John Edwards Admits Affair, Denies Paternity

[Comments now closed, new post here.]

John Edwards has admitted his affair with Rielle Hunter to Charlie Gibson of ABC News but denies he's the father of her child.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

Elizabeth has known since 2006. [More...]

Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.
Edwards says Elizabeth was in remission at the time. How they met:
According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

Edwards said the affair began during the campaign after she was hired. Hunter traveled with Edwards around the country and to Africa.

Kind of gutsy for him to launch a presidential bid knowing this was in his background. Was he thinking if Rudy Giuliani could get away with it, so could he? He had to know it would be discovered. And when it was reported in the media in 2007, why did he deny it?

He says he doesn't love Hunter but yes, that was him at the hotel in Beverly Hills as the Enquirer reported. Then there's this:

Edwards denied paying any money to Hunter to keep her from going public but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him.

The interview will air on Nightline tonight.

< Kilpatrick Charged With New Crimes | McCain's Lobbyist Problem >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Elizabeth....we love you! (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    God bless and keep you and your family safe and sound and strong.

    Those two have certainly (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    been through a lot together, but I have to say that Elizabeth appears to be the stronger of the two.

    Disappointing for sure, but all too frequent and all too human behavior.


    Shainzona.....I appreciate your words and lets (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    see how others react.  Let's not forget ALL those Hillary haters who based their hatred on the fact Hillary didn't leave Bill....my heart definitely goes out to Elizabeth and John would do well to learn to keep it in his pants.

    BTW, my comment came prior to my... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:15:29 PM EST
    fully reading the post.  Edward's interview sounds very lame...he doesn't know if the baby is his and he didn't pay Hunter off, but other of his friends and supporters might have?

    Oh, John.  (Shaking head).


    prediction (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    baby his, she was paid off by someone close to him.

    Yes, given today's (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    admission, which has the definite ring of Modified Limited Hangout Route about it, it tends to make it more likely than not that he's both the father and made arrangements for this woman to be paid.

    Edwards' denials about both these issues have no credibility right now.


    VP contender (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    It shouldn't, but this matters when trying to get elected (different once in office), but how could he have considered himself to be a VP contender?  The issue would have detracted from the campaign.

    He said multiple time he did not want to be (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    picked.  Guess we believe him now.

    He took himself off of that train (none / 0) (#217)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:06:15 PM EST
    and did so in spite of all those SurveyUSA polls showing an Obama/Edwards ticket cleaning up.

    There was no call for the National Enquirer to pursue this story--Edwards wasn't going to be President or VP.  They will make a lot of money though...


    Ugh (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    Shameful stuff.  "I didn't love her" has the ring of "I didn't inhale."  Like, is that supposed to make it better?

    There is a compelling urge to go all Joe Lieberman on him but I will resist.  By the way, if the kid isn't his, there really is no good reason for him to be having surreptitious meetings with her in a hotel.

    This was my thought too (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    "I didn't love her" makes it worse, IMO.  

    So sad.


    So sad (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    that this had to be made public.  Maybe we'll learn soon that it was going to be publicly verified by some other source and this is pre-emptive--but other than that, I don't understand why he would put Elizabeth and his family through a public spectacle.  

    I also feel bad for Rielle's child. Public discussion of paternity is bound to be hurtful.

    None of our business whatsoever. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:21:41 PM EST
    He shouldn't even have been asked questions about it in the first place.

    But hey, now the national news will have something to talk about, because who really cares as such a small thing as a war between Georgia and Russia?

    He was on to something and never let it go.

    Whoever keeps injecting high profile politician with hubris should stop it right now. What a sad sad story. Heartbreaking truly.

    Why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    This is irrelevant.

    If you think it IS relevant, then every single politician MUST be asked the question whether they have had an affair or cheated on a girlfriend.

    Is it relevant? I say it is not. Is Mickey Kaus pushing for this question to be asked of everyone?  


    every politician is asked (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    the same way they are asked if they used drugs.

    Some admit with an explanation, some deny.

    Edwards denied. A candidate who isn't truthful is not going to be elected.


    John McCain was asked if he had had an affair? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    That is news to me.

    did he have an affair with his present wife while married to his previous wife? Has ABC reported on THAT?


    NYT comes to mind (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    and I think your second question is already common knowledge just like Rudy's past was/is.

    On the lying I agree - but I don't think (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    he should have to disclose anything.  

    I think Edwards like Clinton before him should have said, "Its none of your g-damned business."  

    I've always thought that lying was stupid - but I don't think that there is any reason in the world that anyone has a "right" to know or ask about what a candidate/politician does in his or her bedroom as long as their partner is a consenting adult.


    How many politicans are truthful? (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    They just don't get caught in the lies.

    But All Candidates Aren't Truthful (none / 0) (#103)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    at least they aren't truthful about everything.  Frankly, if I'm going to be lied to, I'd rather it be about something like this than the oath of office.

    No wonder he dropped out of the (none / 0) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    race at the first believable opportunity.

    Yes he did, but with respect to his endorsement (none / 0) (#114)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:59 PM EST
    of obama 1) do you think he knew this was coming down and that is why he endorsed so hurriedly?  2) will there be any blowback on obama's campaign?

    Or, did he think he had become old news (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    with his earlier statement he was out of politics completely (later followed with a hint he might accept a VP offer).

    Maybe the VP vetting committee got too close to this truth, and he decided he had better be honest, since he couldn't be faithful.


    I agree (none / 0) (#174)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    Relevancy question (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    Doesn't this make it a little more relevant?  Maybe he should have just said "no comment" instead moralizing.

    Excellent sluething. (none / 0) (#165)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    Hypocrisy reins, it seems. Especially since it's likely he made those comment while he was involved in the affair.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#187)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    I figured applying John Edward's own public view on the topic was a pretty fair yardstick for determining relevancy.  As it turns out, the goose was cooked in the sauce it created.  Takes the rest of our opinions out of the way.

    Wasnt Kaus obsessed with Monica in the 90s? (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    BTD you miss one thing (none / 0) (#102)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards was so much part of John's appeal. It was a beautiful love story: The wife has Incurable cancer but she and her brave and loving husband decide to take that challenge all the way.

    To have John Edwards cheats on her in the middle of this is relevant, not only to the story but to who John Edwards IS.

    I never said we should just go ahead and ask pols "Have you ever had and affair"?

    That would be silly and I don't think it was Mickey's point, as much as I hate taking his side on anything. He thought there was something there and it was a relevant story.


    But What Does This Tell You About Edwards? (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    Nothing, I'd argue, beyond he's human.  Maybe he's scum, maybe he isn't, but none of us have any idea about what was going on with himself or his marriage or his life when he did this.  All we know is a little piece and you can't tell anything looking at one piece of a larger puzzle.

    It's one of the great lies of the modern media is that by knowing one or two things about a person you can know that person.  And then, the other lie, that you should then base your vote on who the person is (even though there's no way you can know) and not on what they will do.  

    Now, of course, these things merge in the public record in terms of what causes they've fought for and what they've compromised.  What they have done in their public life can lead you to know what they will do as President (or Senator) or whatever.  But you still don't know their private character and pretending that knowing a particular fact about someone leads to any great insight is unfair and largely untrue.  Lots of very good people make very big mistakes.

    To me the only potentially relevant part is spending campaign money on her for a job she doesn't appear qualified for.  I can see why donors might care about that.  But that goes to the idea that when you give money to a candidate, you presume it will be used for the campaign, not to pay off his girlfriend.  

    But when it comes to public v. private morality, I'll take philanderer Franklin Roosevelt over faithful Richard Nixon any day.


    He's a liar, a fraud and a phony (none / 0) (#136)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:13:25 PM EST
    That's what the story tells us about John Edwards.

    Really now (none / 0) (#194)
    by Trickster on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    Do you take a 100% exception-proof moral stand on the principle that no one should ever lie about anything when asked by the press?

    Are you privy to John and Elizabeth's private vows and intentions?

    Have you ever heard of an open marriage?

    Did you know that some people derive sexual pleasure from their spouse's affairs and encourage such affairs?  Sometimes avidly?

    If Elizabeth Edwards was such a person, is it any of your or my gd beeswax?

    Do you think Elizabeth Edwards is unable to safeguard her own interests and desires?

    Do you think if Elizabeth Edwards wished to divorce John for infidelity she would have trouble finding competent counsel?


    We're talking politics here (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    Your questions are valid but not in this type of forum.

    You make so many assumptions of your own (none / 0) (#214)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    in that comment it's hard to count them all.

    He was and is dishonest and (none / 0) (#181)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    believe it or not, being honest is about who you are. It's about integrity.

    He also is pretty callous to say to the world "I do not love her" (Hunter) makes it even more pathetic.


    I heard (none / 0) (#73)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    soemthing about Mickey Kaus and a goat.

    Another sterling member of the chattering class.


    I love Elizabeth (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by DJ on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    and my heart breaks for her.  And a little for him too.  I know though it was he who made the choice.

    This stuff is so personal and private.  I wish we as a culture would not give it so much attention, but we do.  What is the percentage of folks who strayed during their marriage?  I am on my second marriage and I strongly believe we would never hurt each other in that way but I know so many folks stray.  The egos involved in politics make the problem so much worse.  

    I hate this for the whole family.  Elizabeth supposedly knew about this since 2006.  Hillary haters bash her for staying with Bill, I hope the same does not happen to Elizabeth.  It is their personal journey.

    The suspicious part of me wonders though if Axelrod had something about this in his file.

    All I can say is (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    the National Enquirer, once again, paid someone to get this "breaking" story.  I wonder who made money off this?  Hunter?  A friend of hers?  Linda Tripp?  ;-)

    Anyway, this is why the "rumors" in National Enquirer turn out to be true so often.  Someone is being paid to tell...    

    Simple remedy for that: (4.33 / 3) (#46)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    Don't cheat on your wife.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    I'm no fan of Edwards, but... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:31:30 PM EST
    ...this in indeed nobody's business.

    Think if he had been the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by hapapp on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    We would be in one fine mess if somehow Edwards had been the nominee.  

    While I agree this is a private matter, it was pretty foolish of him to think he could have an affair and keep it under wraps.  It was a pretty reckless thing to do.  It's one thing if this was something that happen 15 years ago but as he was seeking the nomination.  Foolish.

    Let's face it, if this was a prominent Republican we would be all over this.  I don't think Edwards should get a pass on this.

    What would the opposite of (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    "getting a pass" involve? Nothing I want any part of is my guess.

    Holding Edwards politically accountable.... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    By that I mean treating Edwards the same way we would treat a Republican who did this.

    And the fact is that we'd be merciless with a Republican.

    What really bugs me is that while I understand how a politician could think he might get away with this, when the story broke in October 2007 Edwards should have had the sense to say what he is finally saying now, because had he succeeded in becoming the nominee the allegations of the affair would have received far more scrutiny.  

    And call me paranoid, but the timing of Edwards withdrawal now looks highly suspect; designed for maximum advantage for Obama.  Had Edwards stayed in, the anti-Clinton vote would have been split two ways on SuperTuesday, and she would have emerged the clear frontrunner.  


    We go after Republicans for the hypocrisy, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    not the affair.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    we go after Republicans for the partisanship.  The hypocrisy is the fig leaf.

    Maybe for you (none / 0) (#189)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    For my own part, I wouldn't be the least bit interested in, for example, Larry Craig's personal behavior unless he legislated as he did. (The Federal Marriage Amendment, for example).

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    You only want to use a scandal to pick up his seat if there is hypocrisy involved?  That's very gentlemanly of you.

    Uh yeah, (none / 0) (#205)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    if there's no public hypocrisy, I'm really not interested. It's the standard I used for Bill Clinton, and it's the standard I use today.

    moreover, if most Republicans (none / 0) (#216)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    were not moralistic SOBs, if they weren't constantly trying to legislate me into second class citizenship, I would be much less concerned about their being in office.

    well said (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Lil on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    and absolutely right too.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#112)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    He should have taken a page (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    from the Gov of NY when this came up again. I'm sure he had to think it would become an issue again after the run in with the reporters at the hotel.

