UPDATED after the jump
"Dissent Is Not Disloyalty" has been a popular slogan to quickly explain to people who progressives can hate the war but love the country. I'm reminded of that slogan as I think about the reactions I've gotten to my writing about the John Edwards scandal.
As a long standing member of the DKos community, this hasn't been a fun subject for me to write about. I realized when I wrote my initial story - also cross posted on the Huffington Post - that I was ahead of the curve on the story. I'd reached some conclusions that few other progressives seemed to have reached at the time. I could tell, however, that in the fullness of time the facts would bear out my conclusions so I took a deep breath and wrote as carefully and honestly as I could.
The sheer force of the anger here at Kos surprised me. It's as though many here forget that dissent is not disloyalty. I was insulted and cursed. My loyalty was questioned; I was accused of being a concern troll and a GOP plant.
Suddenly, I understood that being ahead of a story meant being in a pretty lonely place.
We aren't going to beat the Republicans by acting like the worst of them. We're also not going to beat them by acting willfully ignorant.
When looking at the Edwards scandal, some people failed to see the difference between a 'rumor' and a direct statements by reporters confirmed by an independent source, even though those may not be sources we like.
I understand that. Looking past one's own personal biases is one of the hardest things to do and the accusations are painful for many people. The implications, especially for the Edwards family, are tragic to think about.
But you can't let your dislike of Fox or the Enquirer blind you and shut your brain and all discussion down. It's wrong when conservatives dismiss the New York Times out of hand and it's wrong when we do it with Fox. Be skeptical, yes -- but be thoughtful.
Unfortunately, the story is taking the path I predicted. If you wanted sources other the Enquirer, you're getting them and nothing they are reporting is good for Edwards. No, there's nothing that settles this once and for all but the very nature of a cover up is that it takes a while for the entire truth to come out. Do a quick Google News search for the past 24 hours and you won't find a thing that makes Edwards' actions any less suspicious.
Please don't mischaracterize my point. I haven't written about moral condemnation or used insults like 'sleazy'. I don't think that way. The very title of my original piece - Say It Ain't So, John - is the discouraged question of a fan, not the angry finger pointing of a zealot. Edwards needs to clear this up so we can get on with the business of forgiving him and moving on. As progressives, we need to rise above the false choice between blind judgment and blind apathy. We're the reality based community, remember? My concern isn't fake and it isn't emotional. It's practical.
Edwards has created a problem in his personal life but he's also created a problem in his professional life. He's hurt the Edwards brand.
The rap against Edwards has always been that he was a 'phony'. Conservatives loved calling him a fake and they'd point to the supposed contradiction of populist getting an expensive haircut.
One of the things that we Edwards fans could always point to in response to that noise was Edwards' relationship with his wife Elizabeth. Who doesn't love Elizabeth Edwards? John Edwards touted his relationship with his wife in interviews and appearances. The Edwards marriage helped us believe in John Edwards - if Elizabeth loved him, he couldn't be a phony, could he?
Edwards has blown that by turning out to be a phony in one of the areas that nobody I knew even questioned. He's acting no better than any deer-caught-in-the-headlight Republican.
Worst of all, he's making chumps out of the people defending him the most.
One unintended consequence of the Edwards cover up is that it forces him to imply that it's his accusers who are the liars. As long as he's working to sustain his illusion of innocence, he'll have no choice but to let those around him lie on his behalf. As more and more hard facts keep coming out, Edwards loyalists will increasingly be defending him sole on the basis of his word. "Edwards said it, I believe it and that settles it" won't turn out to be a better path to the truth.
UPDATE: Commenter berryberry lays out the evidence - it's not conclusive, of course, but nobody who understand what 'evidence' is can there is none.
He says...
Of course there is evidence, most of which is circumstantial. To put my lawyer hat on for a moment, that does not make it inadmissible. In a court context, all of the following would be admitted into evidence.
1. Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter know each other and have shared proximity. Thus, they’ve had opportunity for conversation.
2. There are eyewitnesses to JRE’s visit to Ms Hunter and the child at the Beverly Hilton.
3. A corroborating, disinterested witness places Mr Edwards at the Beverly Hilton, hiding in a restroom and avoiding the NE reporters.
4. The act of visiting alone tends to prove (not disprove) some relationship. (The recklessness of the act (in the absence of a relationship) is more a commentary upon the quality of the evidence.)
5. The witnesses attest (sort of...this is the NE) that they attempted to question JRE. His response was to run and hid in the toilet. This is "guilty conscience" evidence.
6. Aware that this matter is swirling around him, Mr. Edwards was sought by members of the MSM yesterday (at another hotel, ironically) for comment about the NE report. Mr. Edwards evaded the MSM and sought an alternative exit where he would not be seen. Again, any trial attorney would point to this conduct as admissible on the basis that it demonstrates "consciousness of guilt." When asked, Mr Edwards proffered an excuse that he lacked time to respond.
7. There is a child. She has DNA.
It is wishful thinking for those in this forum to ignore this with the an unexamined mantra that there is" no evidence. " And of course let us not forget the inevitability of a DNA test, an admission by Ms Hunter and an admission by Mr. Edwards. Can there be any doubt that these are on the way?