John Edwards admits his affair
I have a lot to say, but I think it's better to hear what you have to say.
|
August 8, 2008 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (96 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Greg D. | Aug 8, 2008 3:37:13 PM
Somebody once told me that monogamy was a fiction invented by Christian Churches, William Shakespeare and Greeting Card Companies.
There are millions of children in this country (and others) who go to bed hungry every night. Many of those same kids and their parents suffer aches and pains from untreated medical and dental conditions because they can't afford treatment under our capitalist winner-take-all and screw-the-poor system. Edwards has worked hard to address these problems, and I continue to respect and salute him for doing so.
The fact that Edwards (apparently) lied to his wife about his sex relations is not something that I can understand, and it is up to her - not me - to approve or disapprove or forgive or not forgive his actions.
Posted by: MCT | Aug 8, 2008 3:43:58 PM
I don't know....are we holding our heroes to unattainable standards? Do we have to take the bad with the good after weighing the ratios? Because of this affair and the lies to cover up....should we not place public trust in him? Does it necessarily follow if he lied about his personal life will he lie while in office? I don't know what is reasonable to expect anymore....so few politicians seem to have led skeleton-free lives.
I really like Edwards' fire in the belly. Who knew he had fire elsewhere in his anatomy?
Posted by: RichW | Aug 8, 2008 3:54:18 PM
Another disappointment from someone who I supported in the past. I disagree that it is just between him and Elizabeth. Many of those kids who go to bed hungry are a result of fathers who abandon their families for sexual pleasures with another woman. At least John is not one of those, but to engage in an affair while running for office shows a distinct lack of judgement, lack of self-control, and lack of being trusted.
I don't think it is a liberal "thing" because conservatives are just as bad, but if we are truly progressive then we need to respect our spouses. Perhaps being in a position of power increases ones libido and works against that standard of decency.
Posted by: (CNN) -- In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal | Aug 8, 2008 3:55:36 PM
(CNN) -- In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.
Posted by: Vincent | Aug 8, 2008 4:02:30 PM
As I wrote over at the Oregon Commentator (I know... boo hiss), the real story here isn't that John Edwards is a philanderer, it's that the media completely ignored this story for weeks.
It's a total disgrace for those whose job it is to inform. Whether you or I like it or not, political sex scandals are big news, and the media deliberately hushed this one up until they had no choice but to break it.
Posted by: 99 percent HONEST??? | Aug 8, 2008 4:06:04 PM
I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.
Posted by: Fresno Bee Endorses John Edwards For President | Aug 8, 2008 4:08:22 PM
At least he's been 99% honest with us so far.
Posted by: RinoWatch | Aug 8, 2008 4:09:35 PM
Actually I'd like to hear what you have to say Karol, as well as Carla, & Kari......
Posted by: Dena | Aug 8, 2008 4:11:41 PM
I agree with MCT's sentiments. I understand that it is newsworthy but I don't necessarily buy into the notion that we, the public, are somehow better served or better informed when a marital crisis becomes public knowledge. Is the sin of what Edwards committed a greater sin than that which the media will now foist upon Elizabeth Edwards and her children ? What greater good does it serve ?
If Edwards had made the fidelity of marriage a campaign issue, then the outrage of hypocrisy would be legitimate. But he didn't. Plus, he is no longer an elected official or running for office.
Bottom line, long periods of time apart, mounting a political campaign and fighting a life threatening medical condition are all major areas of stress for a marriage. Honestly, I am very sad for their family. As much as I didn't care for HRC, I never understood people's vitriolic reaction to her deciding to stay in her marriage. Infidelity ( not abuse, not ongoing adultery, not substance abuse)) sucks but in many cases, especially when children are involved, divorce sucks more.
That being said, what the f$%^ was he thinking ????
Posted by: pdxatheist | Aug 8, 2008 4:12:08 PM
i don't think the affair in and of itself disqualifies him in the eyes of the american electorate (if it did, we'd have nobody in office.) i personally don't care to do any panty sniffing when it comes to someone else's personal life; if i did, i'd be a republican.
but when i think about what this would have been like had he been our nominee, or had obama selected him as the veep, it makes my blood boil. on a personal level this is between him, his family and his paramour, but politically, even the potential damage he could have done to his party is unpardonable. he was willing to risk the future of our party and our nation with his lying about his pecadillos, and that makes him a selfish idiot. i think the best he could've hoped for from an obama administration would be AG, but now that he's shown himself willing to lie publicly (even though i think most people would do the same in a similar situation) i think his credibility is shot. although we did forgive old slick willy, so who knows. for me it all boils down to: i'm sure glad he isn't on the ticket!
as an aside:
ron--although it goes against my grain to question drive-by trolling: what the fuck are you talking about?
Posted by: Published on 12/19/2007 | Aug 8, 2008 4:16:37 PM
And in a bizarre twist, Young — a 41-year-old married man with young children — now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby! But others are skeptical, wondering if Young's paternity claim is a cover-up to protect Edwards.
Instead, Rielle has been telling a confidante that Edwards is the father of her child.
"Rielle told me while Andrew Young is a friend, she's not romantically involved with him," says the source close to Rielle. "Rielle says he's been responsible for finding her a place to live and even getting her a car to drive.
"If he really were the father of her baby and had engaged in an extramarital affair with her, I doubt seriously that he'd bring his wife and kids over to her house for dinner — which Rielle told me he did a few weeks ago.
"Rielle has said from the beginning that the baby is John's, but she appears willing to do whatever they want her to do to protect his candidacy.
"I think what's taking place is simply a cover-up by Edwards' campaign."
Posted by: Clinton's Mistress Revealed | Aug 8, 2008 4:20:21 PM
The NATIONAL ENQUIRER exclusively reveals the woman who broke Bill's cheatin' heart.
Meet Julie Tauber McMahon!
Bill's ex- mistress is 48-year-old Julie Tauber McMahon, the daughter of Michigan millionaire Joel Tauber, a top Democratic Party contributor during Clinton's presidency and a personal friend of the Clinton family.
McMahon lives in Chappaqua, New York. - the very same town where the Clintons bought a home after leaving the White House.
Finally, Julie finally dumped the ex-Prez, breaking his heart and unleashing his libido!
So, while Senator Hillary Clinton attempted to make history to become the Democratic nom for President Bill repeated history -- as a serial cheater!
In a world exclusive cover story this week, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER exclusively reports that Bill's cheating spree occurred after his super-rich mistress broke off their affair.
Devastated over being dumped, and incapable of staying faithful, Bill cheated non-stop on Hillary while she campaigned and the details are in this week's print edition of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
Details of their years-long affair and why Julie dumped Bill appear ONLY IN THIS WEEK'S NATIONAL ENQUIRER!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 8, 2008 4:22:02 PM
My first thoughts when hearing this was indeed true (with this kind of stuff going on about everyone anymore, you can never tell) all surround his wife and family. I definitely feel for them right now - I can't imagine what they're going through right now. My husband knows where I stand on infidelity (him being served divorce papers would come shortly after me finding out), but I know that this is a situation between the two of them.
On a personal level I'd like to give him a good hard kick and a slap on the head for being stupid enough and careless enough to do something like that. Don't people get that it makes you feel even worse when you say it meant nothing or you didn't love them - oh really, so what am I to you that you could throw away what we have for so very little.
Just goes to show that no one is perfect, no matter how much you may agree with their policies, issues, etc.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 8, 2008 4:30:05 PM
It's despicable behavior, and we shouldn't hesitate to condemn it. Edwards not only broke the trust of those closest to him -- and we can debate whether that is any of our business or not -- but he broke the trust of all of us by recklessly endangering the entire progressive movement. The hubris that it takes to have an affair as you're gearing up to run for president is beyond my ability to grasp.
Edwards will now be relegated to a historical footnote, which is appropriate.
Posted by: Only 99% Hypocrisy Free | Aug 8, 2008 4:40:46 PM
Here's what Edwards had to say about Bill Clinton's affair circa 1999:
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.
Posted by: Dena | Aug 8, 2008 4:43:19 PM
I also feel for the people who passionately put their time, talent and treasure behind his campaign and, more importantly, towards the issues that he campaigned most passionately about - the people of poverty and the working class. They too have been betrayed. Infuriating-yes. Unforgivable ? I don't know. Miles comments have some merit.
People are flawed.
Posted by: Outta the mouth of babes | Aug 8, 2008 4:45:02 PM
I want to see our party lead on the great moral issues. Yes -- me, a Democrat, using that word -- the great moral issues that face our country. 1996
Posted by: CC | Aug 8, 2008 5:02:01 PM
The affair wasn't good, but let's keep in mind the serious level of heartbreak the Edwards have had. They buried a child, battled cancer for decades, I'm sure if these were friends of yours, you could see how something like that were wear a guy down. It's a lot of serious stress.
Besides, we don't seem to mind Bill Clinton's affairs, so let's tone down the hypocrisy, just a little.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 8, 2008 5:10:56 PM
What? John Edwards was just another ethically challenged, hypocritical, slimy politician? Say it aint so.
Glad he's not the nominee and Obama is. Time to exile Edwards to his mansion and move forward.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 8, 2008 5:12:42 PM
This makes Edwards a total sleezebag.
And anyone who would perpetrate this highest betrayal of those closest to them is certainly capable of other egregious offenses.
Posted by: Dena | Aug 8, 2008 5:16:08 PM
"What? John Edwards was just another ethically challenged, hypocritical, slimy politician? Say it aint so."
Those kind of statements are simplistic and ridiculous. What the Edwards family is enduring will be excruciating for all involved. That being said, many will react in a similar fashion as the above statement and a lifetime of work and advocation will be reduced to a footnote.
Posted by: Remember those Ol' Chicago Days | Aug 8, 2008 5:22:58 PM
Learning From Defeat
Mr. Obama next set his sights on the 2004 Senate race. Several white Democrats were planning to run. If Mr. Obama could win the black vote and attract liberal whites, he figured he could get 30% of the vote, enough to win in a crowded field, according to his aides on that campaign. Learning from his prior defeat, he visited three black churches every Sunday, delivering his stump speech in the cadence of black preachers. He raised money furiously.
Most importantly, Mr. Obama persuaded Mr. Axelrod, one of Chicago's most powerful political strategists, to run his campaign. Mr. Axelrod specialized in electing black candidates who could cross over and win white votes, emphasizing themes of unity and change. He also worked for Mayor Daley.
Mr. Obama was running third, behind two white candidates. Throughout the campaign, rumors swirled that Blair Hull, the Democratic front-runner, was involved in a messy divorce. The Chicago Tribune filed a lawsuit seeking to unseal Mr. Hull's divorce papers. Under pressure, Mr. Hull released the papers, which revealed that his ex-wife had alleged that he had physically and verbally abused her. No charges were ever filed, and Mr. Hull said at the time that voters should look at "my total reputation in my life." A spokesman for the Obama presidential campaign says that his senate campaign "was not responsible for the release of the records."
Mr. Axelrod, who had been holding money back, unleashed a flurry of Obama television ads. They made no mention of the Hull matter, but focused on Mr. Obama's biography. Mr. Obama won the primary with 53% of the vote.
Mr. Obama's Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, then withdrew after his divorce papers revealed that his ex-wife had made an allegation connected to what she said were trips she took with Mr. Ryan to sex clubs. Mr. Ryan denied the allegation.
Mr. Obama sailed to victory. By the end of the campaign, his aides were sending workers into Iowa, the first Presidential caucus state, to begin developing contacts among Democrats there, according to Al Kindle, an Obama campaign aid at the time.
A few months later, Sen. Obama entered into a real-estate deal that would later come to haunt him. He and his wife bought a mansion in Hyde Park for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. The wife of a longtime friend and donor, real-estate developer Tony Rezko, paid full price for an adjacent lot that was listed at the same time by the seller. Six months later, the Rezkos sold Mr. Obama a strip of their land so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, newspapers were reporting that Mr. Rezko was under investigation for corruption and influence peddling involving the Illinois governor's office. He was subsequently indicted and is currently standing trial.
Posted by: Stop Puritansism | Aug 8, 2008 5:29:22 PM
Monogamy is very rare in nature, says this article in the New York Times.
Why are we so stuck in our prurient religious repression, rather than admitting that monogamy is kind of strange?
And roughly a third of men and a quarter of women admit to adultery.
Posted by: Douglas K. | Aug 8, 2008 5:40:28 PM
I'm not much concerned about the affair. That's between John and Elizabeth.
What I am irritated about is that he decided to run for President knowing he had this kind of scandal in his background and knowing it was going to blow up on him sooner or later. That was incredibly arrogant and stupid on his part.
What if he'd been the nominee? Hiding this very recent affair, lying about it, and then it comes out in the middle of a close race? He'd have betrayed his supporters and his party, letting something like this out in the middle of the campaign.
Obama had it right. You have some kind of personal misconduct in your background (cocaine use, years ago), put it out there right at the front for everyone to see. By the time you become the candidate, it's old news.
I will give Edwards this: nice timing, putting out the trash while most of our mass media is focused on the Olympics. Best way for this story to make the smallest splash possible.
Posted by: Are you my daddy? | Aug 8, 2008 5:43:47 PM
If you can't honor a promise made to your spouse, why should the voters expect to be treated any better?
Posted by: Only 99% impure | Aug 8, 2008 5:49:11 PM
He's a manipulating, lying attorney and he took the weasel's way out.
The only difference between Obama and Edwards is that Obama hasn't been caught. Yet.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 8, 2008 5:53:14 PM
I'm not much concerned about the affair. That's between John and Elizabeth.
What I am irritated about is that he decided to run for President knowing he had this kind of scandal in his background and knowing it was going to blow up on him sooner or later. That was incredibly arrogant and stupid on his part.
I essentially agree with this sentiment.
Frankly, if David Vitter can get away with availing himself of the services of a prostitute (good "family-values Republican that he is), then this seems rather tame in comparison.
And don't even get me started on Larry Craig.
Posted by: Dena | Aug 8, 2008 6:28:11 PM
Let's refrain from indulging in a game of who put what where while they were in the public eye. D's , R's, I's , Greens, Pacific, Constitution and Swing Voters have all screwed around on their partners. Although "swing voters" sound like the most likely to go on Springer or Povich.
Posted by: rinowatch | Aug 8, 2008 6:35:47 PM
It's been reported that Elizabeth Edwards was aware of the affair in 2006.
Does it bother any of you that she said nothing and allowed the lies of her husband to continue through their presidential campaign. They did afterall appear many times together during the primary season.
I cannot imagine why Mrs. Edwards kept quiet in front of a voting public, loyal campaign workers, etc....
FWIW, Carla: No slack for Vetter, Craig, or anyone else no matter what political party.....
Posted by: KTDM | Aug 8, 2008 6:48:56 PM
Edwards has betrayed his family by the affair and has betrayed the party by lying. To the extent that this will hurt Obama, and it might, this is nearly unforgivable given the current political climate. The only bright side to this is that maybe the media will spend a bit more time focusing on McCain's affairs now...especially the ones that led him to leave his severely injured first wife and marry his current wife.
Posted by: KTDM | Aug 8, 2008 6:58:35 PM
Also, for "Ron":
Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Fails Polygraphs
bloggernews ^
Posted on February 24, 2008 5:56:19 PM CST by hotdog777
The man who recently made allegations that Senator Barack Obama met him back in 1999 for sex n drugs in the back of limo has failed not one, but two polygraphs.
The site, Whitehouse.com, had offered Sinclair the sum of $10,000 to take a polygraph plus another check for $100,000 if he passed. To prove they were not bi-partisan the site also offered the woman at the center of the McCain lobbyist mini-scandal, Vicki Iseman, the same offer.
Whitehouse.com used the services of highly respected polygraph expert, Dr. Ed Gelb. Sinclair passed a drug test before taking the tests, both administered on Friday. On the first test, questions were administered about Sinclair’s claims that he and Obama had sex. The second test focused on Sinclair’s claims that he and Obama did drugs. Dr.Gelb found “deception was indicated” in both tests. Absent any other developments this is the end of the road for Larry Sinclair.
[video]
As DBKP reported in its story yesterday, the supermarket tabloid, The Globe, had found additional information on Sinclair’s background. According the Globe, the 46-year-old ex-con Sinclair had spent time in prison for credit card fraud, had admitted being a dope smuggler and a “coyote”, a person who smuggles people into the country, for a price. What were the possible motives for Larry Sinclair?
Read rest of the story:
Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Fails Polygraphs
Posted by: ellie | Aug 8, 2008 7:04:41 PM
As a former Edwards supporter, this news is disappointing. What is further disheartening is the appearance that the child could be his (the mounting reports seem to indicate that Andrew Young took the fall) and he's still denying it. If it's not his kid, fine - but there really ought to be a legitimate paternity test so that everyone involved can have some kind of resolution.
While I will say that I do think the affair is an issue for his family to deal with, his lack of judgment and subsequent dishonesty is truly troubling. In my mind, I can separate a flawed individual from the policies he supports. But for a position like president when you have to trust that person to make incredibly important life & death decisions, I want someone who is a little less susceptible to cock teases and blackmail. The problem is (most) politicians are human. They have weaknesses and they make mistakes. I think that everyone who runs for public office has some degree of arrogance and egomania - so they're not only flawed but delusional to some extent as well.
