Edwards Admits to Affair with Mistress

[Crazed Rabbit]

But still denies the child is his, though he says he hasn't taken a paternity test.

Apparently the National Enquirer was right. Maybe LA Time bloggers can blog about the whole thing now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1


John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

CR

[Xiahou]

but said that he did not love her. What, is that supposed to be his equivalent of "I didn't inhale"? He didn't love the woman he cheated on his wife with- that makes it better. :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I know, that bit caught my eye. So it wasn't romance, just lust.

Of course, I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

:laugh4:

More later..... :laugh4:

[Marshal Murat]

If John Edwards said that he contacted aliens, and now owned Mars and Jupiter, and was preparing to invade Venus, he would be getting the same sort of media response.

Even if it was true, we don't care.

[Viking]

If John Edwards said that he contacted aliens, and now owned Mars and Jupiter, and was preparing to invade Venus, he would be getting the same sort of media response.

Even if it was true, we don't care.



Apparently, he has invaded more than one Venus already. :book:

[Mailman653]

No one will want him as VP now lol, he cheated on his wife when she had cancer, thats just wrong.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Oh God, imagine if he had gotten the nomination... :laugh4:

Can anyone else picture his dead-in-the-water campaign and the mad scrambling the DNC would try to do as the conventions loomed?

I'm actually mad this scenario didn't take place. High drama denied!

[discovery1]

44 years old? I was expecting someone younger.

:laugh4: @ GH

[drone]

44 years old? I was expecting someone younger.

:laugh4: @ GH

There's a pic on the CNN article. Not exactly a looker. :no: You would think he could do better, being a top presidential candidate and all. The affair itself might not have done him in, but his taste in mistresses would have!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/index.html

[Devastatin Dave]

There are two Americas, as Mr Edwards would say...
One is where, if you were a Republican, as soon as this story would have even been remotely true the media would have pounced it like a vulture on a dead bloated cow.
The other America is where the media will do EVERYTHING in its power to help a fellow democrat hide this sort of story from the public in order to keep their kind in power.

This is why Obama, even with all the help he is recieving from the main stream media, is tied with McCain in the polls. Most know the media has a leftist agenda and this story proves it. If Edwards was a republican, all the networks would have jumped on it before the "tabloids" could have even touched it.

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh, and I posted this first and of course it got closed....
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106140
Take that bitches!!!:laugh4:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Another morally bankrupt politician, and liar to boot...say it ain't so ~:rolleyes: I bet he can't wait to go to church services this Sunday.:laugh4:

[CountArach]

Its none of my business what he does in his private life, but that fact that he did this and then proceeded to attempt to get the nomination - thus risking another 4 years of Republican rule, is despicable.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everyone knows that Edwards is a fraud. I'm sure that this comes as no surprise for even die hard liberals. I feel bad for his wife and the newborn in question.

It really isn't worth discussion, Edwards is finished.

[PanzerJaeger]

Its none of my business what he does in his private life, but that fact that he did this and then proceeded to attempt to get the nomination - thus risking another 4 years of Republican rule, is despicable.

In the same vein, apart from the comedic joy of seeing this pompous twit go down hard, I really don't care. However, I hope it gets tons of airplay in order to get the most value out of yet another Democratic scandal going into the election. This guy was very close to being our VP and had an honest shot at the nomination this round, so hopefully his scumbucket reality will damage the Democratic party, even if only a little. :2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

Here you go, kids: Edwards discussing Clinton (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/john_edwards_in_1999) in 1999. Enjoy!


I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

[Spino]

In the same vein, apart from the comedic joy of seeing this pompous twit go down hard, I really don't care. However, I hope it gets tons of airplay in order to get the most value out of yet another Democratic scandal going into the election. This guy was very close to being our VP and had an honest shot at the nomination this round, so hopefully his scumbucket reality will damage the Democratic party, even if only a little. :2thumbsup:

Indeed. How sweet would it have been to see Edwards get the VP nod by Obama and then have this story break? :devil: :evil:

[Ice]

Indeed. How sweet would it have been to see Edwards get the VP nod by Obama and then have this story break? :devil: :evil:

That would have been hilarious. Once again the democrats would have turned almost sure thing into a disaster.