    I also find the timing of this admission weird, lol!~


    If he was (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    the nominee, the GOP would had somehow put a lid on this stuff until after the convention. That's why I'm sure that they've been soft on Obama. They're waiting til after the convention to unload.

    Only for the hypocrisy. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by lobary on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    I am firmly with BTD on this. This is none of our business, and no politician should be expected to answer questions about his/her private sex life (assuming, of course, there are no laws broken).

    For example, I don't think Jack Ryan's escapades had any place in the public discourse and I defended him  just I've defended Bill Clinton, just like I'll defend John Edwards.

    It's none of our business.

    If only our politicians would learn to stand up for privacy rights and refuse to answer the question....


    None of our business.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    This is between Edwards, his wife, his kids, and his mistress.

    It concerns no one else...and certainly not the general public.

    Totally our business (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:42:25 PM EST
    This main raised millions as "the most electable Democrat," which he clearly wasn't.

    Our business, absolutely.


    He and Rielle had a business realtionship (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    as well. How many hundreds of thousand$ did he pay her to make him look good to America in those videos?

    Sex, Lies and Videotape. Good going, John.


    She was paid with our money (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    after all.  That does matter to me.

    Did he look good in the tapes? (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    I didn't see them.

    If we are going to dump all candidates who do not get their money's worth out of political advertising, we are not going to have many left.


    Not even slightly my point. (none / 0) (#169)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    I wasted money on this man that could have gone to Hillary.

    And there is also the little matter (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by miriam on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    of the votes which might have gone to Hillary,such as those in Iowa where she came in third...to Edwards.  Would those mid-western Iowans have voted for Edwards if this had been exposed?  If I sound bitter, I am.  I am not the least surprised about Edwards piccadillos, and after the vanity of his $400 haircut, I'm surprised anyone else is. I'm just recalling the fawning adulation of this feet-of-clay man at sites like kos--and the ridicule and disdain with which any comment deemed irreverential of him was met.      

    I look forward to Mudcat Saunders' (none / 0) (#83)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    take on this sordid matter.

    Apparently Edwards' ex campaign mgr, David Bonior, is very angry at JE for misleading everyone on the staff.  


    I couldn't be less interested (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    in anything Mudcat has to say.

    Why is he talking about in on ABC? (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    The only person he owes any apologies to is his wife -- and, in fact, as far as I know (because no one knows what goes on behind closed doors in a marriage) maybe his sick wife is ok with it. I can't be the only one who has read "Lady Chatterly's Lover."
    Given this country's puritanical attitude toward sex it isn't the best move to run for president with this in his background, but doing a mea culpa on television doesn't help that.  He isn't running any more. There is absolutely no reason for him to talk about it publicly, especially if he is going to emphasis how much he didn't really care about his mistress, which only makes him look more like a cold-hearted sob. Have a little shred of dignity and tell the press "no comment."  

    Even if his sick wife is OK with "it" (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    I would hope my husband had the love and courage to stay "with me".  What an insult to their relationship and all she has done with/for him.

    My criticism is his publicly talking about it (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM EST
    What I would want in my own marriage is irrelevant & since he isn't my husband, I honestly don't take a position on the actual affair itself -- that is for Elizabeth to do. But I do think he should not help make it a more public spectacle then it is.

    I don't know about you, (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    but I've hard many stories abut guys who cheated on or left wives who had gotten serious illnesses.  Some of them just can't handle the situation. For the woman, the stress of the disease is bad enoug without the mental agony of a betrayal.

    Which one is the weaker sex?  ;)


    And I've heard stories.... (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    about women who leave their husbands after they come home from Iraq with no legs.  So what?

    No reason to bring a war of the sexes into it...we're all flawed regardless of what chromosomes we have.


    Of course, (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    but we talking about this kind of situation.

    No one really knows how he or she would behave until life pulls the rug out from under.


    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:24:19 PM EST
    we can only hope we'd do the right thing by our loved ones.

    Apparently Elizabeth knew and has forgiven him...thats good enough for me.

    His stance on the drug war is why I'd never vote for him...I couldn't care less about his personal life.  Devoted husband, serial adulterer...makes no difference to me, I'm not in his family, and I'm in no position to judge.


    You know nothing of Elizabeth's feelings (none / 0) (#175)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    about it. None of us does.

    You're right... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    I shouldn;t assume just because they're still togther that she has forgiven him.

    She could just be doing the "good political wife" thing.

    Again, none of my business.


    Newt Gingrich (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    for one.

    Hmmm, Elizabeth Edwards as VP, maybe? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    I'd love her as VP! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    Hillary and Elizabeth - What a team! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    I'm serious about that statement, too.

    What a team!  Think what they could achieve for our country!!


    I seriously agree with that statement 100% n/t (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    Angie (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    The only way he can get the media to stop chasing him about it is to admit it publicly.  I don't really think he had any choice, otherwise it would just grow and be far more intrusive to him and his family and to the charming young thing he was playing with and her child.

    You may be right (none / 0) (#80)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:54:32 PM EST
    but I think the story would have eventually died. Publicly discussing it just makes the embarrassment worse for his family, IMO.

    I posted this above (none / 0) (#209)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:58:40 PM EST
    The DNC wanted this cleaned up before the convention as Edwards is scheduled to speak per Fowler, according to Politico.

    I agree it's none of our business (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    I mean, FDR and JFK cheated and Hitler never looked at another woman after he was with Eva Braun.

    I DO feel bad for Mrs. Edwards because her family's "dirty laundry" is being aired.  Not to mention the kids.  The damn press and the "i-won't-read-about-policy-that-affects-me-directly-economically-but-will-drool-over-extra-marital-a ffairs" public need to get a damn clue.

    Running for office, yes, there is a higher standard.  But we don't need those who claim to have a higher mantle (when in reality they don't) try to shove their version of morality down my throat.

    John Edwards is human. He made a mistake.  It's between him and his family. I know some think that we don't hold that view when an R does it.  But the R's pontificate about 'family value' this or 'family value' that. The Dems don't.

    Of course it's our business (4.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    Given the context of American political life, it is absolutely our business that a guy who claimed to be "the most electable" Democrat had such a media-friendly skeleton in his closet, and apparently did little to actually hide it effectively.

