As Democrats scurry to distance themselves from John Edwards and urge, hope and pray that he not show up at the Democratic National Convention, shouldn’t it occur to at least one journalist among the vast mainstream media to ask Barack Obama and other leading Democrats this obvious question:
Why are Democrats treating John Edwards so differently?
Who, what, where, when, why and how are the questions every journalist learns to ask in the first day of Introduction to Journalism class.
So why aren’t the media asking Democrats to explain exactly why they are throwing John Edwards overboard? The media are reporting what Democrats are saying about Edwards and how Democrats are treating him – but they painstakingly avoid asking them why.
Almost immediately following Edwards’ admission that the story that everyone knew about (but the mainstream media had refused to acknowledge) was indeed true, the media was informing us that Barack Obama “understood” that Edwards would be a no-show at the Democratic National Convention.
Also almost immediately following Edwards’ admission, the media uncovered and promptly reported to us that Barack Obama had just ordered pancakes as take-out.
But somehow they can’t bring themselves to ask obvious questions about the puzzlingly different treatment of Edwards by his fellow Democrats.
Democrats are acting as if Edwards has done something so offensive to Democratic Party standards that they fear that any reminder that he is one of theirs could so repel voters as to hurt Democrats at the polls in November.
Why? What is it about the Edwards matter that makes it so different for Democrats?
It can’t be that Edwards lied to the American people. By that standard the Democrats might have to hold a convention at which no current or past Democratic candidate for President would be in attendance.
Here’s a suggestion: They will be making delegates and others pass through metal detectors to gain admission to their convention, right? So if Democrats really want us to believe that they now disapprove and disown any Democratic Party leader who lies to us, why not set up a second entrance line and make their candidates and former nominees pass through a lie detector machine? Is it perhaps because they fear that if either of the Clintons did so there it would cause a power outage in Denver?
It can’t be that Edwards lied about sex. By that standard how do they explain welcoming and assigning a prime speaking slot to the world’s best known liar about sex — Bill Clinton?
All through the long ordeal while Bill Clinton was shaking his finger at us and lying about Monica Lewinski, and then after he, like Edwards, got caught in the lie, Democrats said that because it was “only about sex” we needed to “move on.” What has become of the “only” defense when their embarrassment this time around is named John Edwards rather than Bill Clinton? For Clinton — who lied under oath thereby committing the crime of perjury for which he was disbarred — it’s move on; for Edwards who lied but not under oath it’s move away. Why?
It can’t be that they find it such an embarrassment to feature at their convention a former Presidential candidates whom so many believe may have fathered a “love child.”
At their last convention Democrats had no reservations about welcoming and awarding a prime speaking slot to Jesse Jackson for whom DNA testing had previously confirmed a “love child” born to the pregnant mistress whom he had brought along to an Oval Office meeting with Bill Clinton while he was serving as Clinton’s “spiritual counselor.”
How could having suspected “love child” daddy Edwards address the convention be more embarrassing to them than having DNA-proven “love child” daddy Jackson? Just remember what Jesse said at the 2004 convention about John Edwards: “He understands peanut-butter sandwiches and Kool-Aid…We thank God that John Kerry chose John Edwards on the ticket. It makes hope and healing come alive.”
And it certainly can’t be the fact that John Edwards is their biggest ever embarrassment.
Even as Democratic Party convention planners are hoping and scheming to keep their association with John Edwards hidden and forgotten they are putting finishing touches on a lavishly produced video that delegates and the television audience will view honoring a Democrat who is best remembered for leaving a young girl gasping for her last breaths while the water rose in his submerged car as he fled the scene of the accident, ignoring opportunity after opportunity to call for help, returning to a party, seeking out someone to take the fall for him and then attempting to establish a false alibi.
The adulation Democrats heap on the likes of Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Teddy Kennedy should cause every mainstream media journalist to ask: Why are the Democrats treating John Edwards so differently?
But so far they all media remain adamant in their refusal to ask Democrats such inconvenient questions.
Until they do, we can only speculate.
I suspect that what truly annoys the Democrats about John Edwards is that he had the bad timing to embarrass them this close to their convention. They don’t want him around while the memory of what a phony he really is remains so fresh in the public’s memory — and they fear that if voters see him out in public associating with the likes of Clinton, Jackson and Kennedy just might rekindle in the minds of voters reminders of what types the Democrats so adore.
And I suspect that this is all they really care about the matter.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter