Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If Obama and Pelosi knew and were so threatened by this secret, Edwards wouldn't have been their choice anyway. It just seems like people are looking to spread their hatred around. Why not just place it on the guy who actually cheated on his wife and lied about it?< there's no hatred here being spread around - if you are a Democrat you should be very concerned that this goof and his wife knewabout this 2 years ago, yet he chose to run for President. he endangered your parties chances for the White House because of his selfishness and anyone else within the party that knew did the same. Let's say he wasthe leading candidate and going to be the nominee of your party right now and 30 days before the election this news hit the papers ? If this kept the Dems from regaining the White House ( and it likely would have )who would have hatred then ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If Obama and Pelosi knew and were so threatened by this secret, Edwards wouldn't have been their choice anyway. It just seems like people are looking to spread their hatred around. Why not just place it on the guy who actually cheated on his wife and lied about it?< there's no hatred here being spread around - if you are a Democrat you should be very concerned that this goof and his wife knewabout this 2 years ago, yet he chose to run for President. he endangered your parties chances for the White House because of his selfishness and anyone else within the party that knew did the same. Let's say he wasthe leading candidate and going to be the nominee of your party right now and 30 days before the election this news hit the papers ? If this kept the Dems from regaining the White House ( and it likely would have )who would have hatred then ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 for those here who are Dems who claim they don't care what he did on the side - consider the scenario above.... there is such a blind hatred of anything other than the Dem point of view, you are missing the point he was willing the sacrifice the good of his (your) party for his own gains, then come back and say he was 99% telling the truth. And yet you defend him for the most part - truly amazing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***if you are a Democrat you should be very concerned that this goof and his wife knewabout this 2 years ago, yet he chose to run for President*** Well, if we could all read minds the world would be far different, that's for sure. What would you have us do (all of us, I mean, not just one side or the other...since these issues crop up everywhere, even with the "moral" candidates)? Of course it is "cause for concern", but what's your point? Should the Democrats (or Republicans) invest in a crystal ball? Perhaps invest some money in research on that? Anyway, you're certainly correct. The guy had no business running for president with such a recent, shameful skeleton in the closet waiting to come out. I'm reminded of Jonvn, and his insistence that the voters were idiots for not picking the "shoe in" white guy. Had that occurred, where would things stand now? An assured GOP victory, most likely. Although, who really knows. Would there have been such a revelation at this time? Or would there have been a cover up? Or would the Democratic party be trying to disqualify him somehow (I'm not sure how...as far as I know, he broke no law)? Interesting food for thought, but all nothing more than "what if?" at this point.
Originally Posted By Mr X I would submit there should be a law banning all polititians from discussing "morals", and referring to any "moral" issues, and beyond that they should be required to renounce any policies or objectives in their political agendas referencing any sort of "faith", "religious", or "moral" grounds. That'd stop a lot of this silliness. Let's face it, many politicians aren't very moral. Why force them to pretend that they are?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "...we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to do it." And so he did.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>there is such a blind hatred of anything other than the Dem point of view, you are missing the point he was willing the sacrifice the good of his (your) party for his own gains, then come back and say he was 99% telling the truth. And yet you defend him for the most part - truly amazing.<< More hyperbole, vbdad. Do you have any actual evidence to back this kind of statement up?
Originally Posted By jdub <<It's not my business but now that I know it, I don't know if I'd ever be able to vote for him. Yuck.>> Well, if I was Elizabeth Edwards, I may well ruin him one way or another--and I'd rather not have even a relationship as a friend with the guy-- but as for just being an unrelated citizen considering a vote? Pretending he was the Democratic nominee, would I REALLY hold my nose & vote for McCain? I'd be ignoring the origin of the current Mrs. McCain.
Originally Posted By jdub ((///NOTHING 'justifies' hooking up as you call it./// Wrong. If one spouse it getting it on outside the other spouse is entitlted to the same recreations. You know.... the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. If one spouse consistently refuses to be intimate with the other then by all means it's party time for the neglected spouse. If one spouse leaves the country to live overseas(yes, I personally know 5 couples in this arrangement) all bets are off and it's party time.)) Oh, horse 'do. There's no reason to "party" once one spouse breaks the contract. The only thing appropriate is to recognize the agreement is over and move on.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If one spouse it getting it on outside the other spouse is entitlted to the same recreations.*** Immature. ***There's no reason to "party" once one spouse breaks the contract. The only thing appropriate is to recognize the agreement is over and move on.*** But, also immature. There's such a thing as "working things out", and that's part of the marriage vows too (yes, even if terrible things happen). No wonder the divorce rate is so high!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy It seems to me that cheating is like speeding on the highway -- everyone does it, but no one likes to get caught. Thanks goodness I'm not married and have to deal with these sorts of things. I can't even begin to understand what motivates people to do stuff like this. But if the experience of the couples I have known over the years means anything, cheating is pretty much a part of every relationship at some point. I don't think I know anyone that hasn't suffered through this -- why should politicians be any different?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***cheating is pretty much a part of every relationship at some point*** I think you need to meet a better class of people!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Honestly, it seems the "classier" ones do it the most. Really bizarre.
