Edwards infidelity could be Obama's Sister Souljah moment

Let's stipulate:

We all make mistakes.
We're all human.
Everyone deserves a second chance.

That said. The Democratic Party needs to distinguish itself as an institution and fight for the survival of a strong marital institution.

While candidates like John Edwards take nearly every opportunity to promote their "family values", and make their private situations public for their political benefit, there is a disturbing pattern developing in our culture where everyone refuses to set moral standards, and hold people accountable.

A look at all the "elite opinion" basically states:

the infidelity was wrong and unfortunately is a part of our society, but the "real" shame is how Edwards lied to the American People, and how he let down so many young people.

I agree with their second point, but we must not allow the idea of men and women being faithful in their marriage to become an "unattainable" standard.

This will take good men like Obama to take the unpleasant but necessary step of standing up for the America we want to live in, and define it in positive terms.  Obama should set standards as a candidate for President.

Real Change can mean:

1. a faithful honest husband, Americans can trust (change from Bill Clinton)

2. an honest political leader who will make good decisions (change from George Bush)

Mind you, setting a standard doesn't mean anyone who breaks it will receive something equivalent to the death penalty.  

But it does mean that we establish a tradition that we work hard to build on and ultimately pass on to our children better than we found it.  

It also means that we as a people both through our government and through various methods in civil society establish right and wrong, and define moral values.

Some of them are easy like being against murder,rape, stealing, etc.; while others of them like marital infidelity are becoming increasingly difficult to attack because of the sheer propensity of "good people" to do bad things.

Obama should throw John Edwards "under the bus", and for good reason.  

He can reiterate that John is his friend.
That he still wishes to work with him in the future.

But that for John Edwards to lie to the American People while running for President was wrong.

He should say that having sexual relations with another woman is wrong. He should say that this has lead to many problems for John that he will have to deal with.

This was not a lie about some distant past that was "over" and done with. This was "real-time" dishonesty that we as Americans should not accept.

Of course, the potential damage to the party and the country should be factored in, but the real damage is to the idea, that you can have an affair, supposedly tell your wife, lie about it, and not establish bad examples for our young people.

Today, I went to a baseball tournament for 19 year boys/young men.

I thought to myself that Edwards behavior had increased the cynicism about politicians especially since his campaign was built on a moral foundation.  But also that he is helping to institutionalize bad behavior, and now we are lowering the standards in our country.

My solution:

Edwards could have kept this completely quiet had he decided to work in the private sector and not seek to be an official representative of the U.S. as POTUS.

but...

Once he decided to run for President, Edwards should have had the courage to be honest with the American People, tell how he failed, how he is committed to changing in the future.  Furthermore, his wife should have insisted on telling 100% of the truth, all the time.

Obama should say these painful things, and say that he will be trying to establish a Presidency, a Politics, and a cultural change that values Marriage.

The message we need to say without hesistation to our young men and women growing up:

take Marriage seriously, be a honest person, take responsibility for your mistakes and that's more than saying,
"I take full responsibility".

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!



Display:


It's best to move on n/t (2.00 / 1)


by parahammer on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST

Exactly. (2.00 / 4)

I find the idea of trying to profit politically from someone else's mistake and tragic downfall to be repulsive.


by Brad G on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John Edwards Who? (none / 0)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the idea of men and women being faithful.... (2.00 / 2)

it was subtle, but i got it.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST

Re: the idea of men and women being faithful.... (2.00 / 1)

I missed it entirely, and I was looking!  Sharp eyes.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmmmmm (none / 0)

Yellowdem,  what do you think about these new leaked memos?

I think they will be very damaging to the Democratic brand.

I think the fact that we sat idly by and let Mark Penn and his wife steal millions from our donors is a crime.

I think this will be far more devestating to our victory in November.

And you want to harp on the hubris and hormones of one man as anything significant?


by DemsLandslide2008 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM EST

Re: Edwards infidelity could be Obama's Sister Sou (2.00 / 5)

this is moralising crap --- keep it in your church circles, keep it OUT of my political party!


by swissffun on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:49:49 PM EST

Re: Edwards infidelity could be Obama's Sister Sou (2.00 / 4)

just curious --- by encouraging our young men and women to take marriage seriously, you ARE of course including same-sex marriages. of course-


by swissffun on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:54:30 PM EST

um that would be a no. (2.00 / 3)

this particular diarist has made his views on homosexuality crystal clear before.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hereby propose (none / 0)

a vetting committee to be run by the DNC, or better yet, the public, which would undertake to vet these characters before they get to the first primaries.  That would have saved the Edwards's,  their supporters and the Party a great deal of embarrassment and wasted donations.  See, a whole bunch of people knew about Edwards' situation.  A quiet word on the side from Howard Dean, if he had known, might well have kept this fiasco from happening.  
   But what about Bill Clinton, you might ask?  He was a known philanderer when he ran in '92, but he had the gall and the team to pull it off anyway.  In that case, it was known before the primaries, and it didn't involve a sick wife and a love child, so it was a matter of degree, I suppose.  
   The stakes are too high to rely on honesty on the part of the candidates.  The drive for power and the drive to copulate freely seem inseperably intertwined.  We dodged a bullet this time, no question.  What if Edwards hd gotten the VP nod?  We would be in deep shit, I assure you.  Caution and full disclosure must be the watchwords, given the stakes involved.  
by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM EST

Re: I hereby propose (2.00 / 2)

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/8/9/22 552/06460/31#31


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A fair question. (2.00 / 1)

 To my way of thinking, the Clintons represent the extreme right wing of the Democratic Party.  The wing that finds no issue with accepting massive amounts of money from lobbyists and governing or voting accordingly.  The faction which favors a "muscular" foreign policy, bellicose rhetoric, and unquestioning support of Israel.  During the Clinton presidency, a vast increase in military spending took place, the largest increase since Reagan in the 80's.  This was as cowardly as it was unnecessary in my view.  Lest we forget, Bill Clinton was all in favor of invading Iraq, but that idea was waved off by the repubs as a "wag the dog" scenario.  Madelyn Albright's famous remark "What's the point in having this superb military you are always talking about if we can't use it?" is all too typical of these half-closeted neocons.

The phrase "the best republican president we've had" has been applied to Bill Clinton, and I believe it is apt.  FDR would hardly recognize the DLC/NAFTA wing of our beloved party for the simple reason that in that era, they would have been Republicans, not Democrats.

For your edification, I include a snippet from Franklin Roosevelt's acceptance speech at the Philadelphia convention of 1936.  
This is what a real Democrat sounds like.  See if you can imagine a Clinton saying this:

"For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital--all undreamed of by the fathers--the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

 There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

 It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man."


by ReillyDiefenbach on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:23:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you did it again. (none / 0)

but didn't answer the question.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe I have spent (2.00 / 1)

more than enough time explaining my dislike of the Clintons.  The issues I raised are substantive, relating to actual votes and policies, and that was just a short bit of the laundry list.  I'll not go into the dirty campaign she and her amaneunsis Mark Penn ran, that will be the stuff of bad legend for many years to come, stuff that would never fly in Canada, BTW.  
I understand you love Hillary and maybe wanderin' Bill too, but there are a lot of us Democrats out there who don't, based on what they have voted for or enacted into law.  It will be a happy day for us when they ride off into the sunset, sparing us any further excitement.

That is all.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hereby propose (2.00 / 2)

If that was the case then all of our nominees would have been at risk of not passing the vetting process.

Obama- How could he have run for the Presidency knowing the Rezko (a close friend of his)was on trial for corruption? He did buy a house from Rezko with a huge discount knowing he was corrupted and the FBI was investigating him.Obama made a serious error in judgment and he lied repeatedly about the details. How could Obama have run knowing the Wright tape was easily accessbile to the media?

Clinton- How could Hillary have run for President knowing who the Clinton library donors were? How could she have run for President knowing the ties between Bill Clinton and the Colombian trade deal?

Dodd- How could Dodd have run for President knowing the Country Wide Mortgage deal he made?

Biden- How could Biden have run for President again when the plagerism scandal of '88 cost him of possible winning the nomination.

Richardson- How could Richardson have run for President knowing the fact that he is known as "womanizer". Yes, he cheats on his wife.

The DNC could have looked at all these issues and determine that neither of the 6 was qualified. I hear Gravel has nothing in his background except credit card debt so I guess he would have been the frontrunner. We can talk about what if's all day. Rudy could have been the republican nominee. If that was the case, Edwards would have still look like a better husband and father than Rudy. Rudy announced his divorce to his wife in a press conference and tried to get his mistress to move into the mayor's mansion at taxpayer's expense. McCain has a history of cheating too. So if it was between Edwards and McCain, they would both have a history of being unfaithful.

We don't know if the Edwards affair would have impacted him as the nominee. He did end it in 2006 so it started and ended before he ran for President. Yes, he lied but so did Bill Clinton. Remember the 92 election. Flowers and all of his affairs were brought up in the election and he still won. The point is every one of the candidates had issues that shows none of them is perfect. All of them made a serious error in judgment at one point in their lives. They are only human.


by harmony590 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"We don't know if the Edwards affair would (none / 0)

have impacted him as the nominee."

You can't be serious.  There are grades of scandal as I noted above.  The years long banging of a shiela while his wife is battling cancer, paying for her videos out of funds supposedly collected for charity and possibly fathering a love child is a ten on the Richter scale.
 Thanks be to jebus we didn't nominate the guy or put him on the ticket as VP.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hereby propose (1.33 / 3)

If that was the case then all of our nominees would have been at risk of not passing the vetting process.

Obama- How could he have run for the Presidency knowing the Rezko (a close friend of his)was on trial for corruption? He did buy a house from Rezko with a huge discount knowing he was corrupted and the FBI was investigating him.Obama made a serious error in judgment and he lied repeatedly about the details. How could Obama have run knowing the Wright tape was easily accessbile to the media?

Clinton- How could Hillary have run for President knowing who the Clinton library donors were? How could she have run for President knowing the ties between Bill Clinton and the Colombian trade deal?

Dodd- How could Dodd have run for President knowing the Country Wide Mortgage deal he made?

Biden- How could Biden have run for President again when the plagerism scandal of '88 cost him of possible winning the nomination.

Richardson- How could Richardson have run for President knowing the fact that he is known as "womanizer". Yes, he cheats on his wife.

The DNC could have looked at all these issues and determine that neither of the 6 was qualified. I hear Gravel has nothing in his background except credit card debt so I guess he would have been the frontrunner. We can talk about what if's all day. Rudy could have been the republican nominee. If that was the case, Edwards would have still look like a better husband and father than Rudy. Rudy announced his divorce to his wife in a press conference and tried to get his mistress to move into the mayor's mansion at taxpayer's expense. McCain has a history of cheating too. So if it was between Edwards and McCain, they would both have a history of being unfaithful.

We don't know if the Edwards affair would have impacted him as the nominee. He did end it in 2006 so it started and ended before he ran for President. Yes, he lied but so did Bill Clinton. Remember the 92 election. Flowers and all of his affairs were brought up in the election and he still won. The point is every one of the candidates had issues that shows none of them is perfect. All of them made a serious error in judgment at one point in their lives. They are only human.


by harmony590 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hereby propose (none / 0)

The only "all of his affairs" story to be substantiated was the one with Gennifer Flowers.  She claimed a 7 year affair but under oath Bill admitted to a brief affair with her.  All of the others?  "He said she said" No other proof except that a couple of NYT reporters were trying hard to sell papers with the inuendo.  Read "The Hunting of the President" by Lyons and Conason and learn about all of the "affairs".  Sure there were lots of rumors, but not much real evidence. But it sold papers.


by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity (2.00 / 4)

I always wonder why these pseudo Democrats want to try and tie Edwards' infidelity to Obama.
One has nothing to do with the other.
I mean, no one is trying to tie Rudy's womanizing ways (currently on wife number 3) to John McCain, are they?

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:01:35 PM EST

Why would they have to (2.00 / 2)

McCain has his own record on womanizing to cover himself up plenty.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity (2.00 / 2)

Giuliani, Fred Thompson, McCain... all three were divorced. It's sad that John Edwards cheated, but at least they stayed together. Last I checked, that's pretty good family values.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity (1.00 / 1)

We need to cross our fingers that Obama doesn't stray.  Arrogance and power are heady aphrodisiacs.  We can only hope that this combination doesn't fell the next occupant of the white house.


by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity (2.00 / 2)

Wow, you manage to get in a bit of subtle doubt as to Obama's marital fidelity and throw in an "arrogant" dig.  All in the same two-line post.

I salute you.  Now go claim your McPoints.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity (none / 0)

Oh grow up. Can't you read?  Did you take critical thinking in high school?


by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity (none / 0)

I did indeed, and I practice it every day.  Which is why I was able to recognize your comment for what it was.  The first comment was an (a)--very subtle!  I'm going to have to give this one a (d) though.  No effort.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity could be (2.00 / 4)

John Edwards cheated on his wife and confessed to her and asked her forgiveness.  As far as he was concerned the affair was over and his wife still loved him.  He was not running for office when he cheated on his wife.  The affair was over when he announced he was running. Do you think that he is the first guy to cheat and still run for political office?  


by Spanky on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST

Indeed. (2.00 / 6)

In fact, I think that we are on the same page on this one. Take a look at the timeline:

Gays can get married in Mass in 2004. In California in 2008. Since JRE cheated on his wife in 2006, it's obvious that his cheating was caused by gay marriage.

Please, join with me now to make sure the sanctity of marriage is protected. Let's face it: if Bob and Larry couldn't get married, then John Edwards would have NEVER cheated on his wife.

Defend marriage today!
/snark


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:16:46 PM EST

Re: Indeed. (2.00 / 2)

Let's just cut to the chase:  Gay-married people destroyed Edwards' real marriage.  At that point anything was possible since the gay-marriage rot had already beset his life.  

I was going to try to tap out some wildly snarky comments here but my snark runs too close to this diarist's previously stated positions.  I'm finding that proximity awfully uncomfortable so I'll just leave this as an unfinished post.


A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.
by January 20 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's be honest (none / 0)

Faithfulness has never been an attainable standard for most people.  Many studies have shown that close to (or more than) 50% of men and 25% of women will have an affair at some point.  A large percentage also say they would cheat if they could get away with it.  And many others are never offered the temptation, so their assertion that they would never cheat is based wholly on conjecture.  So...let's just say that marriage is a failed institution, and let's take a closer look at it.  Maybe marriage is the problem, not the "cheater."


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:16:59 PM EST

Re: Let's be honest (2.00 / 1)

Faithfulness has never been an attainable standard for most people.  Many studies have shown that close to (or more than) 50% of men and 25% of women will have an affair at some point.

Which leads to the next question...  Who are all the men having these affairs with, if twice as many of them are unfaithful as women?  Tells an uncomfortable truth about one quarter of married men, doesn't it...

(I kid, I kid, I know statistics doesn't work like that.)


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's be honest (none / 0)

The women are probably mostly single, as are the men that women have an affair with.  But these studies are very hard to base a lot on, many of them are not as scientific as they could be.  I would buy anything from 25%-75% for men and anything from 10%-50% for women.  Women are still disproportionately punished socially for affairs and sexual encounters in general than men.  Seems like there is a lot of room for improvement on the equality front still.


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't judging a standard of morality.......... (2.00 / 3)

A little dangerous for you, Craig?

Deciding WHO to throw under the bus?

Let's list a couple of scenarios, and see which one Craig thinks is "THE MORAL" choice for the Democratic party to support.

Couple one stays in a life long committment, one based on love, trust and mutual respect. They live their lives as examples of true humanity in open love and trust.

The second couple, one of the members has extra relationship affiars, lies, cheats, betrays their partner. They leave their partner, their children, for a younger, richer partner.

Oh, I forgot to mention (and I'm really not sure WHY I even have to) the first couple is gay.

Over to you Craig, since you have appointed yourself abitor and judge of morality for what is a GOOD relationship for society to use as a standard?


Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!
by WashStateBlue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST

How about (none / 0)

we just eliminate marriage. I mean is it really necessary? Some people stay together forever, some don't whether there's a marriage or not.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST

Re: How about (2.00 / 4)

In a manner of speaking, at least legally, I agree with you.

The ONLY thing the state should be involved in, legally, is a civil union, which is a legal contract.

Take MARRIAGE away from the government, from rules about inheritance, social security, child support, etc.

Let the fundies keep their precious word, let the government get out of the morality/religous definition business.


Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!
by WashStateBlue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about (none / 0)

Took the words right out of my mouth.  The solution to the gay marriage issue isn't to grant the institution of marriage to gays, it's to stop granting the institution of marriage at all as a civil matter.  You want to get married?  Get a priest.  You want a civil union/domestic partnership?  Get a justice of the peace.

But I suppose that makes me an extremist.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:35:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about (none / 0)

Actually, it makes you someone that understands the intent of the founders, in the abstract, and the whole.

My take is, for all the Republic bible thumpers and the Anton Scalia's claiming they speak for Jefferson, he would be siding with us on this one.


Our long national nightmare is over...in 17 days!
by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about (none / 0)

Well, I like marriage, and I like being married, so does my husband.
Just because some people aren't good at it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
* Hums Mr. Rogers theme *
by Maori on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:59:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about (none / 0)

In fairness, MOST people are terrible at it, affairs or not.  Expecting people to have a 50+ year relationship (not just sexual, but emotional and intellectual) with just one person is pretty unrealistic in my mind.  


by ProgressiveDL on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only problem (1.50 / 2)

with this stance would be if some Obama's indiscretion comes out of woodwork. Not that I am saying that there is something there, but you never know.


by ann0nymous on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST

Re: The only problem (none / 0)

Ah, the "there's absolutely no evidence, but you just never know" approach?

Away with you.  Back to NoQuarter.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards infidelity could be Obama's Sister Sou (none / 0)

"Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.

Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you've commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center."


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 06:14:42 PM EST

You are sick. (2.00 / 2)

Leave these poor people alone.

Go publicly attack people you know. If one of your friends cheated on his wife, would you throw him out of your life? Would you denounce him and tell all your other friends not to talk to him?

90% of the country is sick and tired of people like you. If Bush wasn't your cup of tea, then I don't know what you are actually looking for. Just sayin.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:06:11 PM EST

Re: Edwards infidelity could be Obama's Sister Sou (2.00 / 2)

If you are saying that Barack Obama should not also cheat on his wife, I totally agree with that.


by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:56:21 PM EST

Really none of our business. (none / 0)

John Edwards' affair is none of our fucking business.  Honestly, I never thought that Bill Clinton's indiscretions were any of my business.  It only became my business when he got in front of a camera and lied about it.  If he had said, "no comment," or "how dare you ask me that," or "that's none of your fucking business," I would have applauded him.  But he had to go and wag his finger and purger himself in front of his boss (the citizenry of this country).

In the case of John Edwards, I couldn't care less that he lied over and over, because he was not an elected official at the time.  All people running for president lie over and over.  Look at John McCain.  It's when they're working for me that it becomes an issue.  However, even then their sex life, lack thereof, or extracurricular adventures are none of my business.

Though I do wonder wtf he was doing at that hotel where the national enquirer caught him.  If the affair was over, why the hell was he there?


by shalca on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:35:19 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.