So it turns out John Edwards did cheat on wife Elizabeth, the brave cancer victim he didn’t mind parading across the country mid-chemo treatment during his run for president.
Seems The National Enquirer, which broke the story last October, should be vindicated and celebrated for its intrepid reporting, but no, the rag took it on the chin by mainstream media outlets. CNN, ABC and others failed to adequately give National Enquirer its due and instead snickered at the grocery store weekly for its suggestion that Edwards actually fathered the child.
And why shouldn’t CNN, ABC and others take him at his word? It’s not like he lied about this before?
I say well-done National Enquirer (makes you wonder what else the paper got right—does Oprah get her weight loss ideas from aliens after all?); mainstream press should congratulate the rag and now concentrate on the real story: did Edwards’ use campaign cash to shut up his mistress, Reille Hunter?
Edwards’ PR plan of attack, from October until now, was deny ‘til you die (Elizabeth, by the way, was complicit in the deceit). A former FOX News staffer, now a Ragan employee, speculated Friday that Edwards appeared on Nightline because a news outlet was readying a bombshell story that would prove his guilt—or perhaps Hunter was taking it public.
I think he wanted to take control of the story; that is some aggressive PR. Go on Nightline, tell the public how much you love your wife and what a terrible mistake it was; then deny the child is yours and that you gave your mistress hush money. The news lead becomes: “John Edwards admitted and apologized to having an affair, but denied fathering a child with his mistress …”
Bam! He seized the story.
Great timing for that announcement, by the way; it coincided with opening ceremonies of the much ballyhooed Olympics. Everyone’s talking about the games, China and who will take home gold. Not to mention Nightline is an ABC program, not NBC—home to the Olympics—the station everyone will watch over the next two weeks. By giving ABC exclusive rights to the story NBC news won’t have a chance to drop its own bomb.
What Edwards had to pray for—and he sure claims he’s praying—is early Olympic gold for the Americans. Get the limping country whooped up about its athletic prowess and come Monday everyone in America is chanting “U-S-A” and not burning effigies of John Edwards.
Sure enough, the women’s fencing team pulled through for Edwards, capturing gold on Saturday. The American weekend breaks with news that … we already won gold! It’s going to be a great two weeks. Maybe, just maybe an influx of gold to the nation will help stabilize the housing market.
Now that’s some deft PR on Edwards' part, although it’s probably too little, too late.
But let’s now forget about Andrew Young, Edwards’ top adviser who claims he fathered the love child. Never mind Young has a wife of his own and, if it’s true, the Edwards campaign is less champion of the common folk and more like the cast of “Swingtown.”
For Young, there's also the 18 years of paternity payments. Makes me think of the Kanye West song, “Gold Digger”: “18 years, 18 years; She got one of yo’ kids, got you for 18 years … 18 years, 18 years; And on her 18th birthday, he found out it wasn’t his.”
If the child isn’t his then Young actually made the best career move anyone in Washington ever has; his peers are green with envy; Capitol Hill interns are taking notes. Young fell on his sword and told the public: “It’s not my boss who fathered this child out of wedlock, but me, I am to blame.”
That’s hara-kiri of the highest (actually lowest) sort. Politicians coast to coast (as well French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Russian leader Vladimir Putin) were on the phone Saturday morning offering this guy a job.
Despite the last-minute PR trick, Edwards killed his political career; Young pushed his adviser credentials into hyper drive. And the US Olympics fencing team, unbeknownst to them, gave this story its pretty little bow. The whole thing is pure gold.
It doesn't, Colin. Here are four reasons why:
1. This story has yet to gain traction. People are talking about it, and...
Comments (11)
"Not impressed with the Edwards PR plan..."
I agree.
This story will get bigger as the lies get bolder. Sure Edwards said that he wouldn't mind taking a paternity test, only for the mistress to say, "Oh, that's no one's business and my baby deserves privacy!"
But this investigation into public funds being funneled to her will continue long after the Olympics are over, and the story will grow, just like Edwards narcissism...
Posted by Catherine | August 14, 2008 1:16 PM
Posted on August 14, 2008 13:16
I found it interesting that Edwards broke the mold and didn't have his supportive wife at his side.
Posted by Carolyn Duncan | August 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted on August 12, 2008 12:52
I agree with taking control of the story as a smart tactic. However, it was ruined when Edwards' narcissism began to seep in, eventually soaking the entire interview.
He claimed that he only cheated when his wife was in remission. Does this make it excusable? He then dragged out the "I'm not the only one" tactic with a sly link to McCain's questionable, but unproven, early marital woes. Again - is this an excuse?
He also blamed his own narcissim for the affiar. Isn't openly trumpeting your own narcisissim EVEN MORE narcissistic?
A good move that was spoiled by weak justifications - he should have quit while he was ahead.
Posted by Rose | August 12, 2008 10:49 AM
Posted on August 12, 2008 10:49
Yes, Paul, "complicit." Thank you. Sometimes it takes a village.
Posted by Michael Sebastian | August 12, 2008 10:44 AM
Posted on August 12, 2008 10:44
Elizabeth Edwards was "implicit in the deceit"? "Complicit," mayhap?
Posted by Paul Baerman | August 12, 2008 9:44 AM
Posted on August 12, 2008 09:44
Michael:
Thanks for an insightful and fair analysis. I love the way you credit the National Enquirer. It was neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post that broke the story, but the "rag" these faded glory types love to look down upon.
Good work.
Les
Posted by Les Potter | August 11, 2008 6:47 PM
Posted on August 11, 2008 18:47
Not impressed with the Edwards PR plan. While the timing and the network were well-chosen, who told him to include the bit about this all happening while his wife's cancer was in remission? That just looks pathetic. And, as Maureen Dowd opined, "creepy."
Posted by Cari | August 11, 2008 12:19 PM
Posted on August 11, 2008 12:19
Eric,
Give me some credit! I could've wrote "An African-American Chicago-native ..." and instead I sourced Kanye West.
Doesn't that mean anything?
Posted by Michael Sebastian | August 11, 2008 11:59 AM
Posted on August 11, 2008 11:59
@michael - interesting breakdown of the turn of events since Friday. Thanks for the analysis. But you really have to get out of the habit of creating a habitat for anonymice. Despite the repugnant Fox News on the resume, I'm sure your colleague has plenty professional merit, if you're reporting his/her speculation then report the name and any context for why he or she has come to that conclusion. I've worked for more reputable news organizaations than Fox News and have worked in party politics. Would you print my speculations about, say, Mitt Romney without attributing them to me or context about why I might reach a conclusion? If you're colleague and his/her opinion have merit, then he/she can put a name on it. Anything else is being deceitful -- a la John Edwards.
Posted by Eric Jones | August 11, 2008 11:38 AM
Posted on August 11, 2008 11:38
The PR bet, I suppose, is that most people would watch the Olympics and not switch from NBC. And while the talking heads were kicking around Edwards on CNN and Fox News (at least Friday evening and Saturday morning they were), newspapers and their Web sites weren't splashing Edwards across their front pages--at least not where I live. In fact, when I saw the paper Saturday morning I noticed US Olympic gold teased on the front page and Edwards on page four.
Posted by Michael Sebastian | August 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Posted on August 11, 2008 11:08
I'm not sure what television stations you were watching, Michael, but every time I turned on any station (other than those affiliated with NBC), Edwards was either the lead story or the second lead. It got to the point that by yesterday, as soon as I saw his smiling face, I was flipping the station. The coverage of the Olympics was much further down the story list.
In fact, I was totally unaware about the fencing gold but I unwillingly can recite chapter and verse on the Edwards mess.
Would it have been worse if it hadn't been an Olympic weekend, maybe, but don't forget all the tabloid shows - Extra, Access Hollywood, etc. They really haven't delved into this yet. I'm guessing that starts with today's programs.
Posted by ColleenH | August 11, 2008 10:41 AM
Posted on August 11, 2008 10:41