I'm kind of upset it didn't happen. Not because I love the republicans, but because it would have been so damn funny. :laugh4:

[Marshal Murat]

"I did not have relations...oh wait, it's you Johnny Boy? Whew, close call Hillary."

[Louis VI the Fat]

During the primaries, I was wondering what such a slick ambulance chaser was doing up there. Sheesh, how do they slip through the nets and make it that far?

On the bright side, at least Democrats, unlike Republicans, have heterosexual extra-marital affairs. Imagine the headlines otherwise: 'But I didn't swallow!'

[Crazed Rabbit]

A-hem. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/mcgreevey.nj/)

CR

[GeneralHankerchief]

Do me a favor and never mention that disgrace's name in my presence again, CR. :wall:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Its none of my business what he does in his private life, but that fact that he did this and then proceeded to attempt to get the nomination - thus risking another 4 years of Republican rule, is despicable.

I think it's very important. It shows what sort of people they are when they think no-one is watching.

Oh, sorry GH - are you from Jersey?

CR

[Tribesman]

A-hem.

CR

Yes but if it was a gay democrat it wouldn't be in the biased liberal mainstream media as they only cover stories about Republicans , and everone knows that CNN is just a lonely online blogger working from his bedroom in LA

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gracious, the Puritan outrage in this thread is astonishing. I mean, if the chap had invaded another country under false pretenses, instigated a regime of casual torture and poured ordure all over the Constitution, I can see why he might not be a good candidate for president, but an extra-marital affair? That he (and I am so shocked - shocked, I tell you - that I can barely write this) lied about? :inquisitive:

I seem to recall that Senator McCain was revealed as someone who treated his ill first wife with some contempt - and quite rightly, we decided that it was sad, but a private failing.

America. 'Tis another world entire. :no:

[Kralizec]

I seem to recall that Senator McCain was revealed as someone who treated his ill first wife with some contempt - and quite rightly, we decided that it was sad, but a private failing.

I think the general feeling was that the story was suspicious because the Daily Mail ran it.

I'm not sure if a story like this would prevent me from voting for someone who otherwise appeals to me, but it does raise the question of how trustworthy he is.
A couple of years ago we had a local politician in Amsterdam who occupied an executive office responsible for education and some social policy. He was later revealed to be a regular visitor of red light districts (wich didn't bother me per se) but whatsmore, the district he visited was notorious for pressing foreigners, minors and drug addicts into prostitution. Would that bother you?

[HoreTore]

In the same vein, apart from the comedic joy of seeing this pompous twit go down hard, I really don't care. However, I hope it gets tons of airplay in order to get the most value out of yet another Democratic scandal going into the election. This guy was very close to being our VP and had an honest shot at the nomination this round, so hopefully his scumbucket reality will damage the Democratic party, even if only a little. :2thumbsup:

Yes, heaven forbid the election should be about, you know, actual politics...

[Lemur]

I think the general feeling was that the story was suspicious because the Daily Mail ran it.
Um, no, there are plenty of places (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,6546861.story?page=1) that did reporting on that story beyond the Daily Mail, although the story was never front-page news anywhere.

But Edwards' affair is different from McCain's because ... because it is. Republican sex scandals (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php) are different. 'Cause they are.

[Kralizec]

I can't find the post that triggered the discussion, but it was about a Daily Mail article. Noone denied that he divorced his wife, but if I recall correctly the article insinuated that he dumped his wife almost immediately after he returned to America while there was a gap of several years.

I never agreed with the fuss about Clinton's little escapade. Marital infidelity happens so much that it's impossible to get worked up about every one. But there are things that make it worse, such as doing it while you expect your wife to smile in front of cameras and support you while she has in all likelyhood only 2-3 years to live. It might not affect your ability to command the rest of us to do this or that, but it does make you a scumbag.

[Adrian II]

No one will want him as VP now lol, he cheated on his wife when she had cancer, thats just wrong.What do you actually know about Edwards, his marriage, his wife, his extramarital affair? You don't know Jack Split, my friend. Thousands of novels have been written about the difference between prominent people's personal lives and their public personae. They never, ever match, as you are bound to know from personal experience.

I think you're engaging in gratuitous character assassination, that's about all.

