Mickey Kaus has for months done a brilliant job of tracking the Edwards Affair and I’ve, belatedly, agreed with everything he said… but this….? “Would it really hurt Obama if John Edwards went to Denver? The more he publicly defends himself, the more honest and upright he makes Obama look by comparison. And the smarter he makes Democratic primary voters look.”
If I were Obama and Co. I’d want to Edwards as far from the Dem convention as possible. Maybe South Ossetia. In his personal life, Obama might look squeaky clean compared to Edwards. But there’s something even more treacherous than adultery that could pollute the mile-high atmosphere of Denver–a kind of callow hollowness [typo corrected, but I'd love to claim credit for a pun] and inexperience that could be associated with modern liberalism and the Democratic Party. After all, both Edwards and Obama have been media image guys, long on veneer but short on substance.
But it’s safe to say we’ll never find out who’s right – Mickey or I. You don’t have to be Jimmy the Greek to know there’s little chance Obama will allow Edwards to suck up any of the air in Denver.
UPDATE: If you really want a reason Obama would have to be out of his mind to let Edwards anywhere near the DNC, this is it -Wolfson: Edwards’ Cover-up cost Clinton the nomination.
Roger,
A kind of “callow hallowness”?
Does this worsen, becoming truly malignant on Halloween (All-Hallows Eve), just in time to trip them up before the November election?
Jamie Irons
The man cheated on his wife who has cancer!!! Obama would be crazy nuts to have Edwards speak at the convention…..so, as a McCain supporter, I say, “Go for it!”
I’m tempted to wallow in the ‘callow hallowness’ debate, but think it’s best to let it lie fallow instead.
If Edwards is at the convention it will be a distraction to the spotlight that Obama craves. There is no upside for Obama for Edwards to be there, and no upside, really, for Edwards himself to be there. My guess is that Edwards will want to be as far from the spotlight as he can be for awhile, until things cool off and he can try to resurrect his political career.
Which he probably can. The unspoken rule is that Republicans cannot survive a sex scandal, but Democrats can not only survive them, but can thrive…
The cheating is between him and his wife and none of our business, but he put his ego ahead of the party, which puts its own lust for power ahead of the country. That’s what Obama really doesn’t need at the dias in Denver–a reminder of what’s really important to Democratic politicians.
McCain can honestly say he has put principles ahead of ideology and more importantly ahead of personal ambition. Edwards is a reminder that you can’t say that about Obama.
Should Edwards put in an appearance at Denver?
Don’t ask Barack Obama this question; ask Michelle Obama and you’ll get your answer.
Did I miss something, is it now the “Obama Convention” and not the DNC?
Does Obama really get to be the decider?
And sorry Tim the cheating is not simply between him and his wife, he gave that up when he ran on family values, how they deal with it is entirely up to them, but when the two of them stood before America and said “Look at us” they invited the scrutiny.
“The cheating is between him and his wife and none of our business, but he put his ego ahead of the party, which puts its own lust for power ahead of the country.”
Lust for anything comes first for Edwards.
Heh, heh. Not Edwards, but Bill Clinton?
I wondered myself at “callow hallowness.” Because, really, either that or “callow hollowness” could indeed be fairly applied to Obama, but only the latter seems to fit the context here.
Since Edwards continues to lie,the story won’t just fade away.As for a DNA test,maybe the little girl would SOMEDAY like to know who her father is.
MPix: Cheating is never between a man and wife alone. It invariably affects children, in-laws, neighbors, friends and co-workers. Politicians are judged on their character, or at least on the character they manage to portray. If a man cheats on his wife, he will cheat on his constituents. It is not only relevant to his chosen career, it is fundamental to his character. So spare me the lame platitudes about “between John Edwards and his wife.” I put that in the same category as most worthless platitudes.
Tim, typically I would completely agree with you… But in a situation where the cheater has trotted his sick wife out to shill for him, I am not so sure. Once you inject your morality, family, children, etc. into a campaign… don’t they become open for scrutiny? And if so, Edwards is a fool for ever… oh nevermind, he is just a fool. Welcome back Gary Hart.
John Edwards will never hold public office again. It’s over for this guy, folks. Think Gary Hart.
The Enquirer has also been reporting that Obama has not been faithful to his wife.
“The cheating is between him and his wife and none of our business.”
Of course, Tim, you were emphasizing the same thing when Larry Craig got busted, weren’t you. After all, if you weren’t, that would be rank hypocrisy, right Tim?
Tim?
Tim?
Hey willis , that sounds like a liberal talking point , it never applies to a conservative caught up in an affair . I smell a rat in this whole thing , coming out now just before the election . I put nothing past these liberals when it comes to winning .
Mickey or me, dammit.
I have to confess: I never got John Edwards, from the word go. First time I saw him I thought he was a sort of chipmunk version of Bill Clinton, all fake-sincere expression and “I feel your pain” afternoon-talk-show empathy. I never bought the accent, I never bought any of it. I know he came from a humble background and worked his way up through the ranks of the rest of us to become rich. I know he did it by working as a lawyer for people suing HMOs and insurance companies, and I’m aware of the philosophy that says that anything bad that happens to one of those entities is a good thing. I’m also aware that the people who run the organizations are smart enough that they can pass the costs on to the rest of the “customers” or public who are their clients, so that they don’t bear any of the burden directly, of course. Edwards used his wealth to campaign for the Senate from his native North Carolina (ever notice how when a wealthy Republican runs for office using his own money, he’s trying to “buy” an election, but when a Democrat does the same thing it’s because he’s “committed to the issues?). He then ran for vice president, and the whole time I for whatever reason thought he was a phony, much more than Kerry was, for instance, or Gore for that matter. So this whole thing strikes me as a bit of an anti-climax.
His wife, on the other hand, gets some sympathy, at least at the most human level. The woman is, after all, apparently dying at a faster rate than the rest of us. Hopefully the prognoses are wrong, but that’s usually not the case, with cancer. And I suppose, given the circumstances, you can understand her reaction to her husband’s revelation to her about this affair with the video producer. She wanted to keep it private. This is a very touchy subject, very very personal. The fact that her wealthy, prominent, powerful husband stepped out on her, regardless of the reason, is humiliating to her. So she wanted it concealed, and acted like it never happened. That’s fine, but she then *went out and campaigned for him*, essentially endorsing him. I understand he’s made, since he says the affair happened, references to marital fidelity as one of the reasons he makes a good candidate, acknowledgments that infidelity disqualifies one for higher office, etc. While he did this, she watched, endorsed him, campaigned for him, and remained silent about what he’d done. While I still understand the impulse, that is a lot harder to take.
Chris: “I’m tempted to wallow in the ‘callow hallowness’ debate, but think it’s best to let it lie fallow instead.”
Chris, with that pun I’d follow you anywhere!
I can’t help but wonder whether Hillary has one or two little surprises planned. Obama might not be the nominee after all …
Speculations and random thoughts…In this modern age, how did this woman accidentally become pregnant? Perhaps she set Edwards up. Not that he is excused due to her possible chicanery, but it does add an interesting twist. She is now cooperating with Edwards by refusing to ask for the DNA test. Either she knows who the father is, or she is quite, ahem…”active.” These two may be planning a marriage after Elizabeth is out of the way, so to speak. The entire affair (for want of a better word) is sordid. Edwards is finished in my opinion, especially since he is still spinning and not telling the whole truth. More creepy details are coming out, I think.
The cheating is between him and his wife and none of our business
I might agree with that save the fact that Edwards used campaign money to keep his mistress in tow.
Mickey or me? I’m not sure.
I still think “Mickey or I” [are right] is the subject here.
Readers?
One of Hillary’s people is saying Edwards lies about the affair during the primaries cost Hillary Ohio. True or not Hillary voters are gonna respond badly to Edward’s presence in Denver.
If I were Obama and Co. I’d want to Edwards as far from the Dem convention as possible.
I agree. While the Messiah is far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer, it’s hard for me to believe that He would want Edwards in Denver.
I don’t want to hear that this is between a husband and wife…
When a politician opens him/herself up to blackmail it does matter to the public. What if this fool would have become president, VP or attorney-general and being blackmailed?
I think we all knew Edwards was a snake but it took a tabloid to flush him out of the weeds.
Personally, I don’t care about him or the wife that stood by her man and lied to us while knowing the truth. If feel badly for her because she obviously loved the jerk. The mistress and John were waiting for Elisabeth to die so they could be together.
John would be well on his way to hell by now if he were mine…in other words John: you first!
Speaking of snakes, I am hearing that the Barack Obama had homosexual relationships and used drugs while a state congressman. Anybody know more about this or do I have to get my news from the grocery store tabloids.
I feel for Elizabeth Edwards.
My guess is that she does not want to die without her husband of 30 some years beside her, or without him there beside their children.
After she is gone, he is all they have, poor kids. I feel for the kids, especially her college-age daughter. What was that idiot man thinking?
To make it worse, he is clearly still lying both to his wife and to the public.
What a schmuck. In time, it will all come out, so what is his point?
But, BOTH Mr & Mrs foisted him as a candidate on the Democrats, with no regard for the potentially disastrous outcome.
No matter how personally sad their situation is, that is OUTRAGEOUS. I never liked the guy, but how about some regard for his supporters and donors and staff??
Given the cost to this country of corruption at all levels, particularly the state and federal levels, with earmarks and “favors” constantly being revealed, why IS it such a bad idea to expect “moral” behavior from our politicians, beginning with honesty inside marriage?
Isn’t it big friggin’ CLUE about their behavior? Used to be called “showing character.”
If Edwards lies to his wife, what should the rest of us expect? (That goes for all of them.)
I am with you, Simon. Obama’s critics scored some points with the “Celebrity without Portfolio” angle. Edward’s portfolio isn’t really isn’t one; it’s baggage. There is no way Obama lets Edwards and his baggage anywhere near Denver and his lightweight portfolio.
“Mickey or me? I’m not sure.
I still think “Mickey or I” [are right] is the subject here.
Readers?”
You’re right, Roger.
(Though I would have put [is right] in the brackets above to have subject/verb number agreement.)
The phrase is clearly an answer to a question: Who is right? “Mickey” or “I” would be the subject of the reply, not the object (direct or indirect). You wouldn’t say “Me is right”; you’d say “I am right.”
Scott
Callow hallow. Wallow malo.
“Mickey or me”.
The verb is ‘Is’: “who’s right”, that is “Who is right”, contracted. “Who” is the subject, “Mickey” is an object, and the other subject should be “me”.
Has Edwards formally released his delegates? Sounds like he has every legal right to be there, and nowhere to go but oblivion if he falls out of the limelight.
What do you expect, a disinterested act of selflessness from a narcissist?
But, Rich, doesn’t that depend on what the meaning of “is” is?
It should be “Mickey or me.”
The way to determine it is to simply remove the other person and see which works.
But it’s safe to say we’ll never find out who’s right – me.
vs.
But it’s safe to say we’ll never find out who’s right – I.
I am absolutely incensed to read that my girl Hillary was robbed of the nomination by this cad Edwards. I certainly hope that others feel the same when we all meet in Denver. This is truly a shandah (sp).
Perhaps The One could talk Edwards into being his spokesperson at the anarchists’ “Recreate ’68″ party over in Denver City Park?
Isn’t there a “for the children” aspect to this. I mean, isn’t it, you know, wrong to leave this kid in paternal limbo? I mean, isn’t it incumbent on the mom to press for resolution of the paternity issue for the sake of her child?
At the convention, she could hold the kid up to the cameras and say,”Would the father of this poor child please stand up?” As Edwards bounds up to the podium, there won’t be a dry eye in the house. Especially tearful will be Obama.
Who is right? Is Mickey right, or am I?
OR
Who is right? Either Mickey is or I am.
Who is right? Is Mickey right? Am I right? Is Mickey or I right?
Doesn’t sound quite right but I think it is right, at least according to the rule my grammarian mom taught me.
How about a package deal at the Convention: Spitzer, Silky and Slick. Call em’ The Gang Of Cheaters…gang being a popular, political buzz word these days.
Does Spitzer have a nickname?
The sentence is constructed such that a case could be made for either pronoun. I think Achillea makes the best case here–the leave-it-out test is a good one for readability.
It’s an informal sentence. The independent clause “Mickey or I” is being used rather haphazardly to provide an assist to the clause “who’s right.” The sentence would stand alone without the addition (“We’ll never find out who’s right.”) but the author threw in the extra clause to add specificity. (And for good reason–Mickey hasn’t been mentioned since the first paragraph.)
So grammar doesn’t help much in this case. If you wanted a grammatically correct sentence there, you would have to reword. Since the meaning is clear, it wasn’t necessary.
Yep, he does….Spitzer the Spritzer
To be snubed by his party in Denver, to him, would be like the women of France who were forced to have their hair shaved off and walk the streets of Paris naked for having consorted with German Army officers. His vanity and the newness of back’s turned to him is not something he will be able to handle with his family
looking on. The twins will not understand, however, his teen daughter and his wife, plus his relatives must
have some power to control him at doing further damage politicaly. Pandoras box has been continually open in the political arena, “Will anyone in the near future slam it shut” and get our country back on track? It is sad
but I think not and we all know what happened in Rome, or do we, since even our school’s are being neglected while are elected actors are playing around on stage.This script is badly written and Edwards is not even a “Dorian Grey”.
But George Clooney is a good choice? Didn’t they learn in 2004 that most americans don’t like to be told what to do from the likes of Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, et al. The celebs backing Kerry turned most americans off – and now Obama cozies up to George “Darfur, but not Iraq” Clooney? Here’s hopin’ it backfires again.
Who’s right? Roger is correct. The verb “is” never carries the subjective case. All forms of “to be” (is, am, was, were etc, etc)use the objective pro-noun after the verb – unless grammar rules have changed since I was in the ninth grade (which very well may have done).
Re: Is Mickey Kaus suckering the Obama campaign?
- – -
Um, uh, well, yeah, he WAS suckering the Obamites, and they DID appear to be picking up the paintbrushes and walking up to Mickey’s fence, but, thanks to SOME people who just don’t know when silence can be golden, it looks like they’re catching on, which is good because we certainly wouldn’t want the Obamites to stand out there in the convention parking lot trying to run the math on the polls and thinking that maybe they’re missing something and so they should let Mr. “Your forceps destroyed my baby’s cerebrum without even scratching his skin” Edwards speak during prime time after all – no, we wouldn’t want that, because, politics aside, we’re all human and we don’t really want any of our brothers or sisters to look THAT stoopid.
(I bet people who know you don’t take you hunting with them anymore, do they?)