Here we go again. Another person in the political arena has been found in the wrong bedroom, so to speak.
Yes, John Edwards has admitted he was unfaithful to his wife. "I made a serious error in judgment," he has said.
It is a transgression with which he and she have to deal.
But why oh why does just about every Jack and Jill feel obliged to pass judgment on Edwards?
"Well, he's not to be trusted as a politician if he would do something like this," some people say. Would you continue to trust your doctor, your accountant, your hairdresser to serve you well, if their personal life were held up to scrutiny and found to be less than idyllic?
"It's politics," a friend said to me of the reports of the latest scandal in the political world. And, of course, talk of President Clinton's infidelity is again being resurrected. And as in Clinton's case, body language interpreters are jumping into the mix. One has stated, among other things, that Edwards blinked his eyes a lot when he said he had ended the affair in 2006, which reveals he was lying.
Very astute analysis. Not!
Why not run a contest to discover just how long a person can go without blinking when standing under floodlights during a stressful situation?
The media has been criticized for carrying such stories, but I think the blame must be shared with the public — the media is only pandering to the public's insatiable desire to know about politicians' and celebrities' sexual escapades.
In the days before politicians' personal lives were considered public property, men in the spotlight who romanced women other than their wives went unscathed by the media.
And did our country suffer because of their shenanigans? From what I read in history books, Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did laudable jobs as president, despite being involved in extramarital affairs. And there is a long list of politicians who were known to be philanderers, and yet satisfactorily performed their duties.
It is essential that we examine the political beliefs of anyone who wishes to hold a high office in government. But they should be allowed to keep their sexual activities private. Reporters of any worth surely can unearth more inspiring stories than those that send them snooping into hotel rooms.
It is their loved ones to whom the transgressors must answer, begging forgiveness for the hurt they inflicted on them. And if they believe in a God, they will amend their lives.
Whenever I hear people condemn a person who is guilty of immoral behavior, I think of the scripture reading that goes, "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Now that the Edwards scandal has been brought to our attention, let us, at least, give him a chance to clean up the mess he has created, without "staring" at him. It seems the decent thing to do.
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
Comments are closed for this article. If you would like to contribute information on this article, e-mail us at info@iBerkshires.com
What you "read in history books" about Thomas Jefferson was wrong. There is no evidence of an affair while he was married and no conclusive evidence of sexual alliances after he was widowed. You can read a lot which presents a contrary view, but it is not supported by a careful study of the facts.
Please make certain that your statements are correct. Thomas Jefferson's marriage was on very sturdy ground. He never engaged in an extra marital affair. His beloved wife died young and, on her death bed, asked Jefferson to promise not to remarry. So any relationships that he had occurred after her death. There is also no definite proof that he had children with Sally Hemings. The DNA might be traceable to his brother who was also at Monticello. Many experts seriously doubt that Jefferson would have fathered chldren with her. It was very much out of character.
Even if sex shouldn't matter to the public or press, I think public corruption should.
Edwards used donated campaign-related funds to support his mistress, an inexperienced videographer, and if the timing of their affair is in accordance with reports from her friend, he hired her after the affair started, and likely because of the affair.
The fact that a billionaire backer of Edwards spent millions to put the pregnant mistress in expensive houses (next to the man who claimed to father the child, but will likely prove to be Edwards' beard) also makes Edwards beholden to a backer to an extent which most of us should consider problematic, as reflected in the sorts of laws which limit contributions to a few thousand dollars, which laws are widely supported especially among Democrats.
That a Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated was challenged in 1998 by the results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists. The study - which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson - indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings.
Jefferson had at least one child with Hemmings, probably more. Most of the modern denials of this come from the white descendants of Jefferson do not want to let their black cousins join the family reunion. Seriously,