What gives us the right to judge other people's most intimate affairs on the basis of dumb or hasty news reports? Nothing. This is what is killing politics in our time: the assumption that the personal business of our politicians is our business, that we can have an exhaustive or at least an essential understanding of it, and that we can and should judge them on it. The end result of this nauseating trend will be a caste of bland, impersonal politicians with clean (or white-washed) personal records and with no character or insight into human nature whatsoever. I have said it before on this forum: on this basis true leaders like Churchill, De Gaulle, Kennedy or Gorbatchov could never be elected in our time. They all had 'issues' in their personal lives.

I feel that we should judge politicians on their merits in public life, not on the basis of gossip. What Edwrads did was lie about his previous lies about his personal life, meant to cover up things for the prying press and public that were nobody else's business to begin with.

[HoreTore]

I feel that we should judge politicians on their merits in public life, not on the basis of gossip.

:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

What do you actually know about Edwards, his marriage, his wife, his extramarital affair? You don't know Jack Split, my friend. Thousands of novels have been written about the difference between prominent people's personal lives and their public personae. They never, ever match, as you are bound to know from personal experience.

I think he's an egocentric narcissist (http://www.knbc.com/politics/17135521/detail.html), and that having such qualities harms a person's ability to lead and govern. That's why stuff like this is important; it reveals the character of people and that, I think, is a big factor in how people govern. Plus, I really hate having such a hypocritical son-of-a-bitch be in government and have power.


He also said, "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.

CR

[Adrian II]

I think he's an egocentric narcissist (http://www.knbc.com/politics/17135521/detail.html), and that having such qualities harms a person's ability to lead and govern. That's why stuff like this is important; it reveals the character of people and that, I think, is a big factor in how people govern. Plus, I really hate having such a hypocritical son-of-a-bitch be in government and have power.



CRJust look at your own wild assumptions there.

Who says an egocentric narcissist is unable to govern? In fact, who says that anyone but a egocentric narcissist is able to govern a country?

And can you name one or two great leaders who were not hypocritical sons of canine descent?

[Tribesman]

And can you name one or two great leaders who were not hypocritical sons of canine descent?
Adam and Abel

[Adrian II]

Adam and Abel:laugh4:

On the other hand, the case could be made that Abel brought his fate onto himself through his hypocrisy and Cain was the straight shooter. Correction, straight slayer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just look at your own wild assumptions there.

Who says an egocentric narcissist is unable to govern? In fact, who says that anyone but a egocentric narcissist is able to govern a country?

And can you name one or two great leaders who were not hypocritical sons of canine descent?

If I recall, people offered to George Washington the chance to become king of the newly free American nation. But he declined. So, in answer to your questions: I do.

CR

[GeneralHankerchief]

In this case, his private and public lives aren't entirely separate. One needs to ask: Why did he lie in the first place? Because, at the time, he was still hoping to get the Democratic nomination as well as potentially seek other offices. He was lying because otherwise it would hurt him politically; mainly, the voters would see him as a moral cesspool and not vote him in. As far as I'm concerned, that's as bad as lying about something once you're already in office.

And yeah CR, I'm from NJ. Any mention of him gets a vein to twitch.

[KarlXII]

Yes, heaven forbid the election should be about, you know, actual politics...

Please, we both know that you're spouting liberal propoganda, commie :2thumbsup:

[Adrian II]

If I recall, people offered to George Washington the chance to become king of the newly free American nation. But he declined. So, in answer to your questions: I do.

CRA slaveholder preaching freedom? You can go better than that. Or rather: you can't, and that's the problem you face.

The closer you look at any man's life, the sooner you spot his moral failures. Heck, you may even spot your own if you look into yourself a bit. It's how a man deals with them that matters, not whether he is squeaky clean from the ourside. And how Edwards really deals with them is something we will never know. We will never know what went on between Edwards and his wife, between him and the other woman, during the confrontation, the aftermath, etcetera. For all we know I (because we don't know squat) Mrs Edwards may have had a paramour well before Mr Edwards did, and he may be too decent to mention it and rather heap all the blame upon himself.

If he cheats on his income tax, hang him.
If he betrays his country, burn him.
But don't pretend to know what goes on in his heart of hearts. That's laughable and immature.

[CountArach]

I found this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/193337/7354/473/564989) written by Elizabeth Edwards (Don't worry CR, the URL can't hurt you...).


John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.

The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.

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. The toll on our family of news helicopters over our house and reporters in our driveway is yet unknown. But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

[GeneralHankerchief]

But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

No conduct in the first place = no voyeurism. It's Edwards's own fault.

[Kralizec]

@ Adrian: I'm unaware of any Dutch politicians being hung out to dry for being promiscuous (Rob Oudkerk was married, but that was not what the outrage was supposedly about)
Is this because they're more discreet, because the media is more respectful, because the people as a whole don't care much or...?

[Banquo's Ghost]

No conduct in the first place = no voyeurism. It's Edwards's own fault.

Ach. Moral certitude must be such a wonderful thing for you paladins.


The closer you look at any man's life, the sooner you spot his moral failures. Heck, you may even spot your own if you look into yourself a bit. It's how a man deals with them that matters, not whether he is squeaky clean from the ourside.

Absolutely right. For example, this quote from Lemur's article:


In a recent interview, McCain said he did not want to revisit the breakup of his marriage. "I have a very good relationship with my first wife," he said. In his autobiography, he wrote: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine."

This indicates to me a man willing to shoulder responsibility, and worthy of respect. But his marriage break-up was some long way in the past, and clearly took some time for healing. It is an experience that can only bring more humanity to the senator.

But why am I bothering? Bring your stones and cast down the adulterer. :no:

[Tribesman]

A slaveholder preaching freedom?
Ah but slaves didn't pay tax so they don't count , anyway they were not even real whole people so they are irrelevant to issues of freedom .

[Adrian II]

@ Adrian: I'm unaware of any Dutch politicians being hung out to dry for being promiscuous (Rob Oudkerk was married, but that was not what the outrage was supposedly about). Is this because they're more discreet, because the media is more respectful, because the people as a whole don't care much or...?The Dutch used to be as prudish as the next nation, certainly until the 1960's. But I think Fortuyn's career (he was not just openly gay, but open about his sexual promiscuousness, too) proves that they are just about immune these days. It's the openness about sexuality in general, coupled with acceptance of such practices as switching that does it, I believe.

Still there behaviours that are judged to be off limits, like last year's case of the Pvda (Social Democratic) alderman in Nijmegen, Mr Depla. He was orally satisfied by Miss Van Veluw, a member of the municipal council for the (Conservative) VVD, and this in the bicycle storage area of the town hall.. When I first heard this, I laughed so hard I nearly had a fit. I mean, I know we're attractive and the true powerhouse of the nation (power is an aphrodisiac) .. Anyway, the act was caught on cctv and the woman's party asked her to step down (which she didn't) because of the damage to the party's image. Depla was asked by some to step down as well on account of the damage done to the city's image, but he stayed on. Van Veluw is now an alderman herself, albeit in a neighbouring town.

I suspect the affair didn't damage his image at all, quite the contrary. :laugh2: :oops:

[PanzerJaeger]

I feel that we should judge politicians on their merits in public life, not on the basis of gossip. What Edwrads did was lie about his previous lies about his personal life, meant to cover up things for the prying press and public that were nobody else's business to begin with.


Oh stop it. He funneled campaign money to the slut, got an aide to claim his bastard, and put them all up in multimillion dollar houses; not to mention the risk he subjected the democratic party to. Apparently he has all the makings of a world class leader in your book. :beam:

Funny, I always thought his scandal would be of a different sort.. :belly:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/John-Edwards-President.jpg

[Adrian II]

Oh stop it. He funneled campaign money to the slut, got an aide to claim his bastard, and put them all up in multimillion dollar houses; not to mention the risk he subjected the democratic party to. Apparently he has all the makings of a world class leader in your book. :beam:

Funny, I always thought his scandal would be of a different sort.. :belly:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/John-Edwards-President.jpgThat made me laugh. You think you know better than Edwards' own wife, huh?

How come that puritans like you always claim to have such intimate knowledge of other people's sins? How can you tell right from wrong in someone else's intimate life on the basis of some crappy tabloid stories?

You are hardly an adult yourself and it shows in the ease with which you use a term like 'slut'. Heck, you have never held a steady job in your life, let alone carried responsibility for a wife and children or held political power. Have yo any inkling of what it does to people? You simply don't have the imagination (or you certainly don't show it) to grasp what I wrote earlier and what Edwards himself admitted in his Nightline interview: "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." If you think any politician could ever be immune to these sentiments, you live in Lalaland. What makes it even funnier is that you advocate a strong fascist state that would foment these exact sentiments in its leaders. Instead of a rethink, you give us a lynching.

Now IF Edwards paid his mistress out of his campaign fund as has been alleged, that's something he would have to answer for. He will have betrayed his followers and sponsors. Prove it, Panzer, and you have a case. Until further notice you are engaging in character assassination.

[CountArach]

Now IF Edwards paid his mistress out of his campaign fund as has been alleged, that's something he would have to answer for. He will have betrayed his followers and sponsors. Prove it, Panzer, and you have a case. Until further notice you are engaging in character assassination.
The National Enquirer is alleging he paid $15000 per month in hush money, but the link to the original article that mentioned it aren't working. DAMN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA! The closest I can come to is references to his friends and/or supporters making payments to her, probably not with the campaign money, as they would not have access to it.

Oh and Adrian, that story was hilarious. It reminds me of our last election, where it was revealed that the then leader of the opposition had visited a strip club when he was drunk in America. There was a huge media outrage and he was forced to publicly apologise to everyone (including his wife... again...). The great thing was that in the next set of polls (excuse the pun...) his numbers had increased. Then the pundits got thinking "Hey, this country must like that sort of thing in a Prime Minister!" He went on to be elected to be our Prime Minister...

In fact to quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_hawke#Early_life_and_education) on a former Prime Minster of ours...

His academic achievements were possibly outweighed by the notoriety he achieved as the holder of a world record for the fastest consumption of beer: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds.

That probably isn't relevant, but whatever...

[Adrian II]

[..] holder of a world record for the fastest consumption of beer: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds. W00t1! :laugh4:

[drone]

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie... Oi! Oi! Oi! :barrel:

[discovery1]

Nice CA, very nice. He would have gotten my vote.

[Papewaio]

I think we need from politicians honesty first.

If they are an upfront about adultery, then we can vote on the whole being.

If they lie about one thing, we can't be sure about another.

When it comes to marriage, that is not an exclusively private thing. It is a social contract between each other and society. Married couples expect and get in general (or at least used to) privileges above and beyond singles. Be they of a government or large company (bank & insurance) nature these privileges were there and intended to help the couple look after each other as they had promised. Society looking after the family unit so that the family unit can look after society.

Entertainment for ugly people, er politics is about society. For a lot of people the building blocks of society are individuals and families. The smallest social group we have are families and the largest are governments. A lying adulterer is an example of someone who cannot keep a promise and commitment to the smallest social unit, why on earth would we put them in charge of they largest? Particularly one that is large enough in power that a single office can start world wars by itself both conventional and nuclear.

Now if the person commits adultery with openness and grace, zing and verve they can by all means be elected. Mind you outside of France it will probably be against them.

=][=

I think a larger danger to humanity at large is an absolute moralist so sure of themselves and their moral black and white code that they will push the button to rid the world of those outside their moral circle.

Give me a leader, someone who can act, cope and communicate with the grey in the world. I would prefer a white hat to a black hat, just don't give me a pontiff when I want an economic leader.

[PanzerJaeger]

That made me laugh. You think you know better than Edwards' own wife, huh?

How come that puritans like you always claim to have such intimate knowledge of other people's sins? How can you tell right from wrong in someone else's intimate life on the basis of some crappy tabloid stories?

You are hardly an adult yourself and it shows in the ease with which you use a term like 'slut'. Heck, you have never held a steady job in your life, let alone carried responsibility for a wife and children or held political power. Have yo any inkling of what it does to people? You simply don't have the imagination (or you certainly don't show it) to grasp what I wrote earlier and what Edwards himself admitted in his Nightline interview: "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." If you think any politician could ever be immune to these sentiments, you live in Lalaland. What makes it even funnier is that you advocate a strong fascist state that would foment these exact sentiments in its leaders. Instead of a rethink, you give us a lynching.

Now IF Edwards paid his mistress out of his campaign fund as has been alleged, that's something he would have to answer for. He will have betrayed his followers and sponsors. Prove it, Panzer, and you have a case. Until further notice you are engaging in character assassination.


I'm not sure what your issue with 'slut' is, but you could insert 'tramp', 'gutter skank', or if those are too 'young' for you, 'homewrecker' would work I guess; although it would seem more appropriate coming from a 1950's housewife. What do you call women who knowingly sleep with married men who have small children?

And what of the children Adrian? In your outrage over America's outrage you haven't said much (anything?) about his kids. His wife wasn't the only person he betrayed, not to mention the poor little bastard. Daddy doesn't even have the character to claim him, so now he has to grow up without a father, even in a legal sense.

No, I'm sorry bud, I've got slightly higher standards. The actual acts go to character, and the willingness to lie and cover them up - putting his whole party in jeopardy - goes directly to leadership.

As to the rest of your post, my exceedingly tight leash here prevents me from responding in kind, but I will say that you're not so bad at this character assassination stuff yourself... :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not sure if this came up - but I'm remembering the Couric interview with all of the candidates.



Video Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/08/cbs_news_december_07_interview.html)

Couric: Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with ... it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them.

Couric: Do you think ... what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... when it comes to infidelity ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: I guess is what I'm getting at.

Edwards: Yes.

Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

Couric: So you think it's an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

Edwards: Yeah. But I don't think it's controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the ... stories we've all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don't think it controls the issue. But I think it's certain ... something reasonable for people to consider.

[Adrian II]

I'm not sure what your issue with 'slut' is, but you could insert 'tramp', 'gutter skank', or if those are too 'young' for you, 'homewrecker' would work I guess; although it would seem more appropriate coming from a 1950's housewife. What do you call women who knowingly sleep with married men who have small children?

And what of the children Adrian? In your outrage over America's outrage you haven't said much (anything?) about his kids. His wife wasn't the only person he betrayed, not to mention the poor little bastard. Daddy doesn't even have the character to claim him, so now he has to grow up without a father, even in a legal sense.

No, I'm sorry bud, I've got slightly higher standards. The actual acts go to character, and the willingness to lie and cover them up - putting his whole party in jeopardy - goes directly to leadership.

As to the rest of your post, my exceedingly tight leash here prevents me from responding in kind, but I will say that you're not so bad at this character assassination stuff yourself... :2thumbsup:Assumptions, assumptions. Unless you secretly performed a paternity test on the toddler, bugged the Edwards home for several years and analyzed his kids, all you just wrote is based on hearsay and innuendo. All we can surmise (because it comes from both spouses) is that Edwards owned up to his family and later lied to the public to protect both his marriage and his career.

His explanation of the affair is quite plausible by the way. Except that his career fomented an egotism and nascissism that were probably already there, judging by the smug image he presented.

[LittleGrizzly]

The extra maritial affairs of various politicians is not an issue for me at all when it comes to making my vote, lieing about the affair is a very slight concern to me, but politicians lie so much that i doubt that would have any effect either when it comes to actually making a vote, as similar as new labour and conservatives are today you would have to give me a choice of two essentially identical candidiates before an extra marital affair could affect my vote...

[KukriKhan]

... as similar as new labour and conservatives are today you would have to give me a choice of two essentially identical candidiates before an extra marital affair could affect my vote...


Funny you mention that scenario. Despite the rhetoric coming over the airwaves and cables, many (and I mean: a lot) of americans see the Dems and Repubs as nearly identical, almost interchangeable. So affairs, whether they pay their taxes on time and in-full, what's their favorite TV show, and other trivial stuff... suddenly gets much bigger play here, especially when the election "season" gets extended over years, instead of weeks.

One point of order: the child in question is female, according to news reports, and the mother refuses to allow a paternity test (so far).

[ICantSpellDawg]

If a husband can't be trusted to obey the simplest and most important promises to the most important individual in his life, plus of minus a family;why would you trust him to be true to you in political office?

Sure he may have some good ideas, but I doubt that they revolve around anything other than getting your vote and staying in power. People that I vote for need some ideology that is overarching - such as democracy, fidelity, egalitarianism. Too many people who cheat on their spouses believe in nothing but themselves and I can never trust them to do what is best for others. It is a deal breaker for me in terms of my respect for a man or woman.

