HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

After the AffairMelinda Henneberger takes readers' questions about the John Edwards sex scandal.

Posted Monday, Aug. 11, 2008, at 4:49 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

RSS

Melinda Henneberger: Are you suggesting that if we put a 24/7 tail on all candidates, if we paid sources and chased people into hotel bathrooms in the middle of the night, then you would take us more seriously? And look at what happened to the New York Times when they ran a story that touched on rumors about a lobbyist John McCain may have been involved with; they had three of their best reporters on that story for months, and yet their efforts were so widely criticized that it worked to the McCain campaign's advantage.

_______________________

Boston: Why would you treat a candidate's wife who has cancer differently than one who doesn't have it? The comment makes it clear the Edwards family received special treatment from the media, which is clearly wrong. That's what bothers me most about this story. I especially am appalled by the New York Times, which ran a front-page story on McCain's alleged affair with a lobbyist that had not one shred of evidence ... and still ignored the Edwards story. To be clear, it's not that I necessarily agree with the media delving into candidates' sex lives, but if you're going to do it to one you have to do it to all ... whether or not their spouse suffers from cancer or another tragedy.

Melinda Henneberger: Nope, not true. I talked to Cindy McCain recently and didn't ask her, either—even though, given that it was on the front page of the NYT, I certainly could have. And it isn't as though people in public life are going to respond honestly to such a question anyway. Again, these stories are out there because money has changed hands and people were followed for months. If that's your priority, then the National Enquirer is your news outlet.

_______________________

Washington: I say this as an Obama supporter, but why did the New York Times ignore this story while it ran with a fairly sleazy and, presumably, untrue-in-its-innuendo story about John McCain several months ago? I can't understand how they can justify the differences, particularly when this Edwards news was under the radar at approximately the same time they came out with their McCain story.

Melinda Henneberger: I have no idea what they had, but it didn't seem like the story started as hey, let's run down all the sex rumors. It seemed to have been something they ran across while running down a perfectly legit story about whether McCain, who is running against the influence of lobbyists, is himself linked to lobbyists. I'm sure they would have been a lot more comfortable if they'd found he was good friends with a lobbyist named Victor Iseman instead.

_______________________

Washington: I vote for no coverage of politicians' sex lives. I don't care who is doing what—if it isn't illegal, don't report it. That's my new standard and I urge the mainstream media to adopt it.

Melinda Henneberger: Not only would I second that, but I think most reporters would. We are not trying to out certain people and protect others based on party or personal affinity; on the contrary, unless it becomes impossible to ignore, either through a lawsuit, like the one Paula Jones filed, or a press conference, like the one Gennifer Flowers held, that is pretty much what happens.

_______________________

Washington: In 2007 rumor around DC was that Edwards wasn't so hot on running, and that it was Elizabeth who convinced (pushed?) him to do it. I'm not clear on the timeline, but I do wonder whether on some (hidden) level this could have been an attempt on his part to sabotage a campaign he never really wanted to run. The theory gives Elizabeth more culpability in what happened, and the story becomes a little less one-sided—as these affairs rarely are. What do you think?

Melinda Henneberger: No, he very much wanted to run, and she very much wanted him to.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Hello, just wanted to say thanks. I've enjoyed reading your recent posts, and love the XX Factor in general. It's the only blog I read—I wish I could join in!

Melinda Henneberger: Thank you so much!

_______________________

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: Melinda, you've hit many nails on the head here. Thank you! But wait, don't you think Elizabeth didn't tell him not to run was because she didn't know about Wily Rielle yet? No self-respecting narcissist would spoil his fun if he didn't have to, would he, especially when there was no danger of being found out? It was, after all, before those "miserable tabloids" started writing their "lies"....

A serious (well, semi-serious) question, too: What do you think are the implications of Hunter refusing to let the kid be tested? She wants to stay the center of attention, and if it's proven not to be Edwards's then who cares? She and Edwards made a pact that he'd say "sure I'll take it" and she'd say "no way Jose" and therefore no one would ever know? What do you think? (Not that it matters, as you point out, of course.)

Melinda Henneberger: I'm not sure we'll ever know what Elizabeth knew and when she knew it, but I have the unhappy feeling she still doesn't know everything.

_______________________

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 SINGLE PAGE

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Melinda Henneberger writes columns for Commonweal, the Catholic opinion journal. Prior to that she was a reporter for the New York Times and contributed to Newsweek.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

One participant said: "I vote for no coverage of politicians' sex lives. I don't care who is doing what—if it isn't illegal, don't report it. That's my new standard and I urge the mainstream media to adopt it. "

To which I heartily concur--but. The corollary is that candidates must not run on their wonderful family values (at least the part that is implicitly sexual fidelity).

If they run on something, the media must look into stories on that something--no exceptions. Since I dearly don't want to know about sexual history, past and present, of public figures, for consistency I must not judge favorably those whose saintly mien lets me think them better than most.

--Archae86

(To reply, click here.)

I disagree absolutely that because it's 'just' an affair, it's no big deal.

Someone who has repeatedly announced himself as fit Presidential material AND run on 'family values' as the moral arbiter for the rest of the country deserves to have his dirty laundry aired for public consumption, particularly as he seems hell bent on continuing to lie about it. I don't care who JE gets his recreation with--that's his wife's concern. I do however have a vested interest as a voter when a Man who Would Be President reveals himself to be a cheat AND a compulsive liar. […]

Also in the relative situations of the two wronged wives, Elizabeth Edwards comes out the far more pitiable figure. The woman is dying, for gosh sakes, and was willing to spend her last time on Earth getting her straying hubby into the White House. Foreknowledge on her part, if she had it, does not constitute a 'coverup'--this poor woman is entitled to save face any way she can at this point. A dying woman lacks the energy for divorce court, I'm sure. I hope she gets well, but if she does not, than the very last years of their lives together will have been marred by his deceit.

Public opinion hardly matters beside what John Edwards should have on his conscience. […] If he manned up and said, 'Yes--I cheated. I am the father of the baby and I hate myself; may my wife forgive me" I'd think better of him than with all these lies and obfuscations. 'Volunteering' to take a paternity test he knows will never happen is such brave and selfless move, eh? Caught dead to rights and he's still spinning. What a tool.

--hikari

(To reply, click here.)

(8/16)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES