Just as Bill Clinton's public undressing in the Lewinsky scandal led indirectly to the exposure of several high-profile Republican affairs, Edwards' revelation will inevitably put pressure on the press in general to scrutinize John McCain under something more searching than the JFK rules they've applied to date. I assure you that this dimension of the story occurred to every reporter even tangentially involved in reporting this race soon after the Edwards story hit yesterday afternoon.
Sexual misconduct alone won't take down a good politician. Two additional factors are usually required: hypocrisy and a skimpy record of accomplishment. Bill Clinton and Larry "Wide Stance" Craig lost a little dignity, but were able to survive; John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer became instant roadkill. If Josh and his press pals think they have something on McCain, they'd better come up with more than the Iseman Affair or a few gin-soaked tales of post-Vietnam debauchery. Unless a McCain sex scandal involves recent and egregiously irresponsible behavior or the pitter-patter of little (or even not-so-little!) feet, it will backfire on whoever tries to peddle it.
Few things are as loathsome as the spectacle of the media in full Moral Outrage Mode, but they're correct when they point out that Edwards' phoniness turned out to be genuine. We didn't really know the guy at all. That's why the Edwards "revelation," should it become lodged in the public consciousness, has the potential to damage Barack Obama. Obama, like Edwards, is fundamentally a mystery man with no accomplishments who is all about talk and image rather than character. (I'm not vouching for McCain, and I would never vote for him. I'm just saying I don't know who Obama is. That's his problem, not mine. He's running too early.)
1 comment:
Right you are, and history proves you out on the Edwards comments. As far as Obama, he may do a passable job if his head doesn't get too big, but that's looking less likely all the time.
Post a Comment