Oh, my head.I would have voted for the man. He was the only candidate who addressed the concerns of the working poor. He discussed that unsavory topic, poverty in America. He seemed sincere.
Seemed is what matters in politics. Perception equals reality. What a sad joke that it was tabloid "reporting" which uncovered the reality behind seemed.
I had considered, even gone so far as to hope for a moment or two, that Edwards would be Obama's choice for V.P. Imagine: Edwards and Obama sharing the DNC stage, their arms around each other's shoulders, their other arms raised in salute to the cheering crowd, as red, white and blue balloons drift down thick, almost obscuring them from the cameras, while triumphant music blares.
Meanwhile, in a back, dark hall of a hotel, a tabloid "reporter" feverishly scrawls notes dictated to him in whispers by a hotel security guard. On the last day of the Democratic National Convention, a headline appears: VICE PRESIDENTIAL PICK EDWARDS' AFFAIR!!
It sounds like a bad airport novel.
Edwards says his hubris came from thinking he was "special." Good bloody god, of course he thought he was special. You have to be convinced you're special to have the cajones, or the idiocy, to run for President of the United States. Is this meant to be an explanation or excuse?
"I began to believe I was special, pretty hot stuff, so I thought, 'You know, the wife hasn't been very attractive since she went through chemo, her interest in sex has diminished considerably since she's been concentrating on staying alive.' You have no idea how difficult cancer has been for me. And there was this lady who was attentive and flattering and pretty much eager to be banged by someone who might become President. So, I thought...'what the hell.' It was a mistake. I guess. I mean, now it's a mistake. Back then, before someone actually followed up on the rumors and caught me, it wasn't."
The only difference between Senator Larry Craig and Senator John Edwards is location and the level of sloppiness.
Hubris so all-consuming that one becomes blind to the possibility, even the probability, of one's lies being exposed, fascinates me. I have to force myself to imagine that point of view. Of course a rich and powerful man, especially a white man, would pay no attention to the "help" who saw him meet in a hotel --the Beverly Hills Hilton, for crying out loud-- with a woman who was not his wife. He'd never consider that the "help" might honestly report what they saw and heard. But in this day and age, when Bill Clinton's hypocrisy was revealed by an Internet Walter Winchell wanna-be in a fedora, any partially lucid political candidate should know that anything he's done in the recent or dusty past will be drudged up. (I'll expand on this in The Feminst & Al Franken).
Yet candidates continue to not only deny the things they did which would reflect badly on them, but they continue to do these things. Something in their brains must disconnect.
Reason: I am telling you, don't do it.
Stupidity: Get stuffed. I'll do what I want.
Reason: Do you think she'll be so honored that she'll never tell anyone? Even if a tabloid waves a check in her face?
Stupidity: Look at those knockers!
Reason: Yeah, and she's probably still making back payments on them! Which is why a big, fat check from The National Sludge would be really, really appealing to --HEY, get our hand off our belt buckle! Goddammit, I am not taking part in this! On your head be it!!
Stupidity: So to speak.
Even more fascinated, and more disgusting, is how many men will compartmentalize their emotions and loyalty towards their wives from their ability to betray them. I read, on YahooNews:
"The story is false," he (Edwards) told reporters then. "It's completely untrue, ridiculous." He professed his love for his wife, who had an incurable form of cancer, saying, "I've been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years and as anybody who's been around us knows, she's an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known. So the story's just false."
If indeed his wife is "an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known," why on earth did Edwards screw around? That he had sex, one assumes intercourse, with Hunter, but added that he "did not love her" points to a male mindset I will never grasp. Many men (sometimes I think all of them) can get hot and sticky with a person they not only don't love, but one they may loathe. Even when they sincerely love and are devoted to someone else.
The detachment of emotion from action is something I, and all the females I know of all sexual preferences, absolutely lack. Throughout history, women have attempted to be "like men," and have "casual" sex, or "zipless f***s," as Erica Jong put it. Theoretically, this "freedom" would enhance the sexual experience, and thus life itself.Nice theroy. I've met a few women who claim it works for them. I find it interesting that all those women had been molested or abused in their younger years. Detachment is also a means of self-protection from pain.
Yet I've known many men who love their wives or partners (as far as my observations can substantiate), and have no ethical conundrum with infidelity. A mutually agreed upon "open" relationship or "understanding" isn't the same as a man who swears he's monogamously devoted to his wife, but screws the babysitter or his wife's best friend, knowing it would hurt his wife if she discovered it.
Believe me, I understand the pull of sexual attraction, how it makes one willing, even eager, to abandon all scruples and common sense, in disregard to what harm it may do to others, and to one's self.
But the pull is one thing. Acting upon it is another. If nothing else, one expects a career politician's sense of self-preservation to kick in. Some porn at home, a few toys or erotica, can be discreetly acquired, in aid to alleviating temptation.
But no. Edwards, like so many others, had to have flesh instead of fantasy. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. He was either certain he'd never be caught, or, in some sad, sorry nether chamber of his subconscious, wanted to be caught.
Either way, it doesn't reflect well on the Democrats. At this moment, strategists must be going over Obama's past with a microscope, searching for anything that might be used against him. To hell with Obama being transparent; they're going to examine his DNA to make sure, beyond a shadow of a shadow of a doubt, that nothing will earn any headlines which will propel Obama out of the picture and McCain into the forefront.
If Elizabeth Edwards stays with John, thus joining The Hillary Club for Lame Women, I can't respect her.
Oh, my aching head. This almost makes me want to follow the Russian/Georgian war, or watch the Olympics.
