The Edwards affair goes beyond a personal matter.

[hiaasenrocks]

John and Elizabeth Edwards deceived us. He outright lied. She willingly stood by and let him lie to his donors, supporters, volunteers and voters.

As KO asked tonight, did they really think that in this 24/7 news cycle, they were going to get away with this?

I supported Edwards in the primary. Now we know that he was willing to accept the money, hard work, time and devotion of volunteers, all while knowing that his lie could have the whole effort crashing down in an instant.

Had he become the presumptive Democratic nominee, and had this story broke as it did last night, he would have obliterated any chance of winning the White House and perhaps even put in jeopardy the chance to expand majorities in the House and Senate, because of the "down ticket" fallout.

But, for some reason, John and Elizabeth selfishly and deceptively took that risk -- a risk that could have affected us all.

This is beyond a "personal matter." Give me a break.

We now know the character of these people.

[theoldman]

1. I fully agree.

It is rare for a politician to survive politically when they cheat on their spouse. There is no way that Edwards could have won an election and he would have ruined other people's chances.

[glowing]

3. Perhaps they were banking on the McCain's nice little story of parody?

I don't know? It was rather stupid. And I don't think they were thinking it was something that would follow them.

[Festivito]

93. Sounds like you fully agree McCain cannot win. "No way"

Nor would Bush I have a chance after Ms. Fitzgerald, and * after that 15 year-old, and Reagan after dallying with Nancy while still married to Jane Wyman.

You're a funny old man.

[Divernan]

115. Reagan & Bush Sr. profited from the press's conspiracy of silence in the olden days.

As did JFK and probably LBJ. It was an old boys' club and while everyone within the beltway knew, for example, about Bush Sr.'s mistress in the Georgetown townhouse, no one printed anything about it so the yokels in the hinterlands never heard about it. Beside which, any comment about him having a mistress was immediately followed with the comment that if any many deserved to enjoy a mistress, it was a man married to Barbara Bush, The Clinton/Lewinsky dalliance (it wasn't substantive enough to rise to the level of affair) and the advent of bloggers have changed the rules of reporting. I'm not familiar with any info about * and any 15 year old - but if it was before his marriage, that makes it inconsequential.

[Clear Blue Sky]

117. Very true. Different standards in those old days.

Also there was no new media then. Just the major newspapers and TV networks. They really had a monopoly on the news.

Different times now with talk radio, internet, blogs, etc.

[Festivito]

120. Bull. See other post. /nt

[Festivito]

119. NO: the press is still strangely silent -- ABOUT REPUBLICANS.

Looking back at infidelities in the Sunday programs we have Clinton & Monica with JFK's Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President.."

But, no Bush I.

When pardons were discussed in light of Clinton's pardoning Marc Rich as horrible, there was talk of presidential pardons with the exception of one, Bush I.


"Silence in the olden days" -- my left butt cheek.

[marylanddem]

2. I think his character was reflected in the ABC interview:

refusal to give a timeline
continual references to the "supermarket tabloids"
reiterating what a great woman Elizabeth is for forgiving him (i.e., using her)

I agree she was complicit in going along with the campaign, but he used her as much as he used the mistress who he said he did not love. I think I'd have more sympathy for him if he HAD fallen in love with Rielle.

[Voice for Peace]

26. after watching that interview, I think he's still lying, that he didn't tell Elizabeth

in 1996, and that the kid is his.

but what do I know?

edit.. and I used to be a fan of his; thought he was truthful.

[JeanGrey]

55. OF COURSE he's lying.

:rofl: :rofl:

[LibDemAlways]

70. There's a lot about his story that doesn't pass the smell test.

If he told Elizabeth back in 2006, why was the mistress on the payroll and travelling with him during the campaign?

Why would Elizabeth have gone along with his decision to run in the first place knowing that this could blow up at any minute and destroy not only his political career but bring down the Dems in a crucial election year? She's no fool.

Why the hell was he in the woman's hotel room in the middle of the night three weeks ago as he admitted on Nightline?

I suspect the affair was ongoing, Elizabeth only recently found out, and all of the attempts at damage control are just weaving a greater web of lies.

[question everything]

99. The mistress was not traveling with him during the campaign

The webvideos were prepared before he announced and she was paid by his One America committee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuous_n_66070.html

What is still puzzling is the supposedly photos of him with the "child."

First he said that while at the hotel he was not wearing a T-shirt but a dress shirt.

