Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa?

---

---

Back in 1884, when it turned out that Democratic presidential nominee Grover Cleveland had fathered a child outside of marriage, it was part of one of the most vicious presidential campaigns in American history — to that point.

The Republicans had won the White House in six consecutive elections, ever since Abraham Lincoln was first elected in 1860.

In nearly a quarter of a century, the only Democrat to be president was Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's second vice president who became president when Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 and thus served most of that term. Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant handily won the 1868 and 1872 elections for the Republicans.

But in 1884, at the end of a four-year term that had seen the assassination of the duly elected president (James Garfield) and the lackluster presidency of his successor (Chester Arthur), the country seemed ready to elect a Democrat.

Cleveland's opponent was Maine Sen. James G. Blaine, who had been denied his party's nomination in the two previous elections because of a scandal that had erupted over the discovery of the "Mulligan letters" — correspondence from Blaine that showed he was guilty of selling his influence while in Congress.

The "Mulligan letters" had been found by a Boston bookkeeper named Mulligan in 1876 and made public. Blaine refused to admit that he had written the letters.

Democrats liked to attend Blaine's speeches in those days and chant, "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine!"

When Blaine finally got the Republican nomination in 1884, his party thought it had found the personal character issue that would level the playing field against Cleveland:

"Grover the Good," as Cleveland was known, had been involved with a woman and allegedly fathered a baby with her. The child had gone to an orphanage, and, according to the story, the woman had flipped out and been committed to an asylum.

In fact, the woman didn't flip out. And she had received child support from Cleveland, even though, at the time of her relationship with him, the woman was involved with several other men as well.

No one ever knew who the actual father of her child was, and it was believed by many that Cleveland took responsibility because he was the only bachelor with whom the woman was involved.

Cleveland's instructions to his staff were simple. "Tell the truth." Thus, the campaign decided the best way to handle the issue was to be candid about it from the beginning.

No awkward denials of having a relationship with that woman.

To be sure, there were some uncomfortable moments — Blaine's supporters countered the anti-Blaine chant with their own version, which has become much more famous in the annals of history — "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"

But Blaine continued to have problems of his own.

Although Catholics would not become legitimate contenders for the presidency until well into the next century, their votes mattered in 1884, and Blaine's campaign suffered from a remark by a Republican Protestant preacher in the closing days of the campaign:

"We are Republicans," he said, "and we don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion."

If Blaine, who was in the audience, was unaware of the anti-Catholic implications of "Romanism," a Democratic operative in the audience was aware of them, and the Democrats spread the word of the slur.

It was enough to make Lee Atwater proud.

The preacher's remark was said to energize Catholic voters and motivate them to support the Democrats. In the end, Cleveland triumphed. Narrowly.

Cleveland won the Electoral College vote, 219-182, and the popular vote by less than one-half of 1%. The New York governor was elected because his home state barely gave him its 36 electoral votes — possibly on the strength of the Catholic vote.

That was an era of truly close elections. Four years earlier, Garfield won the popular vote by less than 2,000 votes (one-tenth of 1%) but achieved a wider margin in the Electoral College, 214 to 155.

The election of 1876, though, was the closest and most disputed election until the Gore-Bush election of 2000. The compromise that put Rutherford Hayes into the White House (by one hotly contested electoral vote) brought about the conclusion of Reconstruction.

When he sought re-election in 1888, Cleveland's infidelity wasn't the issue. In fact, he won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. In 1892, Cleveland was nominated for the third time and was elected, becoming the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.

I guess what I'm leading up to is simply this: The voters of America can be very forgiving if a candidate is honest about these matters when they come up. But they tend to be less forgiving of liars.

(As Dwight Eisenhower once remarked, upon reflecting on the U-2 incident in his final year as president in which his administration tried to convince America and the world that it hadn't deliberately violated Soviet airspace, "When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, there's no point in pretending that you were out in the field someplace.")

John Edwards' campaign for the 2008 presidential nomination ended in January when he announced his withdrawal.

If it isn't clear to everyone by now — including Edwards — any chance that he could ever be nominated for president ended this week when he conceded the truth of the rumors of his extramarital affair. Rumors that have been circulating for nearly a year.

Edwards admitted the affair with a former campaign employee in an interview with ABC News' Bob Woodruff, but he said the woman's child isn't his.

The family of Edwards' former mistress wanted him to take a DNA test to remove all doubt. But Edwards' former mistress apparently has ruled that out.

The piling on has begun.

"[T]he National Enquirer, whose initial report last December set about the chain of events that produced Edwards' admission on Friday of an extramarital affair, has done what three failed national campaigns couldn't by ending Edwards' future in national politics," says Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer. "The catch is: Edwards doesn't seem to realize it yet."

Kirsten Powers of the New York Post is blunt in her assessment of Edwards: "If it looks like a phony, walks like a phony, quacks like a phony, it's a phony."

In an editorial, the Post takes aim at everything Edwards has said and done and labeled it "sleaze."

I'm not sure that's fair, but I have to admit that Edwards has brought it on himself.

As someone who supported Edwards — and, frankly, was disappointed when he dropped out before I could vote for him in the Texas primary in March — I've been having many thoughts about this matter.

I'm no prude, but I'd like to see people who want to be the leader of the last superpower on earth show that they are committed to certain principles.

I don't want to elect a pope. I want to elect a president.

As a centrist Democrat, I was drawn to Edwards' solutions for the problems facing this country.

I agreed with his complaints about income inequality in America. The sanctimonious symbolism of the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has made no tangible difference in the quality of the lives of most blacks and women in this country.

The stability of employment and income can make a difference — for everyone — white, black, male, female, young, old.

I was also drawn to Edwards' apparently sincere appeals for affordable and accessible health care, particularly in light of his wife's cancer.

And a coherent, long-term strategy for weaning this country from its addiction to foreign oil is desperately needed. Not the blatant attempt to buy votes with a meaningless "summer gas tax holiday" or the finger-pointing (and ultimately ineffective) calls for a windfall profits tax.

But I'm dismayed that the Democrats who seek the presidency frequently have this character flaw — whether it's the ones like Edwards, Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy, who do not get the nomination, or the ones like Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who not only win the nomination but the election as well.

Clinton's infidelity sidetracked his second term.

Kennedy's infidelity allegedly led him to compromise national security secrets in his conversations with his lovers — and may have ultimately led to the death of Marilyn Monroe (if one believes the tales that have circulated about that relationship).

Roosevelt's infidelity nearly cost him his marriage — and could have kept him from being nominated for president.

Of course, Democrats aren't the only ones who have this problem.

General Eisenhower had a wartime affair.

Warren Harding had an affair with the wife of an old friend.

Even John McCain cheated on his former wife with his now current wife.

So neither side has a monopoly on this issue.

Edwards will not be the Democratic nominee in November. After the recent revelations, I don't expect to see his name on a national ticket again.

So let him fade from the national stage.

I just hope whoever is elected president this year will have the wisdom and the courage we need.