    Life's not fair, but sometimes if you have a freakin' clue it's a little more equitable. This was just way over the line in any real-world scenario.


    How is it way over the line? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    your line maybe.  Not mine.  Look the man made a mistake.  We don't know what else was going on.  Of course we are all on Mrs. Edwards' side and feel bad for the whole family.

    But even JFK said the more he screwed up the more people liked him.  It was pretty obvious to the American public that he was not completely faithful to Mrs. Kennedy.

    The public I think can forgive if someone is man or woman enough to own up to it. Bill Clinton left office with approval ratings in the 60s.


    Because it would have guaranteed his loss (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    had he been the nominee. Game over.

    Bill Clinton had a solid track record as a beloved president before the Monica thing.

    Big, big, BIG difference.


    Oh, not to mention the whole cancer thing (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    tx, the public didn't become (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    aware of Kennedy's extracurricular until the mid-70s.  FDR also had nothing written about his rather obvious relationships with one or two loyal female friends.  Ditto for Eleanor and certain of her lady friends.  Same for the oppo -- Wendell Willkie almost openly flaunted his mistress before the media.  Nothing was said about it in the media.

    Bill went on national teevee to admit his fling, and then was almost impeached over it -- creating an unusual sympathy backlash for him and keeping him politically viable.

    Different time/circumstances today with Edwards, who's also facing increasingly real allegations that he is the father of the love child.

    Get back to me in 20 yrs or so when the US public has gotten more Euro about these things.  Then we all can confidently shout that It's None of Our Business, and make it stick ...


    The other problem with the R's (none / 0) (#47)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    is that a lot of their "affairs" seem to be homosexual rather than heterosexual -- and it usually seems to happen to those politicians who are the most against things like gay marriage, etc.

    gay or straight (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    doesn't make a difference.  a breach of trust is a breach of trust.

    i am a gay man who was cheated on.  of course it was painful but you move on and forgive.  i just hope that this episode will play out and make the Edward's marriage stronger.


    Did he say it was a mistake? (none / 0) (#188)
    by miriam on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    i agree with you and thank (none / 0) (#199)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    you for the comment. have you read about hitler? i do remember the story about his niece who committed suicide. of course this was before his relationship with eva.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    I don't think the niece committed suicide until well after he met Eva.

    We may be giving Hitler too much credit here - a common problem, I am told.


    Ugh. But now watch for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    to be asked to reject and renounce Edwards as his supporter, etc.  The GOP sex scandals are old news, and this is dominating the news cycle -- in part because Obama has gone fishing.  Maybe good that he's on vacation but maybe bad if this keeps going.

    And Obama returns to the big churchy thing with the fundie preacher, the hourlong interviews with both Obama and McCain.  I see the GOP in this -- as why would Edwards, after denying it repeatedly, be admitting it now?  Because some media or other were going to go with the story.

    As for why in heck Edwards would go see the woman after midnight in a hotel after the affair was allegedly over, if the poor child isn't his . . . that's why this will keep going.  Ugh.

    The other shoe hasn't dropped (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    Bet you anything the child is his.

    That will be a shame (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    His response to no paternity test speaks loudly, though. He was just with Rielle in LA, why didn't he just ask and get a truthful answer on that from the person who should know it?

    It makes the "delay" suspicious.

    And, since Hillary Clinton lost supporters because of what Bill did, I'd say the American people still have a way of deciding for themselves what is and isn't their business when it comes to politics.


    none of my business (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    I adore Elizabeth and my thoughts go out to her and the children.

    I wish he hadn't lied about it but (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    not a fun thing for a family to go through in front of everyone and God.  Most people I know who get to go through this get to do it alone with only those who are closely involved in their lives witnessing.  Stuff happens and this is really Elizabeth's biz, not really mine.  Wish there wasn't an interview about it taking place, everyone involved is of legal age!

    My only regret (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    is that I did not support Hillary from the get go, but wasted my support on Edwards.

    not a waste (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    you bought into what was in front of you.  and edwards doing what he did does not necessarily make him a bad man or a bad politician.

    it makes him..........human.


    It makes him a hypocrite (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    In his One America speeches he continually pontificated on how we must be moral and honest.

    And as a candidate for president, how could he not realize this would come out? Talk about audacity.

    I'm pretty dam*ed disgusted.


    Exactly. Would Clinton be the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    if Edwards had not run?  Many of us were for him first.  His run had a major impact on this campaign from the start -- and again when he handed his delegates to Obama at a crucial point that meant momentum for Obama far beyond the importance of 20-some delegates.  (But 20-some delegates in such a close contest did make a difference, too.)  With Clinton's pre-eminence on health care, too, Edwards' support to Obama was crucial for that reason, too.

    Edwards not only had an affair, so what, but he lied repeatedly in denying it -- and it was rumored long ago at a time when he ought to have seen that it could come out.  He ought to have taken himself out of the campaign.  And then, I think -- going back to Iowa -- Clinton could be our presumptive nominee now.

    And that matters, not only to Dems but to this country.


    I didn't think of it like that (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    You make good points, as usual.  What if he were never in the race?  Hard to say how the dynamics would have played out, but Hillary would definitely have done better in Iowa.

    come on people (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by touchmonkey on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    If it was McCain and Iseman...we would be eating this up with a spoon (all the while saying it isn't anybodys business)

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    I have the post at THIS SITE to prove otherwise.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    Let's just be honest with ourselves here, I agree.

    Some of us are. (none / 0) (#99)
    by lobary on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    My defense of privacy rights is not restricted to political partisanship.

    One thing I'll say for certain (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    Edwards is ruined politically.  We won't be seeing him on a presidential or vice presidential ticket ever again.  Cheating while the wife has cancer is an irreconcilable faux pas.

    Maybe his wife's cancer screwed him up.  Men act strangely when women get cancer.  With some of them, they aren't full of oxytocin, and they resent rather than nuture.  I know a family member who did nothing but complain about his wife's bald head while she was going through chemo.  He loves his wife dearly, but he had to resent the head that signified the chemo in order to survive her cancer without falling to pieces.  It pissed me off that he did that, but I saw what was happening.  Thankfully, she dealt with it well, basically ignored him or wore head covering.

    So the affair might be "sh*t, she has cancer, she's leaving me, the beotch. I have to find someone else."

    I may be giving him too much room.

    However, relationships are complex, and it's not up to us to say how they should work.

    Isn't it interesting (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    how Democrats fall all over themselves to vilify Gingrich for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was battling cancer? And gleefully criticize McCain for cheating on his wife after her horrible car accident?

    But when it comes to Edwards, "Leave the man alone! It's none of our business!"

    I just love subjective morality. It wears so well on the left.


    actually i am not interested in (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:35:40 PM EST
    any politican's personal life. creeps me out the way the media laps it up.

    When you run for public office (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:49:31 PM EST
    your private life becomes public. That's just a fact. It's why so many excellent policy makers refuse to run. And for Gawd's sakes, anyone running for President of the United States in 2008 who doesn't understand their private lives will be mulled over is simply not facing reality.

    It's mindboggling, really, because it's such reckless, narcissistic behavior. Good thing he wasn't the nominee. This would have sunk him and the party.


    frankly i don't care what a public (none / 0) (#213)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    person does in his personal life. we should be more concerned about money from lobbyists and big corporations. that is a scandal i can sink my teeth into. anything the media tells me is OH SO IMPORTANT, i turn off.

    It's a soap opera (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    High ratings....Beaucoup bucks.....

    Heh (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    you're right in a lot of cases but I thought that McCain's affair was NONE of our business either.

    Actually (none / 0) (#125)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    His career as a politician was already over, save for a spot in the cabinet, which I'm pretty sure won't be forthcoming now.

    But I agree that none of this even matters considering the fact that he is not on the ticket.


    Yep. Edwards will not be AG (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    if Obama does win.

    And Edwards would have been good at it.  And in this time of attacks on our Constitution, and with Obama's vote on FISA and more, the AG will matter.


    Elizabeth is an attorney, perhaps (none / 0) (#145)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    she would be the better choice for AG :)

    The media seem to be determined to make it (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    our business, and as long as they insist on digging for this kind of dirt and then making it public when they find some, remorseful politicians will feel obligated to book time on Nightline.

    But, stopping this kind of quest for damaging personal information will also be hard because there are people who think it speaks to character, and character matters, even if it wouldn't prevent someone from being an excellent public servant.

    I would have preferred that Edwards not have felt obligated to be interviewed about it, or to say things like he didn't love the woman and Elizabeth was in remission - "it was just sex" is not exactly a winning admission.  And "at least it wasn't when my wife was battling cancer," is even worse.

    I'm sorry for his family, and hope they will get through this.  Since I don't know the Edwards family, my sorrow is more because this will likely keep Edwards out of government where I think he has - had -the potential to do some very good work.

    Which is the worse lie (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    The lie to constiuents about your affair.

    the lie to constituents about upholding the constitution.

    They're not mutually exclusive (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    Liars are liars, in my experience.

    Come on. His wife had cancer. Please. And he wanted to be our nominee!

    This is really easy.


    Oh stop it. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by lobary on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    You don't care as much about the lie as you do the sex.

    If you would stop caring about the sex, you wouldn't even care about the question in the first place.

    What our politicians do in the bedroom is none of our business.


    You don't know anything about me (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    or about my attitudes about sex. I am someone on a blog you don't know and have never met. Please always remember that.

    We are talking about politics and a guy who raised millions of dollars on the lie that he cared about people when he didn't even care about his own wife.

    By the way, bet you anything the child is his. Anything.


    Where are your ten outraged comments (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    about Obama's vote on FISA?

    didn't realize we were counting comments (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    I dunno, where are yours?

    Bet Obama is happy to be on a plane to Hawaii (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    about now.  I wonder if Edwards timed his interview accordingly.

    His personal life is his own, and I'm not going to judge it, but as far as it affects his career - I'm glad he is not the presumptive nominee.

    And that's why these things are indeed (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    the public's business.

    Because when they run for high office, they represent us.


    I'm concerned with his electability (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    not with his ability to represent me.  He can do that just fine, any day of the week.  But I know enough people don't agree with me to make a difference.  I'm just glad (or maybe just hopeful) the Republicans aren't going to have that weapon over our niminee.

    And they affect campaigns of others (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    who want to represent us.

    Clinton would be the nominee.


    makes you wonder (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    how Iowa would've turned out if he had just told the truth.

    No doubt Hillary would've won.


    Such a good point (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    I'm going to tell you so twice (I did above too). I hadn't thought of that angle until you mentioned it.

    OK, now I'm mad at him.


    Were it not for Bill Clinton's affair (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM EST
    Gore would probably have won.

    But you defend the Clintons.

    Cancer does bad things to family relationships.  And people lie about those bad things.


    I'm still angry with Bill Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    for the impact on the 2000 election.  

    This is different.  I'm looking at 2008.

    And you're over the line.  You. Do. Not. Know. Me. Or. My. Life.


    Edwards affected the entire party (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    He knew this eventually would come out.

    What if he had been nominated? He should have stepped aside when the story surfaced last October, OR told the truth. It was a family matter, until he chose to enter the public arena.

    I have no doubt that Hillary would have won Iowa with out him in there.


    Gore did win (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    Hrm (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:17 PM EST
    A lot of people who are certain this news would have been instantly fatal to a hypothetical Edwards nomination seem to be forgetting the 1992 campaign.  Heck, Clinton wasn't even close to getting the nomination when those "bimbo eruptions" started out.

    Yes, the cancer makes it worse, but I'm still not convinced.  I've seen many stories break like this about many politicians, and it always feels like the BIGGEST DEAL EVER but then quickly recedes as people slowly remember that, in fact, it's not all that uncommon to have an affair.

    Even More (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    Most people don't really care.  The only people who care are in the Village and they only ever care when they can use it to beat on someone they hate.  Clinton was big news.  Edwards will be briefly.  McCain?  Doesn't matter. Rudy? Doesn't matter.

    People generally don't care about this stuff because it isn't going to make a bit of difference to whether they have healthcare or a job.  If people really cared about this, Bill Clinton wouldn't have left office with a 65% approval rating and Hillary wouldn't have been so popular.  


    Clinton dealt.. (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    ...Clinton dealt with his skeletons in the primaries, and they were behind him by the time he became the nominee.

    Had Edwards been honest about this back in October when the story broke, it may well have eliminated him, or, like Clinton, he might have overcome it.  

    What bugs me isn't the sex -- its the fact that people like me supported Edwards based on his protestations of innocence back in October.  I probably still would have supported him after he'd come clean, because it really is 'none of our business'.  But when I make a decision about whom to support in a primary, "electability" is an important consideration -- and if there are skeletons in a candidate's closet that would come out if s/he did get the nomination, I want to know about them before I vote for that person in the primary, so I can assess the potential damage of those skeletons.


    in my humble opinion all this bruahaha (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    reflects one of the gifts of our puritan heritage i'd like to give back.

    This is such an important story (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by eric on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM EST
    that I am anxiously awaiting commentary from Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Larry Craig, and even John McCain.  Let's hear it!

    Oh, and Norm Coleman, too.

    Here's a nice link (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    about how cancer affects marriages:


    I'm not saying we should decide that Edwards did nothing wrong, just saying, again, that relationships are complex...and cancer adds more complexity.

    It is our business (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by ChrisO on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    not because we should be making judgements about his marriage, or how Elizabeth should react. But I think Bill Clinton and Gary Hart revealed something about themselves with their affairs. There are certain guys who are risk takers for no reason. The kind who have dinner with their wife while the girlfriend is in the bar downstairs. It speaks to a certain recklessness, and is absolutely something I want to know about a candidate.

    And I do think it's worse when he says he didn't love her. If he's capable of carrying on an affair with a woman he didn't love, why would we believe she's the only one? Sometimes a married person meets someone else and falls in love. That doesn't make them a serial philanderer. But this doesn't seem to be that kind of thing.

    I also think there's more to the story, when he says "some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him." It appears he's been trying hard to keep a lid on this for a while.

    To be clear, none of this means I'm condemning him as a person. I have yet to be horrified to learn someone is having an affair. But it's not the fact of the affair, it's the other personality traits it reveals that concern me.

    And really, there's a lot of things that can sink a candidacy. You'd have a hard time running for President if you'd recently declared bankruptcy. But when you put yourself forward as a candidate, and ask people for their support, you are making an implicit promise to them that there's nothing like that lurking in the backgound.

    I don't give a flying fig (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    about Edwards' sex life, but I now despise him for running for President while knowing this was hanging over him.

    That is definitely our "business."

    Presidential candiates have one fatal flaw (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    They are human.

    Because of that, we should never support them again.


    Murderers and pedophiles are human, too (2.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    So no worries, right?

    If I could draw a straw man in reply (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    I would.

    Yes, all offenses deserve exactly the same penalty right?


    Red herring (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    Edwards' activities showed incredibly poor judgment, both as a nominee and as president should the story have remained under wraps until after a hypothetical inauguration. All else is fluff and psychobabble.

    Really, you should direct your anger at Edwards. He is the only one here deserving of the kind of wrath you are showing.


    None of our business (4.81 / 16) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:15:25 PM EST
    Full disclosure - I lived in a glass house.

    My glass house was destroyed... (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    years ago.  But I have survived, and the Edwards will, too.

    Same here. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Larry Bailey on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:17:09 PM EST
    Honorable comment. Perfect.

    you didn't run for President (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    thinking you could keep it from the public.

    What's the difference between John (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    McCain's affairS and Edwards' affair?

    Fresher?  Newer?  What?


    One difference between McCain and (none / 0) (#35)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    Edwards on the affair front is that McCain is a firm believer in abstinence-only sex education - Edwards is not.

    None to me (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    I don't care about either one as far as judging their qualificaitons to be president.

    The public has no business (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    knowing about this. This is a private matter that in no way has anything to do with the public life of a politician.

    I disagree with your premise. I do not care if ANY candidate had an affair. I do not care if they are having affairs NOW.

    It is none of our business.

    But obviously we disagree on this.


    Didn't you just (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    put yourself out there with the glass house line?  BTW, I think it takes guts for you to admit that, even though it's no one's business.  

    I think people are too hard on those who slip and have an indiscretion.  Damn.  Sometimes the one who slips KNOWS that it's wrong.  Let that person and those intimately involved (no pun intended) to sort it out.


    reporters used to keep this out of the (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    public domain. other presidents have had things they didn't want the public to know. witness fdr with his lucy and not being able to walk. our society is way too much into others' business with no good reason. the bruhaha about lewinski was one of the lowest places politics has gone in my lifetime.

    BTD, when a candidate cheats on his wife (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    while she has cancer, it is symptomatic of a deeper character flaw that absolutely has bearing on how they do their jobs.

    I know it's frowned upon in left circles to speak of character, but for some of us it still matters.


    I disagree. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    while she has cancer, it is symptomatic of a deeper character flaw that absolutely has bearing on how they do their jobs.

    Some do it because they're afraid.  Afraid of loss and afraid of a future that's hidden by a dark cloud.  My sister h had breast cnacer twice.  Her husband's been supportive, but I can tell you they live their lives quite differently than I do.


    Well how about this: (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    Running for president when you know you have this skeleton in your closet shows you don't have the judgment to be president.



    Bush (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    had plenty of skeletons.

    Didn't stop him, did it?

    I am surprised he ran, but he did end up dropping out anyway.

    Let them get on with their lives and us with ours, okay?

    It's the hypocritical attitudes of sanctimonious morons like David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, and Larry Craig tha I can't stand.  People who pretend to be holier-than-thou.

    Yes, that behavior really makes me angry.

    I'm sorry for the Edwards, an I hope they'll weather this strom, too.  But I am not going to judge him.


    there a lot more things that say you (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    don't have the character to be president also that are being ignored on a daily basis.

    When I was ten, I was shocked by a favored cousin (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jerry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:33:16 PM EST
    who apparently was having an affair when his wife was very ill.  Over the years, I've seen it's almost human nature, don't ask me why.

    Perhaps it has to do with the energy involved with supporting someone 24x7, being human, seeing into the abyss, depression, and a whole lot of other things.

    (Now apparently this affair did start when Elizabeth was in remission...)

    Anyway, my own life is f*ked up enough, that I try to just shut up when hearing about other people's personal lives.


    My keyboard is really misbehaving (none / 0) (#85)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST



    Or maybe it's a symptom of (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    needing some comfort when you're whole world feels like it's falling apart. This is between John and Elizabeth. None of anyone else's business.

    man you must be a good psychiatrist (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    to be able to make that kind of diagnosis without having met the man & based on one incident in his life.

    Oh. Stop. It. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:07:01 PM EST
    He wanted to be the Democratic nominee, and knew he had this time bomb waiting to go off.

    Take that somewhere else, I live in the real world.


    I live in the civilized world (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    and in the civilized world we don't presume to know what is in another person's heart.

    He wanted to be president! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    You cannot be president in this day and age with that kind of skeleton in your closet.

    It shows a major lack of judgment on his part,, OK? I think we can all agree on that at least.

    Really, take your hypotheticals to a philosophy class, and you may as well give up the lectures about my own crassness.

    We're talking politics here, it ain't for everybody.


    I don't think I like (4.50 / 2) (#119)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    your world much.

    frankly you sound extremely (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    judgemental to me. just saying!

    Heck yes I'm judgmental! (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    He wanted to be our nominee!

    Good grief.


    yeah and go look at the potential (none / 0) (#186)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    nominee. there are a number of things that make me question his potential that are part of his private life as well.

    all the politcans are human from jesse jackson, hart, clinton, mccain, obama, and edwards. all of them have things in their private life they don't want us to know.


    Well (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    it seems that all politicians have these "bombshells" in their life and think it somehow won't matter in their case. First example that comes to mind is Rev. Wright. Perhaps it takes a special person to have this mindset.

    When Edwards PAC started (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    paying his mistress, then it became my business.

    His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience

    They're all going to screw us anyway, so... (none / 0) (#144)
    by jerry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    Your opinion is sweet but naive BTD.  In this day and age, I am not just sleeping with my lover, but in all medical practicality with her prior lovers, and theirs.

    As such, it is important for the American People to know all about our President's past sexual history, because regardless of who wins, chances are good, we're going to get screwed in the end.


    The fact that she was paid (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ironin on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    $114,000 in campaign funds at the same time should be, at the least, troubling to those who disagree with the idea that what Edwards did is nobody's business. Elizabeth Edwards deserves better.

    Have you seen any of the tapes she made... (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    of Edwards?  There is one still floating around the net and I saw it about a week ago and said, "it's true"...he's acting silly and stupid, typical of a man in mid-life crisis - and he's all focused on her (she's off camera).  (Yes, I know she was "directing him", but look at the tone of his "conversation" with her - it's bragging and full of bravado.)

    For what it's worth - I became an Edwards supporter when I saw Elizabeth standing with John on the day they announced her cancer had returned.  I thought...if she believes in him this much, he must be good.  So his betrayal of his wife does matter to me as her support of him was what directed me to him in the first place.


    The payment is separate from the affair (none / 0) (#111)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    talk about the money, not the affair itself.

    Not a bad paycheck for (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    someone who lacks experience . . .

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    especially since he is out of the Presidential race. What difference does it make now other than to cause more suffering to Elizabeth. I hate our media.

    The affair is not our business (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by facta non verba on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    his deception, the lies and the coverup is our business.

    I supported John Edwards and I'm furious. The cancer was in remission is his defence? Please. Poverty is a moral imperative. I agree it is that's largely formed the basis of my support but you lose the moral highground when you are going around lying.


    I agree this is really non of our business... (none / 0) (#120)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    and I don't think he should we should take this into account whan deciding whether or not he is right for the job....however, he really shouldn't have lied about it, simply say "it's non of you business".  and then again...why does he say it now?...anyways, it's still irrelevant...

    He is admitting it now (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:32:02 PM EST
    because the DNC has to decide if he gets a spot at the convention. I read that Fowler thought it had to be cleaned up before then.

    My guess, is probably not.

    I think it arrogant of Edwards to think he could get away with this. Prehaps many don't take moral issues into consideration, but, hey, they are issues. As for Elizabeth, she did not deserve this nor did his children.

    Just to note I was an Edwards supporter.  I don't appreciate the dishonesty and what could have happened if he were the nominee today.


    I'm a little surprised, but agree (4.75 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    that it's absolutely none of our business.

    I agree (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    Not our business.

    We especially have no right to judge how Elizabeth handles things.  She has a right to do whatever she wants to do with the information.

    It's possible that she and John have, shall we say, a business arrangement.  She may get enough out of their relationship that she stays anyway.  God knows, she probably doesn't feel much like looking for new prospects with the cancer and all.

    My personal opinion is if he wants to have affairs, he should divorce her.  Simple as that.  Otherwise, guess what, people are going to think he's scummy.  

    I understand your point about... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    a "business" arrangement but reject it for two reasons:

    1.  His wife deserves better/more even IF she told him to live his life.

    2.  He wanted to be POTUS and should have been grown-up enough to keep his "urges" in check.

    I also think he made a mistake saying "he didn't love his mistress"...hell hath no fury....

    That's her choice (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    is it not?  It's not your choice, or mine.

    And about the POTUS, it's true, you can't win as POTUS, but otherwise, it isn't our business.

    I agree, she deserves better than someone who would cheat on her.  However, again, if she stayed with him, she has her reasons.  Elizabeth doesn't seem to me like one who suffers from battered wife syndrome.

    And maybe Elizabeth has fallen out of love with John too, but likes her life.

    These are complex relationships.  It's not up to us to say how they should be managed.


    I understand. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:49:28 PM EST
    Definitely our business (4.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    U.S. media loves juicy sex scandals.

    Edwards claimed, falsely, to be "the most electable" Democrat. If he had been the nominee, we're basically looking at President McCain.

    Therefore: Our business.


    I have to agree. (none / 0) (#56)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:44:13 PM EST
    It's relevant because politically it's so unwelcome for our party -- and could have been a complete disaster, thanks to Edwards' lying about it, had he somehow emerged as our nominee.

    What a jerk.

    Though I'd gotten the same creepy feeling about this slippery guy since a year or two ago when I read an insider account about what he said and did in the 04 cycle.


    Oy vey (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lil on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    Just what we need is another sex scandal just before the election (McGreevy in '04). Even if some of us have lived in glass houses and might not judge, there are lots and lots that will. The worst will be others who live in glass houses, but call for his head anyway.

    Edwards is a lusty, lusty man. (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    Geez, why Gibson?

    God, outed by the National Enquirer, like not-dead Elvis and the Batboy, and JFK in the old folks home.

    Get your facts straight (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    Elvis, Bat-boy, etc., are not what The Enquirer traffics in.  That was I think Weekly World News or one of the other silly ones.

    The Enquirer has a serious business of prying into celebrities' private lives and trying to destroy them, and it's very, very good at it.  It's been right on a whole lot of stuff like this in recent years, starting with Dick Morris at the Dem. convention when Bill Clinton was first nominated.


    Thanks for setting the record straight (none / 0) (#193)
    by angie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    I was too embarrassed to to admit that I knew the difference between The National Enquirer & the Weekly World News so I let the batboy comments pass. NOT that I read magazines like The National Enquirer  -- I only see the covers in the supermarket check out line. ;-)

    Oh, and if you actually (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    read the story and not just the headline, you'd see it isn't Gibson, it's Woodruff.

    I prefer the "space aliens" editions (none / 0) (#202)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    It supposedly is really a fun job to work for the over-the-top magazines....

    Sad (none / 0) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    He sure didn't do this alone, and Rielle went into it knowing he is married, and to whom. He holds a greater responsibility because he has someone who was trusting him to resist these temptations.

    Correction, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    He didn't speak to Charlie Gibson but to Bob Woodruff, as the first graf you quote states.

    O/T....BUT IS ANYONE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH (none / 0) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST

    working fine for me (none / 0) (#171)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:32:41 PM EST
    OK thanks... (none / 0) (#196)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#198)
    by miriam on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    miriam...been having a problem since (none / 0) (#211)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    yesterday....safari is working better for me right now.  and thanks!

    edwards (none / 0) (#128)
    by mymy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    As a wife of 35 yrs ,if there are two America I'm really happy not to live in MR. Edwards America

    running for president (none / 0) (#130)
    by ikez78 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    For Elizabeth's sake and the rest of the family I can see why the press kept this mum.  Edwards really shouldn't have even run for president risking bringing all this negative attention on to them if he knew it would/could come out.

    it's a paradox . . . (none / 0) (#133)
    by allys gift on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    it is not really our business and if people behaved accordingly, then these things wouldn't ruin people politically.  But since these things do ruin people politically, and we were being asked to vote for him and financially support his campaign, it is our business.  

    And as far as Elizabeth goes, my heart goes out to her.  But I know from my own parents relationship that sometimes wives with cancer give permission to their husbands to cheat.  The cancer treatments are horrible and could make making love almost impossible, so women sometimes do look the other way.  That relational part, though, really isn't our business in any case.

    I wish he had not admitted it. It is none of our (none / 0) (#147)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    business. My heart hurts for all of the Edwards family. This is hard enough to go through privately (my ex-husband comes to mind) and it makes me sick that they have to deal with this in public.

    Why does our country and our media care about this stuff so much. During the Monica story, my boss from another country couldn't believe that became such a big deal. I just wish I didn't know this.

    Visiting Rielle (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    in Hollywood (where the National Enquirer practically lives with sources at every hotel) in the middle of the night was stupid.  Maybe he can get away with that in North Carolina, but in Los Angeles, if you're famous and you go to a hotel in the middle of the night, you better not care if the tabloids know it.  Life in the big city.

    While it is none of our business... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    His personal affairs are his business. I completely agree. But the media loves a good headline and the general public doesn't much like their politicians to have affairs. This is just not a smart thing for a politician running for President to do. Can you imagine if he were headed to the convention as the nominee! It would be ugly. He should have dropped his presidential aspirations early.

    i nannied for a family (none / 0) (#163)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    that had the husband's affair outed in a local news story. It was heartbreaking. The kids are young enough that they didn't  know aboit the affair (and still don't) but the divorce was he** on them. And it seemed people - friends parents cousins etc - were ALWAYS whispering. And the core of this story are two young kids who don't deserve to go through this. I have no doubt they'll be protected them from the media, but everyone around them will now know about this. My heart goes out to them.

    It's Absolutely Relevant... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    when Edwards had this to say about BC/Monica:

    "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."

    He went Lieberman? (2.00 / 0) (#208)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    There is no reason--none, nada, zip, zilch--for any politician to comment at all on this type of story.....except to say that we love Elizabeth and wish her, her family and John the best...

    You could say so (none / 0) (#215)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    Edwards also had this to say about BC/Monica:

    We have a man who has just been confronted with this problem, who is political by nature. And do we really believe that the first thing he thought about is, "I'm going to go protect myself legally'"? I suspect the first thing he thought about is "I'm going to protect myself politically.'' He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out.

    Comments are closed (none / 0) (#218)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    As the items bog down after 200 comments (we are at 217) further comments will be deleted.  Thanks.

    It's disappointing (none / 0) (#219)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    but since I didn't place him on a pedestal, I am not completely shocked. Personally, I think this "issue" should be private, if only for the sake of his family. It strikes me a bit like being morality police to judge a man and the content of his charecter on this though. I agree with the poster who said we have no idea what was going on in his mind and life when he made this poor decision. Unless I've walked a mile in his shoes then I'd not be anxious to judge. Then again, I believe that there is no such thing as a "perfect" candidate. They all are flawed. Just like all of us.

    To say it's none of our business... (none / 0) (#220)
    by hapapp on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    ...escapes the reality of the situation.  Whether it is any of our business or not doesn't seem to matter, because we know what he did.  It's not the original act that is so problematic in terms of judging the man but rather his decision to run for president with the knowledge that this could be exposed and had the potential of destroying the party.  It as Edwards himself said a product of his ego and narcissism.  Remember this is a man who publicly criticized Bill Clinton for his conduct.

    We are all sinners, this is not about the sin, it is about the judgment or lack thereof.