Next he said it was not him, last he said that there are many pictures of him holding a baby and he does not know from where these photos were taken.

Soooo... is it you in these pictures or not? Have you ever own such a greenish T-shirt?

Granted these pictures are not from that night at the hotel but is it you?

Last, she asked to meet with him. Why go there at 2:00 am? Why not meet in a public place to talk about whatever she wanted, since the affair was over in 2006?

Another point of judgment: since the NE first published his affair in the fall of 2007 (I think) did you really think that they were not pursuing it?

[LibDemAlways]

107. Thanks for clarifying. The time line still seems murky though.

Her video contract apparently was up at the end of 06, but at least one of the videos is dated 07 and she gave an interview in Jan 07 in which she happily talks about John's willingness to "try new things." She doesn't look or sound like a mistress who has already been given the boot as Edwards claimed.

The 2 AM meeting in her hotel room, which he admitted he didn't tell his wife about, is certainly curious. I can understand his not wanting to be seen in public with her, but if the meeting was truly strictly business, an office setting during daylight hours would have been much more appropriate. Given that there was a media convention at the hotel and he knew reporters were onto the story, it was an extremely reckless move.

He hasn't denied he's the guy in the pics with the baby. I'd sure love to know who took them, when, and why.

The day he quit the race no explanation was offered. I posted on this board that the truth would come out sooner or later. Seems that sooner has arrived, but the truth....not so much.

[TexasObserver]

4. He needs to refund all contributions after he lied publicly about the affair.

He has to pay back the campaign for the money he used to pay his squeeze.

He has to pay back the campaign for the money he used to give his campaign's lawyers, to launder money for a hush fund for his squeeze.

He's a long damn way from redemption.

[nomaco-10]

13. It would be pocket change to him. He's filthy rich. n/t

[TexasObserver]

19. He should. He made a material misrepresentation on which others reasonably relied ...

... to their detriment.

He knew the statements he made in October 2007 were material misrepresentations of fact, and he knew he was making them in part to induce others to believe them, and in reliance thereof, to make contributions in support of his campaign.

That's a fraud in every state in the country, an actionable civil fraud case, for which damages and liability will ensue.

[lala_rawraw]

14. I did not realize you

were funding him for his personal sexual activities... was he not funded for his position on labor issues? was he not funded for his position on corporate greed and corruption? he lied to "us" because we have no business asking him. get it? i am so fed up with adults acting like high school gossipers. the man's wife is dying of cancer. illness can take a toll on even the best marriage. give it up

[TexasObserver]

17. Well, now you know.

Your ignorance is cured.

Go, and sin no more.

[lala_rawraw]

42. how sad that this

is what you have selected to write about, talk about, complain about.

[TexasObserver]

54. How sad that you are so easily saddened.

This is a conversation among interested DUers about a hot topic. You have your point of view. Big deal. It's just an opinion, and it's no more compelling than your opinion of sushi, or the color green. Accept that others here may know a great deal more than you about law, campaign finance, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

[nomaco-10]

21. Not only that, his political aspirations are kaput. Punishment...

enough for one as politically power hungry as edwards.

He's paying a price alright.

[lala_rawraw]

43. he is not in any political or government office...

yet those who are have committed high crimes and I would even say treason... that should be every thread in this forum... with no mention of this because it is a distraction. there are people dying in iraq, people being tortured, an iran war being cooked up, and all people want to talk about is an affair a guy not in any office had two years ago, which his wife has forgiven him for and who is sick with cancer... wow, everything is for sale when all are free of sin and can throw stone after stone... i am so fed up and do not care what political price he paid or did not pay... the country is sinking, that is what is important.

[nomaco-10]

47. I get your frustration. I feel the same way you do about....

the shape, not only this country is in, but the rest of the world. I wrote in LBN yesterday when the story broke about russia/georgia that the world is in a precarious state and may be on the verge of WWIII.

I can't keep up a level of frenzy everyday over the sad state of this country and the horrible, unjustifiable, evil acts going on all over the world. I consider myself thoughtful, concerned and more informed than most, but if I focus on these things 24/7, I'd go stark raving mad.

[Colobo]

49. Moral relativism doesn't work. There are people dying in Iraq

and John Edwards still betrayed his wife, his party and his supporters.

[Cleita]

104. How come no one mentions the sexual peccadilloes of our present Governor

of California, whose dalliances with an underaged woman, Gigi Goulet (sp?) while married to Maria Shriver makes him guilty of statutory rape, yet no one brings that up because he is a Republican. I'd say Edward's sin pales in comparison to this actual criminal action.

