Campaign Diaries

However pained I am to have to credit the National Enquirer with any sort of journalistic prowess, it turns out their reports were at least partially true. In an interview to air tonight on ABC, John Edwards confessed to an affair with Rielle Hunter though he denied that her baby was his child (given how much scrutiny this story will now receive, someone will surely find a way to prove that false). Edwards also released a statement late this afternoon addressing the scandal, declaring he is willing to take a paternity test and adding: “If you want to beat me up — feel free.”

This is one of those moments in which the media and most politicians (including many who will sooner or later be forced to reveal their own infidelities) get an opportunity to showcase their moral self-righteousness and sternly condemn Edwards’s depravity. Right wing blogs like Red State are already celebrating Edwards admitting to being “a lying, adulterous swine,” others have proclaimed the end of Edwards’s career (not that Sen. Vitter has hard to resign).

Those are the rules of the game, after all, whenever America decides it wants to barge in the personal life of a man who holds no public office. Of course, that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer makes the scandal irresistible and there will be plenty of commentators who will proclaim themselves outraged in her name, lamenting her sorrow and announcing they “can’t imagine” what she’s going through. We went through this just 3 months ago, when Spitzer’s wife became an object of national pity.

Edwards told ABC that his wife knew about this affair in 2006. He repeated that in his statement this afternoon: “In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness… With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly.”

In other words: the couple had talked about this and decided to try and work through it (believe it or not, Elizabeth has a say in the matter!) and she did campaign side by side with her husband up until he dropped out in January 2008 (3 months after the original National Enquirer story). Even if John Edwards is lying, there is no way of knowing what is happening in their marriage, nor does it matter at all. So, to the very least, let’s not speak, or feel, in Elizabeth’s name.

On the other hand, there are a lot of grounds on which to condemn Edwards politically. Just 8 months and a few days ago, Edwards was very much in contention for the Democratic nomination and looked to be running strong in the Iowa caucuses. While he was clearly not in the same league as Obama and Clinton, there was a credible path to him winning the nomination. Just imagine what would have happened today had Edwards become the presumptive nominee: the ultimate nightmare of a candidate’s supporters, the ultimate last-minute surprise.

How could Edwards even think of putting the Democratic Party in such a risky situation? How did he think he could maintain his presidential candidacy under these circumstances? In fact, Edwards knew months before Iowa that this story was certain to break as the National Enquirer ran its first article sometime in the fall.

For Edwards, the immediate political consequences are evident. Whatever chances he had in the veepstakes (I put him in my second-tier back on July 29th) are now gone. Depending on how the scandal unfolds and on whether Edwards’s denials about the baby hold true he might also be out from any position in an Obama Administration - though if Edwards did tell the whole truth in the ABC interview it would hardly be surprising to see him come back at some point, perhaps even as early as January. If Sen. Vitter can stay in the Senate and receive a standing ovation, after all, Edwards can most definitely be put in charge of anti-poverty initiatives by a President Obama.

Another question that has now been answered is Edwards’s role at the Democratic convention. Before this scandal, Edwards was likely to be given an important - though not necessarily prime time - speaking slot at the convention. Now, Edwards is unlikely to speak at all given how big of a distraction he would instantly become. Reports are that his wife could be given a prominent speaking slot; after all, Elizabeth became a political figure of her own over the past year, refusing to endorse Obama when her husband did back in May and engaging John McCain on the issue of health care.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, will speak at the convention. Seeking to put an end to rumors about mounting tensions between Clinton and Obama, the Illinois Senator called Clinton today to offer him a prime time speaking slot on Wednesday. Bill Clinton will thus speak before the vice-presidential nominee, a major time slot. However, this will not necessarily be broadcast on network TV, as the network channels are only planning to show one hour of the convention each night and they will show the VP’s speech on this night.

Update: Elizabeth Edwards posted a diary on Kos, confirming that she knew about this back in 2006 and that her family was trying to work through this and that they now had to come out with the story because of the lies being told (thus also suggesting that the baby is not her husband’s). I hope this helps take some of the focus off the personal angle of the story and keeps the debate centered on whether Edwards committed a political fault:

“This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.”