When bashing the bishop makes a difference...

...and how randiness became John Edwards' own undoing

John Edwards was my favourite Democrat out of all the X-Factor contenders for the White House. His policies were brave. He talked the talk and walked the walk, and his social manifesto stood out from both Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's in so far as it was unashamedly centred around the lower classes. Which, in the States or anywhere, isn't exactly run of the mill. Things like taxing the super-rich, protecting benefits, introducing universal health care, shunning the influence of big corporations. With a programme like that, Edwards would never have stood a chance. However, at some point, it looked like the senator from South Carolina could have played a role in Obama's team. Well, not anymore.

It looks like his own randiness has wrecked his political chances. You've probably read all about it already: during his campaign, John Edwards was caught cheating on his terminally ill wife and there are also persistent rumours that he fathered a love-child. Now, who gives a fuck?

Fair enough an element of initial curiosity, but why do the press keep devoting so much more coverage to the scandal than they ever did to the candidate's actual policies? It's exactly this haze of triviality that fosters apathy. Of course no-one denies Edwards would have been better off if he'd let his demons out through a nice old Barclays rather than impregnating a campaign aide, but that doesn't make him any more immoral than President Bush or John McCain. The latter, lest we forget, the man who dumped his wife after she was crippled in an accident.

So, amidst all the predictable anti-Edwards cries of 'foul play', 'lying' and 'dumbass', there stands an article by Lionel Shriver out in today's Observer :"Give me a randy politician any time - as long as he cuts inflation".