Honestly, I cannot say one way or another whether or not I would have voted for him. There are certainly worse choices and plenty we don't know about other candidates' shortcomings and secrets. But I will say this - I wish Elizabeth and their kids the best and hope all this media attention doesn't further destroy their family.
Posted by: jeffk | Aug 8, 2008 7:08:56 PM
What happens between two consenting adults is pretty much their own business, whether it's within a marriage or outside of one.
I don't like that he lied about it, but I don't have a great deal of respect for the press that's hounded him on it, considering that he has fame but no office.
To quote from Buckaroo Banzai: "So what. Big deal."
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 8, 2008 7:09:17 PM
i'm confused? when did Edwards become a Republican?
Posted by: relevance | Aug 8, 2008 7:16:47 PM
We focus way too much on this personal stuff. It's accessible tot he Perez Hilton crowd. But private/ personal virtue gets such huge play compared to even more relevant public virtue and public service and real issues.
The rise in focus on all this personal and family stuff is part of the "me" era and we shouldn't overplay it.
I don't care that George Bush did cocaine in college. I care a lot that that he is working primarily for energy companies, the wealthy, and the war business, to the detriment of other interests.
I don't care that Nixon was a family man, or that George Bush the elder reportedly had a mistress. Or that Bill Clinton _______. Or that Obama might have _______.
The public interest loses if we fetish-ize too much the personal pecadilloes and private tragedies of elected leaders.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 8, 2008 7:31:55 PM
Supposedly this is the end of Edward's public life. Why isn't it the end of McCain's public life for his notorious betrayal of his first wife with his present wife? Why isn't it the end of Giuliani's public life for his public betrayal and humiliation of wife number two while he was still occupying the Mayor's mansion of New York City? Why are those disqualifiers from the presidency? And where is Vicki Iseman?
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 8, 2008 7:32:39 PM
way to kick it, KTDM. You rock.
Add my name to those who say the biggest crime here is in what he could have done to the Democratic Party were he to win the nomination. He risked not only his marriage (which is none of my business) but really, the future of the war in Iraq, the environment, health care, etc.
He would have essentially ensured a McCain victory.
He said in a statement that he was egotistical and a narcissist and believed he was above it all. On that count, he was 100% honest.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 8, 2008 7:37:59 PM
If Edwards had made the fidelity of marriage a campaign issue, then the outrage of hypocrisy would be legitimate. But he didn't. Plus, he is no longer an elected official or running for office.
Shakespeare was only half right when he had one of his characters say, "Frailty, thy name is woman." The big problem with Edwards's infidelity is that he broke a solemn promise to his wife who by all accounts is a remarkable woman who didn't deserve such treatment, especially at a time when she was having such severe health problems. If this were France or some other nation where powerful men routinely have mistresses this would be a different story, but this is America where people tend to tout their virtues but are often proved to be hypocrites.
From another point of view Edwards is guilty of something much worse. He betrayed his oath to uphold the Constitution when he (and three fourths of Congress) voted to transfer authority to go to war on Iraq to Bush. According to Bob Shrum's book, Edwards and his wife were opposed to voting this way, but he succumbed to Shrum's arguments over his and his wife's better judgment. Edwards has his virtues, but he appears to have an Achilles heel when he is seduced by one means or another.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 8, 2008 8:14:51 PM
Well, we can scratch Edwards off the VP list.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 8, 2008 8:32:01 PM
Oh, and one more thing -- if he was the nominee, this would be coming out a mere two weeks before the beginning of the convention. I bet there's shudder of relief throughout many Democratic Party operatives.
Posted by: LT | Aug 8, 2008 8:56:08 PM
John Edwards just blew his whole life story--the grieving father who lost his teenage son in an accident and later he and his wife had 2 more kids.
Often I agree there is too much concentration on the personal side of things--esp. when those who have divorced and remarried slam those who have only been married once. Give me someone who has a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out (but isn't a perfect person) over a perfect person who is an ideologue any day of the week.
But here Edwards is, admitting hubris got the best of him and he did the unthinkable, "and don't think you can beat me up because I have beat myself up already". At least he was honest. That is a start but he should have known better!
Once in an English class I learned the definition of tragedy--requires a hero, but also the downfall of that hero due to a tragic flaw. That seems to be the case here. He can kiss any public career goodbye after this--obviously he wasn't thinking of his surviving grown daughter, not to mention the 2 little kids.
Doesn't this put him in the same category as Gingrich--cheating on a sick wife?
His close friends who have been interviewed are stunned and / or angry--as they have a right to be. Lying to those close to you is a sin hard to forgive.
Posted by: mlw | Aug 8, 2008 9:53:10 PM
It stopped being purely personal conduct when he ran for political office without making it public, recklessly endangering the set of issues he professes to believe in. An Edwards nomination was not out of the question. Where would we be now if he was the nominee and this had just come out? The hypocrisy of running as a family values man immediately after this affair is just the icing on the cake. I feel sorry for his family and his campaign staff.
As to whether an affair is disqualifying, I don't think it is. However, it's clearly something that a lot of voters find relevant. A candidate for whom running for office is more than just an ego trip owes it to their supporters to at least make the sort of generic admissions we've seen others make - I have not been a perfect husband; We have had our troubles in the past, etc. Sure, it's "code" but it raises the issue without going into gruesome detail and prevents it from being an issue later. Obama was more forthcoming about his faults and they haven't significantly hurt him.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Aug 8, 2008 10:27:55 PM
I feel bad for the Edwards family. Once again, though, why the recklessness? As with Spitzer, Goldscmidt, Hart, Kennedys, Larry Craig, Gingrich, etc... it's like there is some kind of personality disorder where they just don't get it. Maybe those of us who support these folks financially and otherwise should ask them to submit to a polygraph before they run. I attended the John and Elizabeth Edwards events in OR, but am now so glad he lost. WHy did he put us all through it? For those of you who say the sex lives of candts. doesn't matter, dream on. The modern media has decided it matters.
Posted by: Calm Down | Aug 8, 2008 11:21:24 PM
Will this blow over quickly? I think it will,. I sure hope so; I'm already tired of hearing about it.
I don't buy into the anxiety that Edwards created serious risk to the Democrats potential success this year, for two reasons:
1. Even if you supported Edwards's policy positions, admit it: this guy was a weak candidate. You know this now, and (be honest), you knew it then. Maybe the race was better for his presence, but he had zero chance to win the nomination.
2. His irrelevance is the only reason this story didn't break wide open, much sooner.
It also helps that he didn't wait to announce this any later. By confessing now, the media bottom feeders can digest this before the conventions. I'm glad he did that.
Posted by: KTDM | Aug 9, 2008 5:51:56 AM
A weak candidate? He was arguably number three behind two exceptionally strong candidates. It was widely assumed that he would hold a very high office in Obama's cabinet (AG, poverty czar, if not VP). As for irrelevance, well maybe he's irrelevant now, but he's going to have an influence in a negative way. The conservative radio jockeys are going to have quite a lot of fun with this, and it's also, typically, clouding other crucial news stories (like the current administration forging letters re: Saddam Hussein). Also, though the focus is on Edwards mostly--Rielle Hunter is a class "A" creep who also should have had an understanding of what this could do to the Democratic party. The only reason this came out now is that the slimy tabloid press really had caught him red-handed, and he knew it. Both Edwards and Rielle are fallible people who can and should be forgiven on a personal level--what astonishes me, though, is that Edwards ran knowing that this could come out, and knowing what impact Bill Clinton's affair had on the Democratic party...when he could have so easily just bowed out citing obvious family reasons, and even the National Enquirer would have left him alone.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 9, 2008 8:21:32 AM
The McCain campaign has announced it is giving prizes to supporters who go out and troll the blogosphere on his behalf. It is noted that Blue Oregon has its share of McCain slime trolls spreading their contagion around.
Posted by: ORDemocrat | Aug 9, 2008 9:10:40 AM
Edwards is a moral slimeball and weak person. As I posted previously, he didn't help Kerry's campaign and will hurt Obama's. DNC has made a mess of this whole campaign.
Democrats should've put up a Clinton\Obama VP ticket. Would've been a slam dunk but instead put up someone with little experience and who is a weak candidate. DNC made their own bed now they have to lie in it.
Tragically, looks like McCain in the WH later this year. Unbelievable.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Garrett | Aug 8, 2008 3:36:42 PM
Funny how a little over a week ago someone was on here talking about Edwards getting the veep nod. I brought up this affair as being a HUGE problem and nobody would even acknowledge it existed. Perez Hilton scooped all of us!