For all those of you who say that Edwards "should" not have run

[saracat]

knowing he had an affair in his past, if that is the case would you disqualify anyone who doesn't come forward and spill their guts about an affair? Nothing is said that Richardson, who is well known for "lady troubles" shouldn't have run? Should Obama "not run" because he "knew" Wright would be a problem? After all he did initially deny he heard Wright say his controversial statements, then admitted he had.

This puritanical moral ethic being placed on our folks is pathetic and is being used to discredit our best and brightest.I am deeply saddened to see us turn on one of our own in this manner. If we allow this, others will be beaten down as well until there is no one left. Some may think this is a "purge" and I "good thing". "Judge not lest ye be judged". Elizabeth Edwards and the Edwards family dealt with this misdemeanor and moved on several years ago. We should do no less.

If we do not, we are turning the smoking gun back on anyone of any of our other candidates.

[LittleClarkie]

1. I believe it's less about the morality, and more about the damage to a presidential

campaign had he actually gotten the nomination. I think the concern is mostly political.

That said, I suppose the same would be said about McCain. He has an affair in his past, and it doesn't seem to have stopped him.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. The *concern* WAS political and it was that Edwards was a progressive who would have

gone after the corprat controlled government and well that just wasn't *PC*.

[LittleClarkie]

12. So, they sent Hunter in to entice Edwards into political suicide?

What ARE you talking about dear. You make it sound like sabotage that Edwards had an affair.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. *dear*? Do I know you that well?

:shrug: The affair wasn't known when the corprat media went after Edwards. It was because of his populism that TPTB and the corprat media marginalized him and now they are capitalizing on his human weakness. Is that so hard to see?

[GoesTo11]

2. Just as a practical matter

Affairs end campaigns. Old ones don't, fresh ones do. Running in 2007 after having an affair in 2006 was like playing Russian roulette.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. For the last time, it has nothing to do with "morality". At least not on DU.

It's about judgment. The reaction to this revelation should come as no surprise to anyone who has been living above ground for the past 20 years.

Because of that, I'll say this to any potential Democratic candidate: If you've had an affair in the past 10 years, or, worse yet, are having one now, DON'T RUN. You will be caught and, right or not, you will destroy your career, your family and your party.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Meanwhile, Edwards paid Hunter 100,000 for webisodes they didn't even use

and his lawyer apparently paid her and her boyfriend to get out of Georgia.

Any of that supporter funded?

[saracat]

11. They did use them. They were up for months. I saw them.

And they were actuaslly quite good.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Ah. The way Huffpost was talking about them it sounded like they got yanked quite quickly

Still and all, the way the webisodes were scrubbed from the internet was one of the ways people were originally tipped off that something was going on, it appears.

[saracat]

15. As Elizabeth Edwards says there is a lot of mis info out there.

Those videos weren't "scrubbed' there were replaced with others as campaign appearances were ongoing. Does anyone really think you leave the same stuff up forever? Those videos were only an intro to the first part of his campaign.

[jonnyblitz]

24. that's exactly right and it is NOT rocket science.

his apologists are fucking unbelievably STUPID. i hate to be so blunt but holy fucking crap. :crazy:

[ProSense]

4. Oh, please. What Edwards did was despicable

Edwards on Clinton:

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.

link

Personal life is this: age of partner, sex of partner, number of partners.

Public life is this: lying, which one has to do to cheat on a spouse. Not just lying to one's spouse, but lying to ones constituents.

That makes the person a liar.

If someone can get away with lying, where do the lies stop?

Hypocrisy and lying do not look good on Democrats.

Judgment: Any Democrat anywhere who cheats on his wife has problems. Deciding to run for the highest elected office in the land with this secret, is beyond selfish; it's downright arrogant.

[Pastiche423]

23. Excellent presentation of the facts

Thank you.

[Swamp Rat]

5. k&r

:applause:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glowing]

7. little too close for comfort.. in this age of Dump on Dems, you have

to be perfect when going for the highest office.. or like the Clintons, dirt aired all over the place.. so, really, you need to be careful.. way too many attackers out there from media, to hate-wing radio, to the Repigs.. Could you imagine what would have happened if he one and this just popped today.. We'd have NO shot.

[katandmoon]

9. The "best and the brightest" do not CHEAT ON THEIR CANCER RIDDEN WIVES

[saracat]

14. Of course not. They are "Saints" Like all our politicians should be.

I hope you never have to know the pain and stress the Edwards have been through so as to be in a position as to judge how the best and brightest would act. I hope you never have to face the death of a loved one.I hope you never are in that position.

[CTyankee]

17. Oh Sara, how I wish it were that simple! The report tonight has it that Elizabeth Edwards's

possible speech at the DM Convention is now impossible. This is a direct result of the revelation of John's affair. What a cost! Not just to the Demo party but to the country! How can you disount THAT? And how can you discount all of the future speaking opportunities that Elizabeth will be denied as a result of his revelation?

I stand with you on the hypocrisy and puritanical issues here. I personally do not care what people do in their private lives. However, if you put YOURSELF forward as a PUBLIC PERSON then you take the chance of being found out if you do something wrong. C'mon, Sara,that's just plain stupid!

If this were just a matter of private people, out of the public eye it would be different. But he was a candidate for the President of the United States. He KNEW what the stakes were and he did it anyway. That betrays his judgment to me. I was his supporter until he backed out before my states's super Tuesday. I would have voted for him. I doubt if I would today.

[saracat]

19. Well and why is it that she can't speak at the convention? Why is that?

Perhaps some really didn't want her to? My god, this was a trivial event that took place in 2006. And why in the world is Elizabeth denied speaking opportunities because of this? And who is behind bringing this out NOW. Perhaos those questions need to be asked.

[katandmoon]

22. Elizabeth speaking at the convention would do nothing now but draw even more attention to

her husband's cheating.

[katandmoon]

18. You are totally missing the point. Elizabeth wasn't running for office. JOHN WAS.

By cheating on her, he tarnished his own cheatin' self. What I have suffered (I have had cancer BTW so please don't patronize me) or what my loved ones have suffered (I won't go into detail there) is completely irrelevant. None of us is running or was recently running for office, knowing that we had a bombshell revelation like that to cover up, that might yet explode in our faces, and possibly take the Democrats' hope of winning the presidency with it.

John Edwards has shown what an incredibly self-absorbed phony he is.

[LibDemAlways]

16. The corporate media whores in this country have long

practiced a double standard with regard to the personal lives of politicians. Repukes are given a pass for behavior for which Dems are raked over the coals. That's just a fact of political life in America. That being the case, a Dem politician - particularly a Dem politician running for President - had damn well better be squeaky clean or risk ruin. It happened to Gary Hart. It certainly had a negative effect on the candidacy and Presidency of Bill Clinton.

This is a "Must Win" election year for the Dems. On a personal level I don't give a rat's ass what any politician does in private. However, the media whores do. And John Edwards should have been smart enough to realize that once the press found out they'd be all over this like vultures at a particularly juicy road kill - which is exactly what's happening.

Given the attention this is receiving, I shudder to think how much worse it would have been had he won the nomination. Knowing what he knew, he simply shouldn't have run.

[Garbo 2004]

20. No, but he should have been prepared if it had come up, and it did, not to lie about it.

Just telling the truth gives limits where the story can go further (especially with a tabloid that pays for info on the story) than lying when there is a "there" there.

And furthermore, two months after publically lying about having an affair, don't publically moralize about marital fidelity and honesty being a factor in determining the trustworthiness of a politcal/presidential candidate:

EDWARDS: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans-- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's-- 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: 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-- and certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/19/eveningnews/main3632462_page2.shtml

He could have answered somewhat differently to the question, as did Obama and Clinton, if indeed he regarded a politician's infidelity as a wholly private, rather than public, matter.

[girl gone mad]

25. Well if it didn't matter, then explain to me..

why he went to so much trouble to cover it up?

Let's not play these dumb games. In the real world, affairs often destroy political careers. In the real world, news of cheating on a terminally ill wife would have driven countless voters away.

[yardwork]

26. I disagree. This showed extremely poor judgment.

The country is in crisis. John Edwards knows that. He also knows that the media is not on our side. He knows how difficult it is for a Democrat to get elected. He saw what they did to Clinton. He knows that the media blow up any indiscretion on the part of a Democrat while ignoring or hiding crimes of Republicans. Despite this knowledge, he went out on the road claiming to be America's answer, knowing all the time that this was likely to blow up. That's unforgivable at this time.

Further, this is nothing like Reverend Wright. I'm far from pure myself, but that doesn't mean I'll excuse caddish behavior when I see it, especially coming from someone who claimed to be all about restoring morality to the office of the presidency.

This doesn't help the country. There's too much at stake for John Edwards to have put the presidential election at risk in this way.

[Zuiderelle]

27. You cannot compare Obama's association with Wright to what Edwards was hiding.

Moreover, Obama didn't HIDE his association with Wright. It's part and parcel of politics now, especially after seeing what happened to Clinton, that one cannot have an affair and lie about it and expect to not have it work negatively against oneself. For him to have put himself in the position of running for President, knowing that he had very RECENTLY had an affair was ridiculously irresponsible.

Period.

[saracat]

28. Alll I said was he "hid" was his attendance when Wright made controversial remarks. He also

" knew" Wright was a problem and discussed it before beginning his camapign. He later "admitted" He did hear Wright make controversial statements but didn't leave. He only distanced himself from Wright when there was no choice. He "knew" Wright could cause a "dust up" and chose to run anayway. That is the only aspect in which I compare the events.

Both men "knew" that they had "hidden " yhings which could have potential "consquences"
politcally.