[girl gone mad]

111. This country is sinking in large part..

because of the selfishness and arrogance of our political leadership, which is precisely why this topic is so important.

[Helga Scow Stern]

27. Thank you! n/t

[SoonerShankle]

106. Ditto...

Rulers of great nations throughout history have not necessarily been faithful to their spouses. Does it excuse the affair? No. But it doesn't make it my business either. I really didn't need to know all about Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky either. But the politics of personal destruction continue unfortunately.

We do not hire politicians based upon their saintliness. If JRE was applying to be a bishop, I guess I might see the reason for the ruckus. Otherwise...

It is none of my business. Or anyone else's.

[jonnyblitz]

5. exactly and the Edwards apologists need to STFU.

they are SICKENING.

[baby_mouse]

16. What about people like me

Who think stupid things like sexual infidelity have nothing to do with politics?

[hiaasenrocks]

41. It is your right to ignore the public ramifications

of a man who was willing to potentially put the party at risk, and thus the country.

[baby_mouse]

52. It's only at risk because people SAY SO!

It would be exactly as logical if everyone shook their head and went "oooooo he's got a pierced frenulum. We can't vote for HIM."

[hiaasenrocks]

64. Ignore reality all you want.

If you don't think that this would have caused a problem if he were the nominee, then you must be new to politics.

[sandyd921]

98. Maybe this would not be a problem

in politics in Scotland but here in the states provincial attitudes toward the private sex lives of politicians prevail. Personally I could care less who he or anyone else sleeps with! What I object to is his cavalier attitude toward his supporters, wasting his own potential and potentially the good he could do for his country and for the progressive movement. He knew the realities of running for office at this time in the US of A. At a time of great peril for this country and the world, when we need strong progressives more than ever, he was willing to throw it all away. I believed in him and so did many others. That's why I and many others feel betrayed.

[dansolo]

51. But it has everything to do with politics

I do not agree that it is exclusively a personal matter when the person involved is a public official. Here are three reason why it is a matter of public interest:

1. HONESTY - A wedding vow is supposedly a promise to their spouse and to God. If someone is willing to break that vow, then it suggests that they may be willing to disregard other promises as well.

2. HYPOCRISY - If a political behaves in their personal lives differently than their publicly stated positions, then I think that the public should know and take that into consideration.

3. BLACKMAIL - Any actions that could lead to an official being blackmailed taints their ability to be objective, because they can be swayed by the threat.

[baby_mouse]

53. What utter NONSENSE.

1. HONESTY - A wedding vow is supposedly a promise to their spouse and to God. If someone is willing to break that vow, then it suggests that they may be willing to disregard other promises as well.

This couldn't have LESS to do with the general public and couldn't be LESS useful a a way establishing someone's personal honesty, are you truly telling me that you've never had any problems keeping promises in relationships?

2. HYPOCRISY - If a political behaves in their personal lives differently than their publicly stated positions, then I think that the public should know and take that into consideration.

Garbage, it's nothing to do with them in the first place, just because its *considered* fair game doesn't it IS.

And how, exactly are we to "Take it into consideration"? WHAT policy promises is he going to break because he broke a vow to his wife? Its just pure, superstitious conflation! The most sensitive, intimate, private thing you can do is have a relationship and because he screwed that up we're supposed to believe he's publically dishonest? Have you considered the possibility that Elizabeth didn't want to go through with the media circus? Or that he was trying to protect the privacy of his kids? Why should hell should HE play ball with a system that's obsessed with his pants? I'm not surprised he didn't tell anyone, I'd go so far as to say it was the honourable thing to do. You are aware that one of his kids was killed in a traffic accident? Why should his family be scrutinised by the sicko American media TWICE?

3. BLACKMAIL - Any actions that could lead to an official being blackmailed taints their ability to be objective, because they can be swayed by the threat.

Blackmail is the act of the blackmailer, not their target, it's *particularly* stupid to blame the party guilty of indiscretion for blackmail in cases of infidelity, whether its a politician or not! If someone faced public castigation for having a weird fetish like bra-sniffing and hence submitted to blackmail would it be their fault or the blackmailers?

Some people on this site have very peculiar ideas about responsibility. When a person does something THEY are responsible for it, this means blackmailers are the guilty party in cases of blackmail.

