The Hot Blog

Of course, lying about an affair is a far greater sin to the phony puritans of America than lying the nation into a bullshit war and economic devastation.

"And for Edwards' part, he wouldn't pay the blackmailer."

You sure about that? Reports are saying that, at the very least, Edwards surrogates were paying the woman hush money. Maybe this is cynical, but I would guess his calculation is to admit to the minimum and deny any difficult-to-prove truths. Why should the expectation be otherwise?

As for the apology, it sure did remind me of Clinton's. "But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough." Sheesh, is that bowed-head humility? He IS smart to agree to one big interview and then never speak of it again. That's the way to do it, IMO.

It goes without saying that this is all terribly unfortunate for his family. And IF he was being blackmailed, it is (way less) unfortunate.

"Of course, lying about an affair is a far greater sin to the phony puritans of America than lying the nation into a bullshit war and economic devastation."

Way to use classic liberal transference and straw man arguments to put things in perspective. Why talk about anything when X is happening to Y? Don't look over here, look over there!!!

Frighteningly plausible and realistic analytic speculation, David. It seems like a Sinclair Lewis novel to me... Not sure why he would ever agree to appear at the Beverly Hilton to close the deal... But when you need advisors, you are afraid to ask them for advice.

Does Ms Hunter get a book contract?

I'll say here what I think a lot of people think but will not say, that Edwards wife between the loss of their son and cancer, times 2, was no longer an object of sexual attraction for him. He got horny and needed to find an outlet. He didn't want to desert his kids and hurt his political career so he stayed married. I'm willing to wager his wife, given all their tragedy and the reality of the situation, gave him a pass for the infidelity. What I'll never understand about a man in his position is NOT being snipped, so that a worst case scenario is low-level STD and not a child with a woman he barely knows.

Morality aside, any political loyalty Edwards might have expected from his supporters is no longer deserved. The man wanted to be the party's nominee for president and he knew that this was lurking in the closet. That is reckless and selfish beyond belief.

"Way to use classic liberal transference and straw man arguments to put things in perspective. Why talk about anything when X is happening to Y? Don't look over here, look over there!!!"

Please explain how Edwards extra-marital affair has impacted your life. I can go into explicit detail how Bush's recorded lies effect you and the nation and the world on a daily basis. Edwards was a fool to go forward with his political run due to this, but it didn't stop previous elected officials. The shallow MSM piety of all this makes me sick.

don't get baited into that fight, mysteryperfecta. it's clear from christian's answer that he isn't ever going to understand your point.

The "open secret in Hollywood" thing sounds like the most interesting - and troubling - aspect of all of this. DP, can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

tfresca - It would be very interesting to find out there "reasons" indeed. Like maybe the guy gets truly repentive and writes a book about it maybe 3-5 years from now. Not just some revisionist PR but deep account of what he was thinking/feeling.

Not that it should be rationalized away or he should receive a pity party w/cake and all the trimmings but I wonder what it was that happened. Not to assess blame but I wonder if it was his wife who didn't feel attractive as opposed to him not being attractive to her. I wonder if it was more a matter of affection that he was able to feel w/her. The single reasons that you mentioned often cause fear and withdrawal between partners. Maybe he was a dawg all along?

From what I saw of Edwards before he seemed like a fairly stand up guy. Perhaps he truly is. It just seems like a lot could be gained from this sad saga by a nation that gives lip service to the sanctity of marriage yet has a depressingly high divorce rate and raises people higher and higher to be living idols with the great hope that it can watch if not be a part of tearing them down.

Watched the beginning of The O'Reilly Factor, and Laura Ingraham had taped an additional segment on Edwards to start the program. I'm sure Bill had cut out early-- its time-independent, puff-piece Friday, after all (hmmm...releasing a statement on the Friday before the Olympics...quite a coincidence). Ingraham showed some genuine sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards, saying she was a wonderful person. Now, O'Reilly hates Edwards, so it would have been interesting to see his reaction.

"it's clear from christian's answer that he isn't ever going to understand your point."

Yes, that I was using classic liberal straw-men because I accuse the MSM of cherry-picking outrage, as do many Americans.

This is the kind of thing where if the guy is on your team you forgive him but if he's on the other side of the aisle it's unforgiveable. It's all so perfunctory that at this point it's boring. Ask yourself this question, what would it take for you to abandon your candidate for the other guy? I bet it's quite a lot. At what point does this level of support cross a line into blind loyalty? I stopped defending people because my ideologies line up with theirs a few years back, I found it to be intellectualy dishonest.

