I am glad John Edwards is not the Democratic nominee.

I will have more to say on this story in the next day or two. Meanwhile, here are some links for you.

Edwards talks to ABC News about the affair and denies he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s child:

Edwards blamed the affair on the adulation surrounding his remarkable rise into presidential politics.

“I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You’re invincible. And there will be no consequences.”

Elizabeth Edwards says she and her husband began “a long and painful process” after he told her about the affair in 2006. She adds:

John has spoken in a long on-camera interview I hope you watch. Admitting one’s mistakes is a hard thing for anyone to do, and I am proud of the courage John showed by his honesty in the face of shame.  

David Mizner says, “Stop Moralizing, You Sickening Scolds:

So another human showed himself to be human, and nominal progressives hop on their high horses and moralize and judge and get all dewey-eyed in support of Elizabeth, as if you have any idea what went on in their marriage, and in their bed. As if you have any right to know.

This is none of our business.

This is an American sickness, this need to know–the belief that we’re entitled to know–about the sexual lives of politicians.

But but but, you don’t have a problem with the sex, you say, you have a problem with his lying about it. Yeah, that’s what Ken Starr said too.

Meteor Blades speaks for many in this angry response to Mizner’s diary:

One can argue persuasively that it shouldn’t matter.  But should isn’t the real world, and it’s delusional to operate these days as a politican with the idea that what you have done doesn’t affect how some people might vote.

You knew when you declared for the presidency that this affair hung over you, that it might easily come to light. That it could, had you gained the nomination, have wrecked the party’s chances for winning the White House, tamped down support for Democrats running for seats in Congress, and set progressives back a decade. You knew that when you kept your name in the hopper for the vice presidency.

But you kept running anyway. You lied. And you got others to lie for you. You did this knowing full well the damage that could be done, not to your marriage, but to the party and the aspirations for better governance of those who looked to you as a leader who could help bring it about.

Ezra Klein uses less colorful language than Blades but makes a similar point:

No one forces you to devote your life to national advocacy of important issues. But if you decide to do follow that path, with all the plaudits and moments of roaring applause it entails, you have to make certain sacrifices, and shoulder certain realities. Among them is that if you falter, you can harm all that you’re advocating and deny help to all whom you claim to represent. I don’t know if it’s true that Edwards’ affair started and ended in 2006, but if so, that’s actually the most morally unforgivable of possible timelines.

Matt Stoller still believes Edwards is a phony but doesn’t get “the rush to vilify him as the worst person ever.”

Meanwhile, Cenk Uygur asks some important questions:

Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran?

Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it’s not the affair but the lies that went along with it. Really? Did JFK come out and tell the American people – or his wife – “by the way, while my wife was in the hospital I was having an affair with not one, but several women at the same time”? No, of course, he lied too. Every man that has ever cheated on his wife has lied (and so has every woman who has ever cheated). It is part and parcel of the affair.

Now, we get to the most relevant question – if John Edwards’ political career is done, why isn’t John McCain’s? John McCain had a well-documented affair on his first wife, with his current wife. He has admitted in the books he has written about his life that he ran around with several different women while still married to his first wife. And don’t forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman – multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain – after she had been severely hurt in a car accident.

So, why are McCain’s actions any more excusable than Edwards’? Because it was thirty years ago? Does that wash it away? Will we be fine with Edwards running for office again in a couple of years because then it will all be in the past? What is the statute of limitations on an affair?

Digby wants to know why journalists haven’t followed up on the New York Times story about McCain’s alleged affair:

I personally don’t care who and of these people are sleeping with (especially McCain). Marriage is a very complicated institution and I don’t pass judgment on how others conduct theirs. I think this is all bullshit. But if the media has decided that even a failed politician who has no chance at the presidency can be subject to this kind of scrutiny, then they need to be a little bit more vigilant about pursuing someone who is the nominee of his party and has been very publicly linked to a specific woman by the paper of record, not the National Enquirer. If these are the rules, then this guy is a far more likely subject of scrutiny than Edwards.

In theory, I agree with Mizner that what goes on in a politician’s marriage is none of our business.

But in reality, I see no way that this affair could have been kept secret during a long campaign. If it was important to John and Elizabeth Edwards to prevent this media circus from happening, then he should have declined to run for president.

I also feel embarrassed to have inadvertently misled people in the course of advocating for Edwards.

I can’t count the number of times I said it would be less risky to nominate him, because he’s been under intense national scrutiny since 2004, so the Republicans would not be able to dig up new dirt on him.

Or in the words of another precinct captain I know, who used this line many times, “He’s been in the spotlight for years, and the worst they can say about him is he has a big house and paid too much for a haircut.”

Tonight I’m feeling more sorry than ever that Al Gore sat out this presidential campaign.