[Lemur]

But TuffStuff, what if it's a hot Swedish wife who's just experimenting with the other ladies? Surely that's okay, right? I mean, we have to cut some slack in the system somewhere ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

But TuffStuff, what if it's a hot Swedish wife who's just experimenting with the other ladies? Surely that's okay, right? I mean, we have to cut some slack in the system somewhere ...

Absolutely not. I liked Mitt Romney because he didn't even drink coffee because of his faith. That wasn't going to win him any votes, but he wouldn't do it anyway. That kind of fidelity suggests to me that he can be faithful in the important areas of life - to his wife, his family, the American people. OR he just doesn't like alcohol, tobacco and coffee...

It isn't the only thing I look for by any means, but these are the kinds of people that I respect in my life. I wouldn't trust a friend who went outside of his marriage in any way. I'd probably break off the friendship if I found out about it. Why would I help elect someone who does devastating self aggrandizing things behind the backs of those that trust him most in life? There is a difference between forgiveness and acceptance. If you stray early on but never again - that says something about the evolution of character, but it is still in question whether or not you stopped or just stopped being caught (which is it, McCain?)

[yesdachi]

I don’t mind the extramarital affair (his wife was all cancered up and he has a girl coming on to him, it is realistic to see him respond) as much as the lying about it. Lying about something little is ok (does my butt look big in this dress?) but in front of the nation and about something as big a deal as adultery, he got freaked out and tried to cover it up. History shows it doesn’t work; he was a moron for trying.

I think a politician should be of strong moral character, they should be relatively clean while they have political aspirations. They may be treated like rock stars but they are held to different standards. A rock star can screw a bunch of chicks, get drunk, get in a fight and spend the night in jail and his record will sell better, we look for him to do this, he is an entertainer. We look to a politician to lead us not entertain us.

Most spotlight politicians are worthless, especially this one. It’s the boring ones we never hear about that are doing a decent job for us.

[Xiahou]

I think we need from politicians honesty first.

If they are an upfront about adultery, then we can vote on the whole being.

If they lie about one thing, we can't be sure about another.

When it comes to marriage, that is not an exclusively private thing. It is a social contract between each other and society. Married couples expect and get in general (or at least used to) privileges above and beyond singles. Be they of a government or large company (bank & insurance) nature these privileges were there and intended to help the couple look after each other as they had promised. Society looking after the family unit so that the family unit can look after society.
I think you pretty well nail it there. His error in judgment in his personal life is a problem- but his overall lack of honesty about it is the bigger issue. Further, he made his family, their relationship and values part of his campaign by dragging them around to campaign appearances.

I find these outraged defenses of Edwards to be somewhat pathetic:
So what if he violated a sacred oath that he made to his wife? No one's perfect. And big deal if he lied to his family and the very voters he was asking to trust him? Politicians lie right? It's what they do!

What nonsense. :dizzy2:.
Just because so many of us have failings does not mean that we can't hope for and expect better in both our own personal lives and those whom we choose to lead us. The alternative suggests that we instead wallow in our failings and dismiss lies and deceit as normal. :no:


A slaveholder preaching freedom? You can go better than that. Or rather: you can't, and that's the problem you face. Pretty weaksauce. Slave ownership was not only widespread, but morally acceptable at the time. Further, his will prescribed their freedom and continued education and welfare. There were no lies, no crimes, and no deception involved in any of this and no ego-centric narcissism, which is what you were asking for an example of- instead of accepting that, you throw out a red herring and attack him for something completely unrelated.

[LittleGrizzly]

I see your point Kurki, but in national terms i would think there would be enough differences for anyone with a slight interest in politics to pick thier preferred candidiate on policys rather than thier personal life, on a more local scale i can see how it could make more of a difference but even then for me there would at least be one policy which made one preferable to the other. I wouldn't say our New labour and conservatives haven't got much more of a gap between them than your Democrats and Republicans.

I sympathise with the trust issue side of it though, but i don't put as much weight behind it as if a politician had lied on policy or something politically related, as the politician could simply be lieing to save his marriage / save his wife from hearing hurtful things, rather than just lieing to not lose votes with the public...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Pape has put my feelings quite eloquently, but I will add a bit more.

I do not think we need to accept that our politicians must be conniving jerks to rule. Perhaps we have grown to dislike politicians more and more, as they became less leaders and problem solvers and more problem makers. And so we have less good, honest people running for political office. Or maybe politicians have become greedier, more in it for power's sake than the common good. You could tie this in with the growth of government and its intrusion into private life; being in government now offers powers that were not available years ago, and so attracts those that feed on power.

Any way, it seems the quality of the character of the average politician has deteriorated. And so the cynics among us assume we need to have a person of bad character since they have not really seen anything else.

I read once, in defense of an adulterous pastor, that it might not matter that much if a public figure was a hypocrite if what they preached was right; they helped by saying what was good, even if they could not follow it.

But I reject that argument. If one truly believes in something, than you would not go against what you believe. For if you do, what does that show about what you preach? That it isn't as important as satisfying some urges? If you don't practice what you preach, then surely to you your preachings don't hold much meaning.

Shady doings at some level are, perhaps, inevitable. But hypocrisy only reveals your deep character, and if you are true to what you would hold others to.

It's been said trying a man by tempting him with power is a more apt test than adversity, and I think we see why. John Edwards failed that test. And if he would cheat on his sick wife, who he swore to be true to, after being nominated for vice-president, what would he do to a complete stranger after he became vice-president?

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Any way, it seems the quality of the character of the average politician has deteriorated.

I would say the character of the average politician has gone more and more downhill as we started looking closer and closer, they're normal people too who make mistakes and have flaws, if we looked this closely at almost any profession we would find cheats drunks and liars in similar numbers, though obviously as a powerful politician you far more likely to have women offering you sex whereas the rubbish man will not have so much temptation thrown in his way...

I think if we look at Hollywood (or just celebrities in general) you will see what seems like alot of cheating and marriages getting broken up but like politicians i think theres a few reasons, more likely to get caught with constant media attention, status means women are more likely to put temptation in your way....

TBH i think in the case of a preacher it is alot worse as preachers are there to moralise to us, that may be part of the reason republicans get it alot worse when they're caught playing away from home, thier constant moralising about the family and the like makes them hypocritical whereas a democrat is just a cheat, or just a lying cheat.... (generally speaking of course, im sure there are democrats that preach about the family and crap and republicans who don't)

[Adrian II]

Or maybe politicians have become greedier, more in it for power's sake than the common good.Oh, that one is a beauty! It really made my breakfast. Yeah, since Julius Caesar politicians have become more greedy and power hungry by the day, and now look where we are: they even have mistresses and lie about them.

[yesdachi]

At lunch at the Soho House in late spring of '07, Rielle told me that she and novelist Jay McInerney were working on a "genius" idea for a television show about women who help men get out of failing marriages by having affairs with them.

Link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/151783?GT1=43002)

After reading that article I am convinced she is a grade A nut. :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, that one is a beauty! It really made my breakfast. Yeah, since Julius Caesar politicians have become more greedy and power hungry by the day, and now look where we are: they even have mistresses and lie about them.

I was talking in terms of since America was founded, and we democratically elected leaders. Maybe I'm wrong, but it does seem that power is more the end than the means these days.

CR

[Adrian II]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it does seem that power is more the end than the means these days.

CRYou have a very good point there, which Adrian II is going to have to ponder for quite some time. Maybe Fragony isn't the only one who changes lives. :bow:

[Strike For The South]

I was talking in terms of since America was founded, and we democratically elected leaders. Maybe I'm wrong, but it does seem that power is more the end than the means these days.

CR

Andrew Jackson. The most power hungry of them all.

I don't care if John Edward's likes go home and unwind by having sex with a lamb. If he can make my country better let him. People keep talking about our founders as if they were some untouchable god kings. Thomas Jefferson fathered somewhere between 11 and 932 illegitimate black children. Ben Franklin was a womanizer of the highest degree. Did I mention both of these men had wives? The fact is there work life and there personal life were two different things. In todays world these men would be crucified before the first caucus. I completely agree with the good dutchman on this issue.

"And early in the morning He came again into the Temple , and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them."
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"

"This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him."

"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."

"When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"

"She said, No man, Lord."

"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)