Originally Posted By vbdad55 <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. < this was my point - not sure where the crystal ball stuff came from- but if I was a loyal Dem supporter I would be real pissed over this. The odds are Obama is going to reclaim the White House for the Dems. Not the end of the world - but also not the saviour everyone is portraying - but this issue, if released at the wrong time couldhave cost them any opportunity of that - yet I read people rushing to his and the parties defense. face it, it is goingto likely take a major blunder for the Dems not to win this time - this was almost it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <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?< the family moral issues don't bother me near as much as the lying. I mean c'mon - for Edwards to even be saying today that he was 99% truthful on this whole thing because there were some minor details wrong ! He was 0% - 1% truthful on this issue. Anyone who can say that is not someone I would trust with anything as far as I could pick him up and have him - much like with Clinton - it was not the indiscretion that bothered me near as much as getting on TV and tinking he was above any honesty with the people and lying. It's amazing the difference a little honesty makes. Take Obama for example. If his prior drug usage was not known, and he continually denied it ( as oppsoed to writing it in his book)- and then the usage cameout - how bad would he look. He took the high road- for that I give him credit. If he had lied and then when the truth came out said he was 99% truthful because they said he took x- and he only had taken 25 others things and some derivitive of what was claimed - I would have zero respect for him too. Edwards is a lying scum...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <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. < exactly- it would neverhave come from there- I am sure Hillary does not view her political future as over at this point -
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I was never of a mind to vote for Edwards for anything anyway, so this type of thing doesn't make a difference to me. However, I do think it IS our business to know these things because he has put himself out there as a public figure, one who wants or wanted to run the country, and it's one more thing to factor in when contemplating his judgment skills. If he wants to have a say in the fate of my life, I get to know everything I can about the guy. Period. I'm also not a big fan of this everybody cheats business. I didn't get married until I was 41 for a reason. I had myself quite a fine time as a single guy, and when I knew I could finally be monogamous, then I committed. If Edwards felt the urge to stray he could have done the honorable thing (preferable) and either declined or ended his marriage (not great, but at least it would indicate a certain level of honesty) before he unzipped. People who don't think they could or should remain monogamous should never get married. So for me anyway, Edwards now goes on the Politician Scrap Heap along with all the others who have committed crimes or been caught cheating.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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. > I'm not saying she would have trumpeted it herself - obviously not. But if the Clintons had learned of this back when Edwards was still competitive (he beat her in Iowa, remember) or before the primaries had started, do you think they'd have kept it to themselves? No way on this earth. The Clintons play hardball. And they know an awful lot of people, who in turn know lots of people only tangentially connected to the Clintons. Any one of them could have served as the leak, and then Clinton has plausible deniability. And if this was anything like "common under the table knowledge" back in 2007, it would have come out then. ANY of the candidates - Biden, Richardson, Dodd, any of them - could have had a surrogate leak anonymously to the mainstream press, who would have investigated, and voila - one less opponent. Certainly if the Clintons had known then, someone in the press would have gotten a tip from someone - I can't believe anyone would think otherwise. See you in about a week, ya'll.
Originally Posted By barboy Dabob speaks with common sense: There is no way Clinton & Co would harbor something this politically damning and not unleash it against a worthy opponent.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think I officially have a case of scandal fatigue. I just can't even pretend to work up a good moral outrage over this. It is amazing to me that the American people can latch onto this sort of sleazy, personal activity and get all worked up about it. But get us into a war using "faulty intelligence", have an energy policy that yields huge dividends to oil companies at the expense of average joes, so on and so forth and people have a very short attention span for that. More and more, the National Enquirer is right in line with the sort of gossipy, spy-on-your-neighbor "news" that Americans seem to enjoy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And I'll drive the point into the ground a little more and bluntly state that it frustrates me no end that so many people are aware of the minute-to-minute of Miley Cyrus or who Brent Favre is playing for this week or what have you, yet have no opinion at all on matters of actual importance in the world, can't find countries on a map, etc. If you leave it to everyone else to do the thinking about these bigger issues, you have no one but yourself to blame if the country makes a wrong turn. Our system of government can only be "of the people, by the people and for the people" if people are engaged enough to actually participate. In other words, worry less about who's sleeping with whom and this sideshow junk, and focus more on bigger picture, policy stuff. Rant over.
Originally Posted By DAR <<or who Brent Favre is playing for this week >> We even got to track his plane on the way to Green Bay last week. <<In other words, worry less about who's sleeping with whom and this sideshow junk, and focus more on bigger picture, policy stuff. Rant over.>> I agree, but you can't deny given what Elizabeth Edwards has gone through it was a crappy thing for him to do.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've been removed from LP for a while, but a few of my random thoughts on the Edwards issue. First...the timing. It had nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the Olympics. How many people really watched the interview anyway? Second...the hypocrisy. Clinton will be showcased at the Democratic Convention in prime time. Edwards will be quietly told his presence isn't necessary. Edwards cheated while running for the office. Clinton cheated IN the office, quite literally. Well, I guess Edwards' ban makes sense...not. Edwards has FAR better taste than Clinton. Several weeks ago now when it was announced that Edwards was withdrawing from the VP short list I actually took the time to send him a note. I...an unabashed Conservative (at least according to these boards) was actually hoping he would reconsider. Of ALL of the candidates on either side of the aisle I actually felt like Edwards had some good ideas. He wasn't just running on the "CHANGE" platform. So, I sent him a letter asking him to reconsider. My wife voted for Edwards in the primaries. She was disappointed to hear of this news and said that likely would have changed her viewpoint. So, there is a Democrat (my wife) who also thinks highly about morals. The press looks downright ugly in this whole situation. First, there is the accusations that they (the mainstream)knew about the affair but kept it quiet. Second...they are just slamming him up and down over the past few days while they will all drool all over themselves to get Clinton on camera any time they can. But, and perhaps this is the most salient point I can come up with: This isn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing...this is a human thing. This isn't about what our politicians do behind closed doors. This is about what we expect out of the American President. I think, if nothing else, the last couple of decades (at least) shows that we have lowered our standards in America. And, the only people we have to blame for that is ourselves.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Edwards has FAR better taste than Clinton.>> While I deplore what he did to his wife I will agree with that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's crappy that anyone would cheat on their spouse. But during the Clinton-Lewinsky affair we were told over and over again, between the breathless reporting of stained dresses and Linda Tripp's juicy recorded phonecalls, we were told "Well, now we're only fixating on all of this because he lied under oath. it isn't about sex." But as usual in our wanna-be puritanical country, it is always ALL about sex. Yeah, it's a crappy thing he did to Elizabeth Edwards. But if she, and women like her who get cheated on, don't have enough intestinal fortitude to throw the bastards out, why should I get worked up about it anymore? For whatever reason, they stayed together, so it's none of my -- nor anyone else's -- beeswax.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think it is about the sex (depending on what your definition of that is) or about the lies under oath. I think it is about trust. My wife has told me in no uncertain terms that if I were to cheat on her she would never be able to trust me again. I can understand that sentiment as I was cheated on when I was younger and that thought never escaped me. So, trust is very subjective...to be sure...and I do think the American public gets to decide what they base that on.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If it weren't about sex, we would get just as worked up about a political lie as we seem to when somebody diddles around sexually. But we don't. A political lie, which you hear just about every day, seldom really captures our attention. It is about sex.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Maybe you are right. But, I had sex with other women before I got married. But, when I DID get married I made a commitment to her that I would be faithful. Having sex with another woman would break that commitment and, thus, her trust in me. So, I think sex is a measurement of trust in this case. I would say George Bush the 1st would consider political lies just as damaging as sexual lies. He said, "no new taxes", raised taxes, and lost a second term.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "A political lie, which you hear just about every day, seldom really captures our attention. It is about sex." Not for me. As I said earlier, If this guy wants to run the country, and he can kiss that goodbye for good, I get to know ALL the decisions he makes, especially ones where he makes a vow to someone and then breaks it. If he can't keep his word to his wife, I don't want to vote for him for president, because I can't trust him to keep his word to me. My need to know on this issue is all about trust and judgment, not the sex part.
Originally Posted By ecdc Great, great posts, Kar2oonMan. Spot on every step of the way. That's why I said earlier that we've earned our political system. We get exactly what we deserve. If we're going to behave like a group of high school students, more worried about gossip and who likes who better, then that's what we'll get. And I'm not arguing that once something like this becomes public, then no one should pay any attention to it. I get that it is a reflection on John Edwards judgment. But more often than not, this becomes the defining issue for people. "He had an affair? Oh, well there you go." No discussion of where someone stands on energy, jobs, education, security, Iraq, etc. I watched my aunt, flabbergasted, as she explained that she'd never vote for Obama because of the flag pin and the Pledge of Allegiance. "That's so basic. That's just something everyone should do. I can't vote for someone who won't do that." Frankly, I think people make a bigger deal out of that kind of thing because they're intellectually lazy. They don't want to have to worry about the difference between Sunni and Shia. They don't want to have to read about pros and cons of off-shore drilling. No flag pin? No way! We have no business saying we're number 1 if we're going to be that stupid.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Not for me.<< But you're in the minority, sadly. You're mindful of other political issues, you follow the campaign, and you do vote based on a candidate's judgment and decisions. But not all Americans are like that. Many, many more follow the gossip and vote based on that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And I will admit that my feelings on this topic is shaded by young women in my family who get themselves entangled in relationships with real jerks, then cry and carry on when they get cheated on, yet do nothing to get out of the relationship. I've become a bit calloused by having seen the pattern too many times to the point that I figure it is between them. At least they have the excuse of being young and broke. When wealthy women of means like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Edwards -- supposedly very progressive, woman-power political figures -- put up with the crap, why should I expend one ounce of empathy worrying about it? I'd say Bill Clinton and John Edwards showed excellent judgement insofar as choosing enabling spouses.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think a bunch of men can be too critical of a woman who makes the decision to stick by her husband after an affair. All I know is that, as the victim of it outside of marriage, I didn't like it and I was done with said person. But, my mother and father divorced after nearly 25 years and infiedelity was at the heart of it. But, my mother was willing to try to keep the marriage by going through counseling or any thing else in order to make it work. She got married at 18 and her life as a wife and mother was basically the only life she knew. Even though my father cheated she still loved him. She hated what he did and was sickened by it but she still wanted to try and make it work. So, I'm not about to pass judgment on the wife...unless she comes out with an "I'm not Tammy Wynette standing by my man" and then...when confronted with the truth...she does just that for political gain. That, to me, is different than what Mrs. Edwards is doing.