You're expecting Edwards to be responsible for things that aren't is responsibility. He did wrong in cheating on Elizabeth, but the freaky and inappropriate way everyone reacts to it is THEIR fault, not HIS, its not his fault that America's obsessed with sex!

[renie408]

84. You gotta admit...it was goddamned stupid. And stupidity does preclude

someone from being MY President.

[Kahuna]

91. GRRRRR.. How much more plain can the OP make it. It's not about his

personal affair. It's about the affect his personal affair would have on the the upcoming elections. ALL OF THEM. Duh.

[enid602]

6. poor

I don´t care about his affair or Elizabeth´s subsequent rationalization/public denial of it, but his dishonesty makes me wonder if all his concern for the poor and anti-poverty measures is really sincere.

[dansolo]

33. This is my concern as well

I was skeptical about his populist turn even before this news came out. Now I don't believe it at all.

[live love laugh]

83. OMG it's true. Ignorance really knows no bounds. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. he is still lying.

He recently tried to meet her at the hotel--and hid in the bathroom when he was caught by the press.

He paid 100,000 dollars to her during the campaign. It did not end in 2006.

He is still lying.

[TexasObserver]

22. I agree. He had to think the kid is his.

The pile of hush money laundered through his campaign's attorney suggests a long term problem, not a girlfriend from two years ago.

This story is far from over.

[Kahuna]

94. You got that right. In this case it will be very interesting to see what silence..

all that money is paying for.

:popcorn:

[Divernan]

116. He claims he told his wife every single detail - but didn't tell her he was going to hotel

to meet what's her name. He said he called his wife the next day and told her about it. Of course that was after he was caught out by reporters and photographers at the hotel. When a straying husband pleads for forgiveness and swears he's ended an affair, the sine qua non stipulation of the wronged wife is that he will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER talk to, let alone meet the mistress again.

I think Edwards sweet-talked his mistress into waiting for Elizabeth to die. He's clearly maintaining his relationship with the woman and her daughter.

Trial lawyer Edwards is channeling Billy Flynn from Chicago:
BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
Row after row will crow vociferous

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

BILLY AND COMPANY
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

[Enrique]

8. i'd be mad if I supported Edwards

I'm mad as a democrat that he was willing to risk the election for us.

[ChazII]

25. I did support

Edwards and that is why I am angry. However, I am more angry with myself for being a fool and believing his words.

[JVS]

9. exactly! that and the over $100,000 he used to keep her happy really bug me

[TomClash]

10. Really? I disagree

Who cares?

He lost. He is no longer an elected official. He's not running for office.

Character is mostly bullshit. Every American President except Carter has killed tens of thousands, often more, and we vote for them all the same.

I vote for candidates whose policies resonate with me - Left-lib Dems. I don't care who they fuck and neither should you.

[lala_rawraw]

15. i am so with you...

are these people being paid? who the fuck cares... when people sent money to him, did they do so because of his position on labor issues or because of his stylings in the bedroom? seriously... wtf, drop this story out of the news cycle, stop talking about it. there are serious, criminal, dangerous things going on... this is a distraction

[hiaasenrocks]

34. You don't care about their judgment?

He put the country and the party as risk. Selfishly. If that is the kind of person you want in power, fine, but I think it's crazy.

[lala_rawraw]

44. no, wrong...

he put his marriage at risk and that is a private matter between him and his wife. get a grip for crying out loud.

[hiaasenrocks]

62. So, when the decision was made to run for president...

and they both knew this was out there, they weren't putting the party and the country at risk if he had won the nomination?

Please.

[lala_rawraw]

103. what he should have done

is told everyone that his bedroom life is no one's business. period. and perhaps he thought that given the national crisis, his private mistake several years back hurt only his wife, no one died as a result. perhaps he thought that, perhaps not. but i find it laughable that someone's private life - legal activities - somehow makes them incapable of handling a job. look at Bush, faithful to Laura... the character talking point needs to be drowned, but so long as there are people ready to pounce instead standing behind their leaders, i suppose we will still live in an Evangelical state like virgins that we are not, but pretend to be to one another. instead of jumping on the bandwagon as saying "ooooh, the right wing would have gotten him..." why not stand up for the obvious logic and clear moral argument that falls on our side of the isle. let the right wing bring it on, only this time, we would have been ready with McCain's whoring, and every other Republican who thought to raise a faux moral argument. the point is, i am sick of this argument because i am sick of this faux Christian crap and the pandering to that side. those people need to be run out of town, all the way back to the cave from where they came from, not pandered to. that, my friend, is character. strength and courage make ones character, not charades.