Whew, dodged that bullet.

And what, you guys don't think there's more to that McCain affair? Come on, the fun has just begun!

The difference to me, Christian, as a liberal, is that one is political and one is personal and inherently hypocritical.

What's more important? Iraq. Absolutely.

But I believe that politicians who behave in bad ways with political intent - was anyone really surprised by the move by Bush? hard to hold his feet to the fire when the dems agreed with the same intellegence reports available - are not in the same category.

But I know that this is not a popular opinion on the left in the bush era.

I'd like to respond to MDOC's comment by saying that I would have voted for Edwards in the Dem primary if he hadn't dropped out, and now that this has happened I definitely am glad he didn't get the nomination (obviously) and wouldn't vote for him for any office any time soon.

That said, if he was already in office, I also wouldn't call for him to resign, because this is too minor of an infraction.

And I'd like to ask DP once more what it means that 'this has been an open secret in Hollywood', I mean, does this mean 'Hollywood' the liberal community of actors and producers and business people who brushed it under the rug, or 'Hollywood' the group of journalists and pseudo-journalists that DP is a part of, who should have done their jobs but were too liberal and brushed it under the rug, or some third thing?

Let me just clarify, what's bugging me is the idea that some huge community like 'Hollywood' can still have open, more-or-less partisan secrets in this day and age. Certain celebrities being gay is a fine and dandy open secret because it's about their personal life and nothing else; a Presidential candidate being blackmailed, whatever the reason, rises to the level of the legitimately newsworthy.

"hard to hold his feet to the fire when the dems agreed with the same intellegence reports available - are not in the same category."

There were lots of folks who didn't believe there were WMD's -- the MSM just kept them off the air. And the MSM introspection has proven sorely limited. The Bush regime has been involved with so much illegal chicanery but it's not hot stuff.

And yes, McCain had a sleazy affair. But the Repubs are usually content with their hypocrisy while aiming at the left. Anyway, good thing Edwards didn't run. He had my support.

How long until we have bush's law, ie you lose the argument whenever you bring hitler up?

fellow liberals, admit that edwards is kinda gross and move on.

Let's presume for the moment that it's high moral outrage to cheat on your wife and then use your strong family ties as a core point of appeal for your political reputation (ie - if Chris Dodd had been caught in this situation, it wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal). It's wrong, it's sleazy, it's not appropriate behavior for an alleged role model. Having said that...

On one hand, it was incredibly narcissistic and reckless of John Edwards (with the apparent full knowledge and consent of his wife) to run for president with this major and recent skeleton in his closet. On the other hand, myself and others have been saying for years that the unrealistic expectations concerning the private behavior of public officials has been one of the reasons that so few genuinely good and interesting people choose to get involved with politics.

It's a complicated situation and I don't claim to have any more wisdom on it than anyone else. I still highly approve of John Edwards's politics and where he stands on social and economic issues. I voted for him in 2004 and, after Christ Dodd and Dennis Kucinich dropped out early, I was seriously considering voting for him this time around before he too dropped out. Were he to run again, I'm not certain that I wouldn't vote for him, depending on who his competition was. I've always said 'it's about the issues, not whether you like the person'. This may be the ultimate test of said philosophy.

On a slightly less high and mighty note, I wonder if the veracity of this much discussed tabloid story will cause anyone to think again about the 'tabloid rumors' that occasionally pop up concerning the crumbling of the Bush marriage (a librarian and an anti-intellectual alleged illiterate - I really thought they could make it) and allegations of infidelity between George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Just a thought...

what scott said.

"How long until we have bush's law, ie you lose the argument whenever you bring hitler up?"

We already have it. It's called Godwin's Law.

No one's defending Edwards (well, no sane person, anyway). But the old saying is right: nobody died because of his affair. Rejecting a comparison to BushCorp's lies to start a war is rejecting reality.

"Rejecting a comparison to BushCorp's lies to start a war is rejecting reality."

You too? Don't you see how the comparison is ridiculous? Can I follow you around so that the next time you complain about the fast food restaurant getting your order wrong, I can remind that you have no right because children are starving in Africa?