Originally Posted By mele vbdad, I'm don't side with Democrats. I assume all politicians are hiding things and I don't particularly like any of them. When I said "hatred", it wasn't aimed at you but at woody's comment that ALL leftists are hypocrites. (Not an exact quote-it's not worth looking up). He's obviously looking for an excuse to spread his hatred around to everyone with that statement.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And yet you defend him for the most part - truly amazing.> Well, I haven't defended him a bit, nor have some others here - but we are trying to offer some perspective. The notion that most of the Democratic party leadership must somehow have known about this is just conjecture. And even if they did know, what were they supposed to do? As someone said, simply NOT blabbing it to the press is not a coverup. Remember, Edwards wasn't IN the senate when this happened, so the inter-senate gossip that undoubtedly happens between staff members, etc., wouldn't have applied here. It apparently was also quite a short affair, not a long one. I'm not sure how Obama's campaign might have reacted if they had known about it, but there's enough history from the Clintons to tell me that if the Clinton camp had known about it, they'd damn sure have found some way to leak it to the press before the Iowa caucus, and kill Edwards' candidacy in the cradle. That they didn't says to me they probably didn't know, and the same is probably true of the other candidates as well.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well said, Dabob. The hysteria over this is quite astounding. This was a private matter that became public. Because it became public, I'm all for having a conversation about Edwards' judgment, or lack thereof, about the nature of marriage and fidelity, etc. But this laughable reaction insisting that there was a coverup, and the insinuation that Elizabeth Edwards should've started a blog detailing her husband's behavior, shows me just how important it is that we have two reasonable candidates this fall, instead of another crazy conservative. I'm no McCain fan, and I'm disappointed in his campaign thus far, but I still have to think he'll be more reasonable if he gets in the White House. I suppose it's good to be reminded from time to time of just how far out there some conservatives can be.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'm hearing that the obama campaign DID know about it, and orchestrated the timing of the 'big news' so as not to impact on the DNC convention in a couple of weeks. It was relatively widely known inside political circles, and they didn't want this to become a distraction during their carefully choreographed event in denver. Now - if the tabloids got this one right, maybe they're right about bush and condi too. And laura divorcing george as soon as they're outta the white house. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. What WOULD surprise me is if we see the same mock outrage from the right then.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm hearing that the obama campaign DID know about it, and orchestrated the timing of the 'big news' so as not to impact on the DNC convention in a couple of weeks.> Heard from whom? Also, did they supposedly know about it for a few weeks or so (which would make sense - there were rumblings below the surface about the Enquirer and that this might come out for at least the past month), or way back during the campaign? I can't buy the latter - the Clintons are way more plugged into Washington than Obama, and if they'd known about this back in '07, I can't believe they wouldn't have leaked it well before (or perhaps just before) Iowa. If Obama learned of it recently, I can see asking Edwards to time the announcement when he did.
Originally Posted By barboy ///maybe they're right about bush and condi too. And laura divorcing george as soon as they're outta the white house. Wouldn't surprise me a bit./// I'm still waiting for something verifiable to come out about Bush Sr.. Wife and I had strong suspicions years back about Edwards and something materialized, possibly even a child---- my suspicions are even stronger with George I as it would take an iron will or an asexual man to remain 'faithful' to the likes of a Barb.
Originally Posted By gadzuux He was also a naval aviator for quite awhile - they cut a dashing figure when they're overseas. And who cares? I hope he had a great time. >> Heard from whom? << Some pundit or other on the ed schultz show on the radio. I don't remember who. But the point is that a lot of people in political circles were hearing about this, and the obama camp wanted to head off a potential problem during the campaign, so they convinced edwards to go public on the friday before the olympics start in hopes that the story will be dead and buried when it comes time for the obama's big star-turn in denver. To your point about the clintons, hillary's uniquely unqualified to point fingers over marital infidelity charges. If the clinton camp knew, they were wise to keep their pieholes shut tight about it.