[fascisthunter]

11. Let it Sink DU

[lala_rawraw]

12. I don't think so

And it is unfortunate that you are supporting this nonsense. They need not have to explain anything to us, but they did. It is a private matter, not illegal, and he is not out telling you how to live your life. He is a good man who messed up and told his wife. Give it up!

[hiaasenrocks]

35. It is unfortunate that he has such poor character and judgment.

[lala_rawraw]

45. perhaps...

but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

[hiaasenrocks]

68. LOL. Why do you even bother posting?

Seriously. Have you added anything to this thread? Good grief.

[lala_rawraw]

102. yes, i have added my opinion

for free i might add... mkay?

[yellowwood]

18. You're So Right--The Bill Clinton Legacy

If, right now, Edwards was our Democratic candidate for President, we wouldn't stand a chance.

This is what Bill Clinton did to us: he risked the party's and the country's future. Things were going pretty well in the country. His Presidency had been successful.

By his dumb indiscretion, he made it possible for the present Administration's gang of thieves to be elected on the basis of "morals." We have suffered ever since, as has the whole world.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. How can such smart people be so dumb?

And, if Barack Obama is paying attention: Don't screw it up like these guys. We really need some role models.

[baby_mouse]

20. You know, its bad enough when Democrats piss on each other

...for having genuinely democratic political ideals that could supposedly lose elections.

I'm not particularly impressed with this aspect of DU, I'm afraid.

[hiaasenrocks]

36. I agree. He pissed on his supporters, volunteers, donors and voters.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. His interview is an eye-opener.

Catch it on raw story. We can all learn something from this.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. If "If" were a skiff, could we take a boat ride?

Goodness. Had he been the presumptive Democratic nominee, he still would be.

[hiaasenrocks]

37. And there'd be no problem? Riiiight.

[Gormy Cuss]

46. Maybe. Maybe not.

To presume that a)the revelation would have happened in the same way with the same timing and reaction from Edwards, or b) that it would derail a candidate given the opposition is idle speculation. If the story were about Obama we'd have an issue.

[hiaasenrocks]

65. That's because Obama is the nominee and we know that NOW.

Edwards planned on winning the nomination, knowing this was out there. Given that, he would be in the same position that Obama is now and there would be a problem.

I think we agree here, actually.

[Gormy Cuss]

78. We probably do agree.

All I'm saying is the way it turned out it's not something I want to waste much time or energy discussing because I'd rather keep my eyes on the prize.

Edwards will have to face his handling of the affair rumors should he ever run for office again or be considered for a high-level appointment.

[ensho]

28. agree

a con job we surely didn't need.

how unfair of them.

[Robyn66]

29. I supported Edwards for his stand on the issues

JFK cheated
LBJ cheated
Clinton Cheated
Roosevelt Cheated
Supposedly George Washington Cheated

Those are only the ones I heard of or got caught!

I am not in favor of infidelity but I really don't think it has anything to do with the kind of President they are. After all George W. Bush is a Born again Christian!

I think you can be a rotten human being and still be a great president!

[hiaasenrocks]

38. It's his judgment and his willingness to mislead people and put the party and country at risk.

[Prophet 451]

30. Did Elizabeth know?

I'm currently watching KO but I'm unclear on the timeline, when did she know?

[hiaasenrocks]

39. They say 2006, but who knows if they are telling the truth?

[Th1onein]

31. I don't think we should mix politics and personal matters.

Except when it comes to criminality.

Besides, this guy is NOT the nominee. We need to move on. If this is a big deal for Edwards, then why isn't everyone talking about McCain, who clearly fucked around on his first wife? I think both Cindy and John knew about that, before he was the nominee. Remember: we are DEMOCRATS.

[hiaasenrocks]

40. The party loyalty thing doesn't wash, sorry.

And this is far more than just a personal matter, as I explained in the OP.

[Th1onein]

56. It's EXACTLY a personal matter, at this point.

I am sick and tired of Democrats eating their own. It's beyond stupid. And look where it's gotten us? Bushed.

John Edwards is NOT the Democratic nominee. That's a plain and simple fact. And, because he's not, that makes this not just a PRIVATE matter, but entirely irrelevant.

You know, it would be a different matter, if I had seen you post ONE THING about McCain's extramarital affair. Now, all of a sudden, Edwards' infidelity is a major issue for you? Since McCain's has never been, I have to bring up party loyalty, at this point. YOURS.

[unapatriciated]

57. I agree at this point it is a private matter and...

I would like to remind everyone that Edwards did get both frontrunners to focus on issues that were being ignored.
So I don't regret my donation.

So where is the media outrage for this guy?

State Rep. Scott Muschany, a Republican lawmaker from suburban St. Louis who was indicted Wednesday for having "deviate sexual intercourse" with a 14-year-old girl, was among 28 Missouri lawmakers who pushed for the death penalty for child rapists.
http://saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77969

[hiaasenrocks]

58. It wasn't a personal matter when they decided to run.

Did they know they wouldn't be putting the party and the country in jeopardy had he won? Certainly not, otherwise he wouldn't have run.

Your last paragraph is hysterical nonsense. I expect more of Edwards, as a former supporter. It's that simple. Most of my posts about it stem from the unbelievable lack of principle displayed over this issue by many people here at DU. You want to talk about McCain's marriage? Start a thread and I'll jump in and we'll see it die quickly because it's been well-documented and beaten to death. Plus, why in the HELL are you using some creepy bastard like McCain as the standard of behavior? You have extremely low standards.

You can bring up party loyalty all you want. I couldn't care less. Your McCarthyistic attitude about Democrats eating their own and loyalty questions is nothing more than proof of you inability to counter the points I made.

[Th1onein]

97. Yeah, it was THEIR personal business. Want to know why?

Because he was NEVER a frontrunner. It was beside the point, because of that. They never put the party at risk because he was never a frontrunner, and Edwards dropped out of the race long before this was even suspected. And, THEY took a great personal risk, not us, by standing out there in the limelight, knowing that they had this buried, and bringing up issues, like poverty, that no one else, even Barack Obama, was bringing up.

NOW, instead of leaving this alone, and letting it be what it always was: a personal matter, YOU are putting the party at risk with your constant harping on it.

Should the fact that McCain's infidelities are fully documented mean that we shouldn't be bringing them up right now? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's a wonderful opportunity to attack our opponent on this issue, instead of our own guys.

[OnionPatch]

32. I have to agree. I was an Edwards supporter.

And normally I couldn't care less about someone's personal sex life. But you're absolutely right on this. There was way too much at stake right now for him to have taken that risk and we all would have suffered greatly for it had he been our nominee. It sounds dramatic, but the fate of the world would have been in his hands if he had won the nomination. That he could have been so totally selfish and reckless astounds me.

[hiaasenrocks]

75. Good points. You'll notice there is not a SINGLE response with any substantive rebuttal

to the points we are making. All we're getting is emotional outbursts as some kind of defense. Odd.

[JackDragna]

48. You nailed it.

The level of foolishness shown by Mr. Edwards is amazing here. I know many politicians engage in "extracurriculars," but he has to know, as a Democrat, what a fine lens he's under, how much he's watched for the mere sign of a slight mistake in his personal conduct. Thank God the man didn't get the nomination.

[Colobo]

50. 100K for that woman out of campaign money...

That's bad enough, folks.

[hiaasenrocks]

61. Yep. If true, just another reason why it's not simply a "personal matter."

[Baclava]

108. I wish someone would buy me a concubine for $10,000 a month

Does DU have a slush fund?

[earth mom]

59. Just when did Edwards private life become your business?

Do you also keep track of when he uses the bathroom too?

I'm getting sick of this concern troll crap.

[hiaasenrocks]

60. Read the OP. It's all there.

[earth mom]

67. What's in the OP? Another smear campaign?

:wtf:

[hiaasenrocks]

69. "What's in the OP?" LOL. Maybe you should read a post before responding.

Incredible.

[earth mom]

72. I read it and it's a bunch of concern troll bullshit. nt

[hiaasenrocks]

74. If you decide to explain why you disagree with my points, I'll read it.

Otherwise, you're just name-calling and posting nonsense for the sake of posting.

I'll check back to see if you come up with anything of substance.

[earth mom]

76. How is Edwards sex life any of your business? nt

[hiaasenrocks]

80. Here's how.

You can insist upon ignoring my reasons, but everyone reading this knows that I have already stated them, even if they disagree. If you disagree, let's see some substantive rebuttals to the points.