Bringing up the war and the economy IS a defense of Edwards. Asserting that there are people who would consider infidelity worse than a war based on lies or a flagging economy is a straw man argument. Name one person who has come to that conclusion.

No, it's highlighting the MSM's selectivity of lies and who tells them. When Bush repeatedly lies to the face of America and the world, crickets. But Edwards is sleaze and therefore, fun and judgemental. And worthy of endless air time.

Of course, the MSM didn't repeat the Enquirer's claims of Bush falling off the wagon, something apparent to anybody not in league with their narrow ideology.

And the GOP impeached Clinton for infidelity, so clearly they have a bigger problem with a personal lie as opposed to a public lie.

"Bringing up the war and the economy IS a defense of Edwards. Asserting that there are people who would consider infidelity worse than a war based on lies or a flagging economy is a straw man argument. Name one person who has come to that conclusion."

How about the hundreds of Congresspeople and dozens of senators who recommended and voted to impeach Clinton for blow jobs (neither a crime nor relevant to the governance of this nation) yet refuse to consider same for Bush's genuine criminality and malfeasance?

"No, it's highlighting the MSM's selectivity of lies and who tells them."

Sorry, but considering DP's assertion that Hollywood knew about the Edwards affair for a year, and the fact that it took the National Enquirer to break the story wide, your plea is not convincing. Do you really think that the MSM is just finding out about Edward's infidelity?

And both of you are either lying or in denial about why Clinton was impeached. He lied to a grand jury. The what or why doesn't matter. Martha Stewart went to prison for lying about something minor, Marion Jones went to prison for lying about something minor, and Barry Bonds may yet go to prison for the same. If were about sex, then why was Clinton disbarred?

The MSM has given a ton of airtime to countless fringe authors and their anti-Bush polemics. They've tried to tie every unfortunate incident (e.g. Abu Ghraib, allegations surrounding GITMO, etc, which both received an inordinate amount of press) to Bush, they reveled in an alleged 'quagmire', and they resisted reporting progress in Iraq like all hell. Congress has created commissions to officially investigate what happened in the lead-up to Iraq War. I realize that you both are smarter and more informed than everyone else. But basically, you can't prove shit, so we're left with what you're aching to believe.

Edwards infidelity is what it is. Considering that it involves sex, money, power, and presidential politics, are you surprised it gets airtime? None of the 24-hour news networks went wall-to-wall with it. Anna Nichole Smith's death got more airtime. The Olympics is getting more airtime. If what's out there is all there is, this will soon go away.

"Unfortunate incident?"

Yes, like when it rains on Saturday. Bummer that these things just sorta happen.

That choice of words is called "tipping your hand."

"They've tried to tie every unfortunate incident (e.g. Abu Ghraib, allegations surrounding GITMO, etc, which both received an inordinate amount of press) to Bush..."

Ah, now I see where you're coming from: O'Reilly-ville. Despite all the mountain of evidence that the torture came from the top, guided by lawyers like Yoo and Gonzales, approved by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, somehow, it was just a bunch of bad apples. Or like Rush Limbaugh said, a frat inititian. Of rape, torture and murder. But not Bush's fault. After all, he only started the war based on lies.

And Clinton should not have lied, but why was he talking to a grand jury about his private sex life? Because the GOP was out to get him, which they did with Clinton's help. And when Clinton fired missiles into Iraq, all the GOP could say was 'Wag the Dog." So Clinton is a big fat liar, but Bush is not? Good Gawd.

Anyway.

"And Clinton should not have lied, but why was he talking to a grand jury about his private sex life?"

You mean, why was a grand jury investigating his sex life? Exactly. And I should add that had any of his persecutors, including Gingrich, Hyde, Chenoweth, Burton, et al, been hauled in front of a grand jury and grilled about their own sex lives, I can absolutely guarantee that they too would have lied about their own affairs. (Burton even fathered a child out of wedlock, f'Chrissake.)

And let's also not forget that when the President of the United States was subpoenaed, he showed up...unlike the Bush toadies (Rove, Miers, Bolten)who claim executive privilege.

Well look Edwards cheating on his wife has NOTHING to do with his political life. Outside of his career in politics and law his life is one big train wreck. The dead child, cancer, x2, it's awful. I can see why reporters would step lightly, especially considering Edwards never to my memory one a primary. Dennis Kucinich could be an axe murder and nobody care because he's irrelevant.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: