:

    Well the one thing that’s come out of this for me is that finally someone may take note of the name I’ve been posting under for the last three weeks. LOL

  • Damien

    says:

    “once you understand this dynamic then you should realize attacking McCain because he admitted 30 years ago that he made mistakes after 5 horrifying years in a POW camp is a dumb move.”

    What the hell does his POW status have to do with the fact that, upon his return, he abandoned his wife and children for a poptart heiress?

  • olo

    says:

    Was McCraven trying to dump cindy when he offered to groind her into buffalo chips last week?
    The issue is always loyalty.
    By pimping his wife off to 50K randy drunk partying bikers, ….
    …arghh i give up.

    Just cover him (McCorpse) with a lot of dirt.

  • Maria

    says:

    David Patterson’s career survived these admissions because when asked he was truthful.

    He was never asked about it. He volunteered the info.

    Many of you are still missing the point. The american people don’t care about the sex. They understand those mistakes and most people will forgive them.

    Of course they care about the sex. Stop assuming that the people posting here represent the average American; we don’t. There’s plenty of recent evidence that many, many people care a great deal about the sex, and that is the simple reason why politicians lie about it.

    We can talk about becoming less prudish and less prone to double standards as a society–those are worthy goals–but as long as America remains provincial and prurient, this kind of thing in a politician’s closet is going to be dynamite if and when–and it’s almost always “when”–it comes out. The Edwardses knew that damned well and chose to go forward with his candidacy anyway. These guys always think they’re going to be the one who gets away with it.

    The Edwardses’ basing a good piece of his campaign on the strength of their marriage is a piece of the whole, but only a piece. There would be a broad sense of betrayal even if the so-in-love Edwardses weren’t pushing their relationship, for the simple reason that by running with this live wire in his very recent background, he risked losing everything we’re fighting for and handing the election to the Republicans. Then where would we be with healthcare, poverty, all the issues I know that both of them truly cared about? The arrogance and self-centeredness they have both shown, assuming that Elizabeth Edwards actually was told about this in 2006, is astounding.

    By the way, you never responded to Diogenes’ questions about the many problems with your motorcycling women statistics. Why’s that?

  • SF

    says:

    I realize that who a man sleeps with (or doesn’t love” even when his wife is in or out of remission from a deadly and terrifying disease) is not relevant to policy and the terrible problems this nation has, BUT: I feel played, suckered, ripped off, to the tune of $2100 in bits and pieces as I could manage. GRRR. That Edwards and even the beloved, wonderful Elizabeth went ahead with the campaign knowing full well (because they are not stupid) this could — correction: would — blow up in their faces and that, given the Republican hypocrisy and attack practice, and this nation’s strangely Puritan heart, this mess could doom us (were he the candidate) for more of Bush/McC rule, at a time when the globe and the Bill of Rights are barely holding on, makes me FURIOUS. John and Elizabeth: how could you? What derangement afflicts those close to power? What in the name of good sense is in the damn drinking water in DC?

  • libra

    says:

    Second SF, @32 (even though my own “investment” was much less). It’s not the affair per se; it’s the “there, but for the grace of God, goes the election” feeling. How could he??? And on my dime, no less. All last night, I kept thinking “need to call Jesse Jackson and his nut cutter, to deal with the SOB”

    Today, I wonder more about the timing of the Edwards’ admission. Why now, when the story had been percolating, just under the radar, for almost two years? Could Obama have started talking Edwards as VP and Edwards — finally — realized what a disaster it might have become?

  • MLC

    says:

    Has any prominent female politician (this country or elsewhere) ever gotten caught in an illicit affair that derailed their career?

  • TuiMel

    says:

    libra @ 34 “Today, I wonder more about the timing of the Edwards’ admission. Why now, when the story had been percolating, just under the radar, for almost two years? Could Obama have started talking Edwards as VP and Edwards — finally — realized what a disaster it might have become?”

    I think this ascribes nobility to an act where, in fact, none exists. I think John Edwards is enough of a trial lawyer to know that the evidence was against him and the Friday of the opening of the Beijing Olympics and before Obama’s vacation was as good a time as any for facing the music.

    Regardless of whether I personally think that marital infidelity is (a) any of my business when it is not my marriage or (b) a disqualifier for public service, I think it is lunacy for anyone who is or is planning to RUN for national public office to expect “the little secret” to remain so. If one is running as a Democrat, it is even greater lunacy to expect that the Republicans will not take the political ice pick you have handed to them and try to jam it into you as early and as often as they possibly can. The media is known for its fascination with this sort of story, and what is better to fill cable news time than a juicy little sex scandal? And, with apologies to others who feel there is “nothing to see” in the Edwards story, it has many elements (not the least of which are the open questions of the paternity of Ms. Hunter’s daughter and the money paid to her for God only knows what) with which to hook and reel in J. Q. Public – the willingness of you or me to look past it notwithstanding.

    I am with those who think the real “scandal” here relates to the choices John Edwards – and apparently Elizabeth Edwards – made about how to handle the possible (inevitable?) consequences of his dalliance. He chose to forge ahead with his campaign in full knowledge that if his secret came out before the election there would be public and media hell to pay. Double standards, IOKIYAR, are not miticating factors in the evaluation of the risks; they are part of the risks. John Edwards somehow thought he could overcome all this. This has not been the case, and he is NOT the nominee. Imagine if he were. His policy positions – which already would have been fighting for oxygen in the Corporate meda – would have been absolutely smothered. That is the tragedy of Bill Clinton. He survived his impeachment (rightly so IMO), but look at the cost. I do not particularly care who among our political leaders is responsible for those costs because assesment of blame cannot change the ugly fact that the country suffered from the distraction during Clinton’s final years in office, Gore’s need to separate himself from Clinton, and from relegation of impeachment to the status of “no can do” regardless of the offenses of the executive.

    I understand that those who dare to run for POTUS must have enormous egos and appetites. But, I am not going to excuse them when their lack of discipline and judgement winds up screwing (or potentially screwing) me.

  • Ronny

    says:

    The more we (netroots, dumbocrats and the what nots) keep this story alive, eventually msm will turn its ugly head to McCain and his history. So, no matter how you feel about Edwards , there are bigger things at stake.

  • Robert Lewis

    says:

    See who the first wife of John McCain is working for now and who she contributed to

    webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain

  • I Don't Like You Either.

    says:

    The Edwards “Controversy” …

    by Teh Nutroots | Okay, we’ve dissed Edwards. We’ve said what there is to say, i.e.: BAD BAD BAD! How could you do it to Elizabeth? How could you do it to your supporters? How could you encourage us to vote for you, thereby encouraging us to vote for…

  • dr mike

    says:

    Edwards has an affair, probably fathers an illegitimate child, while his wife is ill with terminal breast cancer, and he lies about it repeatedly, finally, admitting to the affair but not to the child, and this writer compares him to McCain’s divorce and marriage to his current wife of 30 years…Edwards is a personal injury attorney, a politician, and we are surprised he is a liar? Does this decrease my confidence in politicians? No, I have little or no respect for them already…but when do we believe Edwards, when he says he did not have an affair, or when he did but is not the father of the child, or when he says he is sorry(that he got caught?) or when he implies it should not matter, because he just did what so many before him, including McCain, did…nice guy, Obama bin lyin will undoubtedly select him as our
    Attorney General.

  • Nancy Irving

    says:

    I think the MSM will give McCain a pass on the grounds that his adulterous affaire with Cindy took place three decades ago, and he’s an old man now. Water under the bridge, etc. etc.

    Of course, if the rumors about another more recent (very recent, in fact) McCain marital misdemeanor can be substantiated, they may feel obliged to cover that.

    But don’t count on it.

  • Nancy Irving

    says:

    Oh, and also I think reporters will be reluctant to bring up Cindy & John’s past because they are married now, and have been for such a long time. Thirty years of marriage may be seen as evidence of good faith, even if it was based on an act of bad faith.

    Also they might feel that bringing up that adultery might seem, um, unchivalrous to Cindy McCain.

  • www.buzzflash.net

    says:

    A Tale of Two Affairs: Edwards’ and McCain’s…

    This is really a tale of two affairs, one that news outlets want to hype, and one that news outlets want to ignore. One involves a senator who left public office four years ago, and who is not currently seeking any public office. The other involves a s…

  • Atheist Revolution

    says:

    Edwards’ Affair Makes News, Why Not McCain’s?…

    Now that you have undoubtedly heard John Edwards’ affair discussed at length on all the major news outlets, complete with plenty of manufactured outrage, you may be wondering why you haven’t been hearing about John McCain’s affair….