Coddington on Edwards
Deborah Coddington lets loose on John Edwards:
… since American politics – whether we like it or not – impacts on the world – we should all be grateful to this woman who has exposed Edwards as a liar, hypocrite, narcissist, and, ultimately, misogynist.
Edwards was always my least favourite Democratic candidate of the three of them.
It’s taken the “respectable” newspapers months to pick up on Edwards’ vainglorious behaviour. Broken first by the National Enquirer, it was ignored by the “mainstream media” until they finally conceded the tabloid was on to something.
It is worth recalling that the New York Times ran a massive story alleging that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist. There wasn’t any evidence of this affair, just suspicions yet that was enough to make their front page. But with John Edwards, they ignored the affair for months and months despite the fact it was well known around the beltway, and had been covered at length in the tabloids.
I just wish Edwards had beaten Obama. If the Republicans had been handed this delicious news in the middle of the presidential campaign, McCain would easily be seated in the Oval Office, and the prospects of free trade for our agricultural produce, and New Zealand’s economy, would get a whole lot better.
Even Phil Goff is saying that NZ will do better in terms of a trade agreement, if McCain wins.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I understand the story broke well after Edwards had pulled out of the race. McCain’s “story” broke during the race, plus he’s the nominee. The Edwards story just isn’t as newsworthy as one about McCain.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Edwards wasnt the leading candidate by the time they ran the McCain story.
And for ‘wishing’ that Edwards beat Obama!!
Is she mad, very likely , its as though Hilary Clinton never existed, she and her 1800 delegates seem to have vanished in faux outrage from the maven from martinborough
August 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Obviously ‘love the sinner, condemn the sin’ is not something that fits comfortably with Coddington. Forgiveness and compassion are wonderful virtues.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Was it Edwards or Kerry who wisecracked “..at least we have better hair!” when campaigning against GWB? So not really a surprise any of this – just their shallowness confirmed (again).
August 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I understand the story broke well after Edwards had pulled out of the race.
The initial story (not the midnight visit to the hotel) broke late last year _before_ Edwards announced his candidacy. Hence it was news then and should have been covered.
Edwards wasnt the leading candidate by the time they ran the McCain story.
What’s leading got to do with it? Edwards was a frontrunner having been one of the two to have beaten the presumptive nominee in the Iowa caucuses.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“Deborah Coddington lets loose on John Edwards…”
haha Coddington’s a hoot, isn’t she? Vainglorious… now there’s a word. A bit like, tantamount. Do all self-professed senior journalists suffer from the same madness? What was the nickname she was given… Coddingwallop … Codwallopington … or something
August 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Fair enough.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
There’s a somewhat better story here which gives an overview of a few more of the yet-to-be-told elements about the other candidates.
The media have got enough to screw either McCain or Obama and it just depends which one those who control the agenda want to become POTUS. I said in Jan/Feb that the media will hold the dirt on Obama until about 4 weeks before the vote when it’s too late to do anything about it. (I imagine that homosexual trysts fueled by cocaine will be enough to prevent the first black candidate from being elected.)
At present that prediction still stands but as Adolf has pointed out on No Minister, Shillary hasn’t released her delegates and that’s an interesting wild card. Note though that there’s dirt on her too.
I find it amusing that some people really seem to think the US elections are free and open. They’re anything but.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The hypocrisy of the Left seems to know bounds. They ignored Edwards but targeted McCain despite no evidence. In the case of Clinton the feminists ignored his affairs and possible physical rape while he was governor. You also notice how silent the Left is when it comes to matters about Muslims abuse women either in Muslim countries or in the West.
Closer to home the Left label anyone who opposes anything on the homosexual agenda as a homophobe but are prepared to threaten to out any opposition MP that may be a closet homosexual if he or she does not vote to support their agenda.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Thank you for raising the issue of hypocrisy Chuck. It was a word that came to mind when I noticed Debora Coddington was the author of the opinion piece.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
How Coddington can rail against a politician committing adultery with any credibility is beyond me.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Damn. I was thinking Brian, not John. Oh well, nothing to see here.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
JayDee / BlairM… my thoughts exactly. Still, she was – as GWW points out above – able to forget the existence and impact of Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign so perhaps we’re being too harsh. To quote Denny Crane… “it’s the mad cow”.
What is it with the Sunday newspapers? Surely there are people other than washed up, discredited MPs like Coddington and Laws that could be asked to write some real analysis?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I wonder if Obama will also bring about another “Rising Asian Crime Tide” in Auckland?
August 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Graeme
“The Edwards story just isn’t as newsworthy as one about McCain”. What unmitigated crap! McCain’s NYT’s story was FRONT PAGE and was based on nothing – zip – nada. Mere rumours that have never ever been remotely substantiated … by anybody. Edwards was caught on film visiting his Missus and likely love child and then confessed and had the affair whilst his wife was suffering from cancer and he had the affair WHILE HE WAS A CANDIDATE. The fact that he confessed AFTER he was defeated in no way negates what he did. The MSM couldn’t bring themselves to admit that, shock horror, the National Inquirer was right.
Let’s assume for arguments sake that Fred Thompson was caught having an affair and confessed AFTER he too was defeated. I would bet you the house that THAT story would’ve been front page in the NYT, WaPO and first news item on PBS, ABC, NBC and CBS.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Obviously ‘love the sinner, condemn the sin’ is not something that fits comfortably with Coddington.
Nah, that sorta bullshit only sits well with Christians, but then when it actually happens to them they’re usually hypocrites about it anyway.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:23 am
how anyone gives a rats arse about mccain or edwards is beyond me.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
As Ann Coulter said in her August 8 column:
“The mainstream media’s reaction to the National Enquirer’s reports on John Edwards’ “love child” scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards’ name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn’t anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?
I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards’ name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won’t have been John Kerry’s running mate in 2004.
Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn’t be able to report it!
A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer’s John Edwards’ love child story, telling the Times of London: “Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don’t expect wall-to-wall coverage.” This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there’s one thing they’re careful about in London, it’s tabloid excess.
Isn’t there some level of coverage between “wall-to-wall” and “double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout” when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?
Hey, what sort of “elected official” was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an “elected official,” the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of “elected officials” were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?
The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of “hypocrisy.” Hey, why didn’t you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!
Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards’ response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:
“Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans — including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it’s fundamental to how you judge people and human character — whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them. … I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness — sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And — and certainly that goes to a part of that.”
There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!
Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter — the former “Lisa Druck” — $15,000 a month in “hush money.” Shouldn’t the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a “business expense”?
Maybe The Washington Post didn’t hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards — you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose……….
……..I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney’s love child or, indeed, Larry Craig’s love child. They’d bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney’s front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.
But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for “Best Suppressed Story.”