John Edwards love-baby story at the tipping point; this too is a "teachable moment"

So now we have what we're told by the National Enquirer is a photo of John Edwards and his alleged love child cuddling in a room in the Beverly Hilton hotel. Actually, it looks more like a Photoshop effect (Ocean Ripple, to be exact) of someone cuddling a child.

Those are Beverly Hilton drapes - trust me, I've spent six weeks in that hotel on TV critic tours and could pick those curtains out of a lineup. But is it him? It's close enough. Look, the National Enquirer may not be your favorite publication but it is part of a celebrity journalism empire called American Media Inc. that was anthraxed following 9/11 (probably by this guy). Everyone there understands the enormity of this story, just as everyone in the mainstream media does. The difference is that the Enquirer, along with my employer, McClatchy, is actually working the story, while most of the MSM claims to be keeping its hands clean.

Still, there is enough reporting on the table by now that Edwards must address it. And so should Elizabeth, as I'll explain.

First, if you need a refresher, go check out this remarkably thorough job of fact-collection by the Deceiver's Simon Scowl. He also provides a better roadmap to all the Enquirer stories than the Enquirer does.

And, as the Deceiver notes, John Edwards is on a timetable. He has to address these charges. As Politico's Ben Smith reported last month, Edwards has been promised a speech at the Democratic National Convention. It is, as our McClatchy D.C. bureau notes, a common promise made to primary losers.

So please, stop debating whether John Edwards is a public figure or not. He didn't get on his horse and ride back to Mount Vernon. He gives speeches, he remains a mover and shaker in politics and he is (or was) preparing to give the most significant public address of his career later this month in Denver.

But now, let me venture into more treacherous waters. Is Elizabeth Edwards also a public figure, and does this story need to be pursued regardless of the pain it causes her?

I think so. For in her very public crusade to have universal single-payer health coverage mandated for all Americans - a crusade I fully support, for what it's worth - Elizabeth Edwards often refers to herself in the first person plural.

On the "Today" show on April 2, she told Meredith Vieira, "We've talked to both candidates about a number of issues, including the differences that John and I have with Senator Obama's plan..." In an interview last year with the Advocate she said, "John and I actually want people who disagree (with our political values) to speak up."

And then there was this remarkably revealing excerpt from an interview May 22 on NPR's "Talk of the Nation":

Neal Conan (NPR): Was there a moment when you said, look, can't I keep this private?

Mrs. EDWARDS: Honestly, there wasn't. I mean, I guess I grew up in a household that was a very open household, and John and I have always had a very open home, where we have very few secrets from anyone. We always say there's a bunch of 28-year-old boys running around, who've seen me in every nightgown I own. So I wasn't particularly private to begin with, and politics kind of cures you a little bit of that anyway. People want to peer in your closets, and you sort of make a bargain that you're going to let them.

And this - you know, there was in it also the possibility of a teachable moment, and just tell people not to make the mistakes I made, to go ahead and have their mammograms in a timely way and do their monthly self-exams. And in fact, one of the first emails I got was from a woman who had gone and gotten herself checked immediately after hearing of me and found, in fact, that she did have a cancerous tumor, and she was already getting treatment. So whatever else, whatever the bad sides were, I have this woman's life as a reason to have made the public statement.

Like most people, I really wish Elizabeth Edwards didn't have to go through what her husband has put her through. But you know what? This too is a teachable moment. Nine years ago, when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, she heard stories from her support group, stories of infidelity and breakup brought on by cancer and in particular, breast cancer.

If Elizabeth Edwards chooses, at the right time, to address this story, it too can be a teachable moment for her and every woman who has suffered insult on top of injury. It's a moment when women can say, "You know what? That happened to me too. I had a husband who I thought was very devoted to me, and then I had a mastectomy, and he left me." Or, "My boyfriend started stepping out when I was in chemo and wearing wigs."

But it doesn't become a teachable moment until NPR starts talking about it.

Comments

[wyatt]

Why isn't Edwards suing the NE? Why hasn't he vigorously, publicly denied the allegations? Why has the NYT ("newspaper of record" (!?)) reported this? This is way bigger than pretty much any scandal involving top political peeps in the last several years, and I have to do a google news search to find stories on it, and read the Wikipedia talk pages?! I have faith that this story will eventually come out, but the way Edwards, the MSM, Kos, etc. have played this is not going to be good for Obama and the party. Big huge, could-have-been-prevented distraction from the real issues.

[ran]

It's his business, but not for long. The courts will be asking John Edwards soon about his new love child. John Edwards is an adulterer. He should not have to tell anyone about it. It's his business...of course, it's only a matter of time before Rielle Hunter goes to court for a child support settlement. That will be public record. Then, Elizabeth Edwards will also want a divorce settlement. Then again, John Edwards made his close friend claim to be the impregnator of Rielle Hunter. John Edwards' friend, who has a family, has forever ruined his reputation in a desperate bid to save John Edwards. Of course, if John Edwards was the VP, then he'd be blackmailed because they're obviously other people who have evidence of his cheating. Then, again, how long has John Edwards been cheating on his wife with other women? Lastly, John Edwards has totally humiliated his dying wife and his poor children, who will forever be defined by their father's lust. Wow, maybe John Edwards needs to drop out of politics. He's just not a very good role model for being a father or a husband. What a way to fall from grace!!!

[alicia]

Wow. That is a very thought-provoking column, Mr. Barnhart, which presents a number of serious issues to consider.

As you point out, Elizabeth Edwards, as a very high-profile member of a very high-profile team, is also a public figure. And she has become a player in attempting to guide and bring about change in existing public policy.

I don't think the mainstream media has avoided this John Edwards baby-daddy story because they have compassion for Elizabeth Edwards. (Although they would be glad to take protective cover by having the public assume it.)

Compassion exists in the journalistic profession but I doubt there is much of it among those who have power at the top. At least from my perspective. They have compassion for themselves and their families but I would question whether or not it extended out any further.

Unfortunately, as it has become increasingly clear, they do have a political agenda and the reason they have attempted to avoid this story is to be found there. IMO. Exactly how, I don't know.

As far as Elizabeth Edwards turning this into a "teachable moment", what should she be attempting to teach exactly?

Sharing information with the public about a physical disease is one thing. That is a very clear-cut public service. Get regular checkups. Try to catch it early. Seek out the best medical care. And from her reminders and example, lives are saved.

But being humiliated by your forty-something husband and his forty-something um...how you say in eenghee...slut..is much more problematical. How exactly do you extract a teaching moment out of that?

Of course, this has become a time-honored gimmick and PR strategery of celebs. DUI? Druggie in and out of rehab? Come right in. Let's get you on the cover of People with a nice big accompanying publicist-generated sob story.

And that's only a prelude to making the rounds of the morning news shows, the talk shows and the tabloid tv shows.

And what have all of these "teaching moments" accomplished? They have dumbed deviancy down.

They have mainstreamed bad behavior. And our society has suffered.

So, while Elizabeth Edwards is from all indications an exceptional and wonderful person, I'm not sure what good her making a public declaration of forgiveness of John Edwards would accomplish in the big picture.

He would get a pass, sure. But who except him, would that serve exactly? In the long run.

[Afi Scruggs]

If Elizabeth Edwards chooses, at the right time, to address this story, it too can be a teachable moment for her and every woman who has suffered insult on top of injury. It's a moment when women can say, "You know what? That happened to me too. I had a husband who I thought was very devoted to me, and then I had a mastectomy, and he left me." Or, "My boyfriend started stepping out when I was in chemo and wearing wigs."

Sounds like the reporter believes the child is Edwards'. But the child's mother says no, and another man is claiming paternity. The birth certificate is blank.
Until these facts are sorted out, this reporter should be more circumspect.

Another thing: Elizabeth Edwards may be a public figure, but the child's mother certainly isn't. She has grounds for invasion of privacy suit if the allegations are true, and a defamation/libel suit if they are false.

Is it any wonder the MSM are stepping lightly?

[Cesar]

You and your wife are public figures. She's written an award winning book. If I produced a blurry photo of you caught in some ungodly act, should we expect Diane to issue a statement condemning that act? If you yourself said 'I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that... and I stand by that", and we STILL wanted you to go further, perhaps submitting your DNA to the Star, would you?

More to the point, would your wife write a book sourcing the National Enquirer? Would she get laughed out of the publisher's office if she did? So why are the standards of writing a history book different than the standards of sliming a politician? I think you should stick to commenting on fictional television and leave the journalism to your better half before you go dragging people's names through the mud.

I think you're right this is a teachable moment. You just missed the lesson by a country mile.

[Jim]

Ya know, it is just possible -- given the crop of the photo -- that neither the hands nor the baby belong to John Edwards. Ever think of that? Then why won't he deny it outright? Ya know, it might be for legal reasons. The man IS a lawyer, and there are a number of potential legal ramifications of a denial, none of which would be predicated on whether the denial was a true statement or not. I mark it down for now to a matter that is far more complicated than the news media can decipher at present, which leads to typical either/or conclusions on the part of the media. What else is new? I don't mind waiting for the real result, which will emerge with time. It always does.

[Aaron Barnhart]

Cesar, I mentioned your question to Mrs. TVB and she had a simple two word answer: "DNA test."

We would have this thing cleared up so fast, it would make AMI's lawyers' heads spin.

[Rachel]

Hunter's "job" with the campaign was paid for by donations from supporters. How do those people feel, knowing that they subsidized kanoodling?

And the photo doesn't look Photoshopped, but nice try.

IF Edwards is such a smart guy, why didn't he use a condom?

[emma]

first of all, it's him. i know it's blurry, but it's still him. second of all, he's a cad. i hope he finally admits to this since it's true. i hope rielle gets treated like hester prynne and realizes the marriage she broke up and the poor wife in chapel hill who has to deal with this as well as cancer and two small children at home. way to give into your hormones john and rielle (lisa?). you're both in your 40's and 50's? way to be mature when so many others' lives are on the line.

[David B.]

The saddest thing about this story is the fact that the MSM knew about this while he was running for President and cynically kept it to themselves. They deliberately tried to manipulate the political process by willfully and shamefully neglecting their responsibility to fairly and impartially report the news. It is their duty as the fourth estate of this great democracy, but their collective disgust at the thought of another Republican administration caused them to be derelict in their sacred obligation. The MSM is dead. Long live tabloids and the blogosphere.

[Kevin Marousek]

A guy had sex two years ago. Why is this news? I understand, Aaron, why you believe the method of reporting the story is interesting, but the story itself isn't newsworthy. On Friday's evening newscasts, all three networks placed it above war being declared when they generated their rundowns. Which do you suppose is going to affect more people, a war between Russia and Georgia, or a guy having sex two years ago?

[alicia]

Watching John Edwards on Nightline made me realize that I had been all wrong in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and trying to believe that he was not a total sleeze.

His appearance brought to mind that line about sincerity being the most important thing and once you learn how to fake that, you've got it made.

Apparently John Edwards believed that he had it made since he had successfully managed to hone the fake sincerity thing down to an art.

That even may have been why he decided to go into politics. He probably figured the voting public would just be a bigger jury.

And, as a lawyer, he had learned that he could successfully lie to a jury. So why limit himself. Why not take his act out on the road and lie to the entire American public by running for President.

I was not surprised to hear that Rielle Hunter will not be taking a paternity test. JMO, but I think that is what she was paid off for by Edward's surrogates or Edwards himself behind some kind of wall of deniability.

They want to insure that she would not take it and confirm Edward's paternity.

That may have been the deal John Edwards made with Elizabeth. She may have agreed to stand by him if he insured that this woman, Rielle Hunter, would never in the future become in any way involved in the lives of the children of Elizabeth and John Edward's.

And the only way he could do this would be to deny paternity of her child.

Just some thoughts.