I can't help but feel that the US presidential vetting system we use, which is based largely on the media and opposing campaigns conducting candidate research, has a serious flaw. How else can you explain the fact that John Edwards got as far into the process as he did not just once, but twice?
At the risk of taking a tone of righteous indignation too many times in one week, let me say this: John Edwards is a bad person. I'm guessing he has been a bad person for a long time, certainly before 2004 when he was selected to run on the Democratic Party's ticket as vice-president. He came within 19 electoral votes of actually becoming vice-president, too. If about 118,000 more people in Ohio had voted for Kerry, Edwards would have been the US vice-president. He then ran for president in 2008 and made a decent splash before succumbing to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In a year with a lower-quality field of candidates, he may have secured the nomination.
Now he is trying to avoid prison. Edwards is under investigation by the FBI and IRS for campaign violations stemming from payments to his mistress, Rielle Hunter. Apparently cheating on his wife, his cancer-stricken and dying wife, wasn't enough. He also felt the need to funnel campaign cash her way too. And have a child with her- but then deny that the child was his and ask a campaign staffer to accept responsibility instead (which he actually did). Maybe that's why Edwards spends so much money on his outer self: pricey haircuts, expensive suits, pedicures... He is compensating for the total black hole that is his inner-self.
The vetting process didn't come close to exposing Edwards, particularly in 2004 as he was poised to assume the second highest executive position in the US government. In 2008, The National Enquirer found the truth, but nobody believed them, at least not enough to run with a story. Fortunately, at least some Edwards staffers in 2008 were preparing for a Doomsday scenario to sabotage the campaign if it ever reached a realistic possibility of securing the nomination.
It's good to know that at least some political staffers are not interested in winning at all costs (I would have believed that to be the case, but confirmation is nice too). Unfortunately, some candidates are willing to win at all costs. Edwards was one of them. He still shows almost no signs of actual remorse, either. When he announced that Hunter's child was his, he actually said, "It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me." WHEN SHE UNDERSTANDS. As if there is something to "understand." Even in the act of "apologizing" Edwards suggests that if we would all just think about it a bit more, if his daughter specifically would think about it a bit more, one day we and she would "get it," and at that point forgiveness would freely flow. Like I said, he is a bad guy.
The vetting system didn't work with Edwards, and it is a safe bet it has failed us for others too (speaking at more than just the presidential level). Fixing the system is much harder than diagnosing the problem. I suspect part of the failure was due to journalism losing much of its investigative edge. All too often reporters settle for quick sound byte responses without doing any actual legwork themselves. I suspect part of the problem is also that reporters become embedded in campaigns and need to maintain decent relationships with the campaign if they are going to get cooperation (like good quotes without investigation). Would it help to rotate campaign staffers off of campaigns more often? To focus less on gathering that one great quote which will set the day's news cycle in favor of a deeper story on the campaign or issues raised by the campaign or constituents? I'm certain all of those steps would help, but unfortunately those steps aren't quick fixes, nor is it clear they mesh with the news organizations' primary interest of driving viewership/readership. Ironically, a news organization which would have spent the time and effort tracking down the veracity of the Edwards' story would have had huge viewership/readership, particularly if released during the campaign (the Enquirer did very well even after the fact). Several Edwards staffers would have been happy to contribute from the sound of things.
I'm not advocating eliminating all levels of privacy for candidates. There must be a balance between their legitimate privacy interests and the public's need for information. At least with respect to Edwards, that balance tilted much too far towards the candidate.
Check us out at http://www.thefourthbranch.com