I really, really, REALLY hate Maureen Dowd. She's one of the worst columnists/writers ever.

The Trib, a pro-GOP local paper here in Chicago, gleefully devoted an entire PAGE to Edwards' affair and confession. Huh?! the guy is no longer a candidate and isn't even holding any kind of office.

Where's the full page "political pariah" coverage on David Vitter, who didn't even bother to resign when HIS kinks were exposed? Or for that matter, Larry Craig, who resigned only reluctantly and still pathetically insists he is "not gay"?

Just another Dem/GOP double standard.

So that being said, is Edwards a scumbag? I don't know enough about the case (or the couple) to make a judgment---and frankly, I feel, that's how it should be. Since he has lied about the affair, one cannot say it is totally irrelevant, but it would be ahell of a lot MORE relevant were he currently running for/holding office.

Neophyte means beginner/novice. She was referring to the fact that the campaign paid this novice film-maker $114,000.00 to make web videos that followed Edwards around all day (videos that seemed rather narcissistic).

I have had many, many qualms with Maureen Dowd (particularly over her coverage of Hillary), but I absolutely loved this piece.

The most intriguing part for me was when she put Edwards in context with other men in power:

"For some reason, super-strivers have a need to sell what is secretly weakest about themselves, as if they yearn for unmasking. Edwards’s decency and concern for the weak in society — except for his own wife. Bill Clinton’s intellect and love of community — except for his stupidity and destructiveness about Monica. Bush the Younger’s jocular, I’m-in-charge self-confidence — except for turning over his presidency, as no president ever has, to his Veep. Eliot Spitzer’s crusade for truth, justice and the American way — except at home."

and

"The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct."

umm, Larry Craig didn't resign

I really don't get the vitriol over the denial of his fathering the child. Starting with the news agency that broke the story (the Enquirer is at least as much a "news agency" as FOX or CNN, in other words 90% bullshit) the big innuendo was his fathering a kid during an affair.

He could have done a "no comment" which every single one of us would have decided meant "Yes, but you can't prove it." or he could do as he did and deny it. The mother does not want, apparently, to have a DNA test done and there is no name on the birth certificate.

Suspicions aside, the benefit of the doubt should be granted. There are certainly a number of reasons why she would not want to name a father or to take a blood test. She may not be sure who the father is (which may make some of our puritan alarms ring, but it's her business), she may know who the father is but he may be another married guy or someone who would otherwise be compromised by the revelation of this.

If Edwards isn't the father of the kid, and as yet there is no proof that he is but you have him stating the time line is wrong and the mother of the kid stating he isn't, then his denial is appropriate given the already creepy situation.

If we're going to dislike the guy, then lets do it for reasons that we are certain of and reserve judgment on things we only suspect.

ff - I don't think she was talking about people in power resigning after being unmasked, but rather the fact they seem to want to be unmasked and shown for who they really are, by selling the weakest part of themselves.

Not only did Craig not resign, but he and Vitter have put their names to the Marriage Protection Act, which attempts to amend the constitution to declare marriage as being between a man and a woman. THIS is when the personal affairs of politicians piss me off -- when in public these people are attempting to curtail the rights of others even as they engage in the very same acts that they are condemning.

blitzgal,

while i completely agree with you, it's a little gaffe to compare non-hetero folks to cheaters. i know it's not what you mean, but... being a lying, cheating heterosexual is so not the same thing as being an honest, committed queer person.

The sexuality of the person has nothing to do with what I said. I'm comparing how Republicans with so-called "sex scandals" are treated in comparison to Democrats who have sex scandals. Please don't put words in my mouth. The only homosexual person I mentioned in my post is certainly not honest, and in all likelihood is also an adulterer. Whether he cheats with men or women is immaterial as far as I'm concerned.

I think Dowd penned a great column. Funny as always, insightful as usual.

...and by how they are treated, I particularly reference the fact that Edwards's political career appears to be over while both Vitter and Craig have retained their positions and even gone on to draft "family values" legislation.

Edwards vs. Craig/Vitter isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Edwards' political career is over because he lost an election. Craig and Vitter have not yet run in an election since their outing/scandal/whatever.

Dowd is a brilliant writer/stylist; I too thought this column was great. Don't get why people get so angry over her -- because she's not *on* your side?

A couple of people have corrected me on the non-resignation of Craig. Technically no, but he has stated he will not run for re-election, so the outcome is the same: his political career is over.

Frankly I am GLAD he did not resign, to the eternal chagrin of the sonic Christians in his party: they would have loved to bury him somewhere. But he remains like a glowing neon tiara of embarrassment, eternally making ll of their "pro-family" bleatings look ridiculous. I mean, come on: this is a dude who turns tricks in mens' rooms. Let's keep him around!