John and Elizabeth Edwards deceived us. He outright lied. She willingly stood by and let him lie to his donors, supporters, volunteers and voters.

As KO asked tonight, did they really think that in this 24/7 news cycle, they were going to get away with this?

I supported Edwards in the primary. Now we know that he was willing to accept the money, hard work, time and devotion of volunteers, all while knowing that his lie could have the whole effort crashing down in an instant.

Had he become the presumptive Democratic nominee, and had this story broke as it did last night, he would have obliterated any chance of winning the White House and perhaps even put in jeopardy the chance to expand majorities in the House and Senate, because of the "down ticket" fallout.

But, for some reason, John and Elizabeth selfishly and deceptively took that risk -- a risk that could have affected us all.

This is beyond a "personal matter." Give me a break.

We now know the character of these people.

[earth mom]

105. Spare us all your holier than thou bullshit.

Because your rant borders on the ridiculous and something Faux news would spew.


"John and Elizabeth selfishly and deceptively took that risk -- a risk that could have affected us all.

This is beyond a "personal matter." Give me a break.

We now know the character of these people."


Jeezus, you can NOT be serious! We aren't talking life or death here. We aren't talking crimes against humanity.

We are talking about someone having sex outside of marriage who only hurt himself and his family.

Listen to yourself. Because it's un-fucking-believable. :wtf:

[asdjrocky]

63. What a load of crap. nt

[hiaasenrocks]

66. Thank you for your content-free rebuttal.

[asdjrocky]

71. It goes perfectly with your content-free

piece of shit post. Here's an idea, why don't you grow up and live with the rest of us un-perfect people who make mistakes?

[hiaasenrocks]

73. I notice you didn't address a single point I made.

You're responding emotionally, rather than logically.

I'll discuss this with you on the merits, but I won't have an emotional flame-war with you.

[live love laugh]

85. And BushCo has lied for 8 years. What is the cost of Edwards lie vs. BushCo's LIES?

I find it very difficult to see how anybody who is so sanctimonious as to be bent out of shape over A....A lie about a PERSONAL affair finds time to be so self righteous. If you hadn't noticed, for eight years all Bush has done is lie and so have his complicit treasonous allies. How you have time to be so concerned about Edwards LIE when we have been bathed in LIES and deception for the past 8 years is beyond me.

[hiaasenrocks]

86. I don't hold politicians that I vote for to Bush's low standards.

If those are your standards, that's your right, but I like to think our guys are better than Bush.

This is not about his personal life. Again, as stated many times over, this is about his choice (and Elizabeth's) to lie to people they asked to trust them.

[Carolina]

95. yes, Edwards was and is a load of crap:

IWR, Patriot Act, bankruptcy bill... blah, blah, blah.

Meanwhile he's fucking around, paying his skank hush money from campaign funds, and living large!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

77. Exactly.

[GoneOffShore]

79. No it doesn't - and IF he had been the nominee, it certainly shouldn't have been an issue

Whining from the Puritan wing of the Democratic Party.

"Someone lied to us about a sexual relationship!!!! The Horror!!! "

What egregious bullshit.

[hiaasenrocks]

81. Ignore reality all you want.

If Edwards had become the nominee, he'd be gone today. Then what would we do?

[EFerrari]

82. Because no other successful politician has ever been unfaithful.

I think some of you need to start your own Edwards Cheated on Me rock opera and put your concern to good use.

[hiaasenrocks]

87. It's about lying to people he asked to trust him, give him money, give him time, etc.

It's not about his personal life.

If you want to have low standards, that's your right of course.

[EFerrari]

90. Low standards? You mean the kind where I don't expect to control

other people's behavior?

It certainly is about his personal life and THIS is what all these years of crazy, nutwing rule and media has done to this country.

This is a problem the Edwards' family is dealing with. It has nothing to do with Edwards as a policy maker. We've been contaminated by this creepy, intrusive voyeurism, exactly as Elizabeth said.

[bluecrush]

88. For some of us, it goes way beyond that...

as it's one last straw. I'm thinking of the embarrassment of having to hear people talk about the "blue dress," then the embarrassment of not standing up to a president in a preemtive war (and sending our ground troops in to face perceived WMD), the embarrassment of taking impeachment off the table,
the embarrassment of continuing to fund a war based on lies. History may wonder not only about the leadership of our party but its resolve. Put that in your rock opera.

[EFerrari]

89. Why do you feel embarrassed over other people's private behavior?

People are embarrassing. That's what we do.

[Carolina]

92. You are SOOOOO

RIGHT!

I never cast my lot with John Edwards because this time around, I was not going to support anyone who voted 'aye' on IWR, apology or not. Saying I'm sorry does nothing to undo the death, damage and destruction to Iraq, our military, our treasury, our standing, our nation...

Then second straw was when I saw Edwards speak at a rally here in SC early in his 2008 campaign and he could not comfortably spin an answer to this question posed to him by a teenager in the crowd:
"You have a reputation as a brillaint lawyer, but how could you vote for the Patriot Act without reading it?!"

His now admitted personal peccadillos just add to the negatives.

Sheesh, had he been our nominee, we would have been toast before the friggin convention.

So, you are right. John (and Elizabeth) Edwards deceived us and it's time for him to fade quickly to the background.

[Canuckistanian]

96. Why not just make marital infidelity a crime?

Because the way people carry on about this, they might as well.

AND hiaasenrocks, you never answered my question.

How does John Edwards' infidelity AFFECT YOU?

Did John make a personal, intimate PROMISE TO YOU?

[girl gone mad]

113. No need for useless strawmen.

No one is talking about criminalizing infidelity. In point of fact, infidelity is of tertiary relevance here.

Look at how Governor Paterson of New York was treated when he aired his marital indiscretions. There was no outrage, no cries of disgust. People accepted it, understood, moved on.

See what a difference honesty makes? Edwards set out to deceive his supporters, presenting himself as a loving family man and a supportive husband. That was the personal promise he made on the campaign trail. He promised he would fight for the little guy. In the end, it looks as if he only cared about himself, not the party.

[Divernan]

118. He paid his mistress $114,000 of publicy donated funds meant to

work on problems of poverty. And I am particularly appalled by men who expose their immunity compromised wives (from chemotherapy) to STD's.

[deaniac21]

100. Unfortunately, I think most politicians would do exactly the same thing.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

101. He asked us to climb on-board his ocean liner while he knew that he was heading for an iceberg.

where is his moral compass?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

110. Elizabeth Edwards gives off "bad energy"?

Well, no shit, Sherlock! Cancer tends to do that to people.

[Divernan]

121. Rielle threatens "someday the truth about her (Elizabeth) will come out."

Some excerpts from the Newsweek article:
"By this point, we were each well into our second glass of wine. "So tell me," I asked, "what do you think of Elizabeth Edwards?" "I've only met her once," Rielle said. "She does not give off good energy. She didn't make eye contact with me." In NEWSWEEK, I wrote a short story about how Edwards had brought this rather unorthodox woman, whom he'd met in a bar, into his campaign to make videos that showed off his unseen side—a less slick, packaged Edwards. We ran it in the PERISCOPE section under the headline EDWARDS UNTUCKED. I didn't mention Rielle's belief in Edwards's potential to be Gandhi or her distaste for Elizabeth. I wanted to keep her as a source.

When I next saw Rielle weeks later, she told me that she'd been fired by the Edwards campaign. She seemed perfectly cheerful about it, but she proceeded to tell me a tale of woe—how the campaign hadn't understood her, how they'd ruined the Webisodes, how they'd impeded her vision and how Edwards himself had failed to defend her. The chief villain in this saga was Elizabeth Edwards. "Someday," Rielle said, "the truth about her is going to come out."

By then, I had decided that Rielle was a less than reliable source. I continued to see her, but more out of curiosity than a belief that I was going to learn much about Edwards from her. I liked Rielle. I let her do my astrological chart. I began to feel a little like the nun in that old joke who complains about receiving a three-hour obscene phone call …Why didn't I just hang up?

But I didn't. I stayed in touch with Rielle for months. 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. She said they wanted to pitch this idea to Darren Star, creator of "Melrose Place" and "Sex and the City." At lunch early that summer, I asked Rielle if she was dating anyone. She answered simply, "I'm in love." I asked, "Who with?" "I can't tell you," she said, "but maybe someday we'll all be friends."

[and-justice-for-all]

112. I still support John Edwards....

He no more lied than any other politician and considering what it was about, something that people do EVERYDAY, I really do not give a shit.

People are people no matter what they are wearing.

[LaurenG]

114. The Edwards aren't selfish in my opinion they were doing what they

thought was best. After all not everyone in DC who has an affair is outed and perhaps they thought this was behind them.

I cannot judge selfishness from where I sit. My very best wishes to them both. :hug: