If I am not mistaken, the affair happened before the resurgence of his wife's cancer. I could be wrong, and not that it changes the fact he was an asshole and idiot.

Here's a question; statistically speaking, are the number of affairs by office holders/politicians higher than what occurs in the general population? Because, you see, I am not about to hold politicians to a higher standard than the public they serve. They are human, and we all make stupid mistakes. And we all deserve forgiveness.

See, what really fucking pisses me off are the asshole politicians that purposefully lie to lead us into big fucking follies that kill 100s of 1000s of people, wound and cripple other 100s of 1000s of people, wastes trillions of dollars, and leave the country (and world) in a bigger mess then how they received it.

If I had wanted cream and sugar, then why order the damn coffee?

I always thought of Edwards as a slimy lawyer, kind of a glorified used-car salesman type. Smile was just a little too cute and not quite genuine. I thought it selfish and calloused for him to run for president while his wife fought a terminal illness.

But the fact that he admitted his mistake and reconciled with his wife goes a long way with me.

He shouldn't have done what he did. But he did just like a large percentage of rich, powerful and handsome men do. His present bahavior redeems the man in my eyes.

I'd bet he's a stronger man for having lived through this.

I did inhale.

Father of the Year: John Edwards

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

I generally try not to expect much of politicians, but when I read that had Edwards 'fessed up, I just about kicked something. As many many others have been saying, thank ghod that he didn't get the nomination. (Which doesn't make me any more enthusiastic about Obama, of course..)

I wrote this in a thread at TPMCafe.

--------------------------------------------------
This is "disappointing" to say the least. You can say whatever you like about this being a private matter but it isn't when it relates to someone who might have been one of only two people running to be president and the only one running with any sense of America as something to build upon rather than scavenge and dismantle. If Edwards had been the Democratic nominee in all likelihood this news would give the presidency to the wacko McCain and further the damage to America a Republican president represents.

Edwards was by far my favorite choice for president. I never cared for Obama (hope a dope) and I saw Clinton as more of Clinton - Republican lite. But in fact Edwards was as much a snake oil salesman as Obama. I remember when he and his wife announced that she had cancer and that they had decided together that he would continue to run for president. I could understand his continuing to run but I was sickened by what looked to me as his attempt to use her personal tragedy as a boost for his then failing campaign. Consider now that he was cheating on his wife and obviously cheating on his supporters in trying to get their support, through his wife.

Much as with Eliot Spitzer, we can't be easy on these people that hold our hopes for a better and fairer future in their hands and in our support. We deserve better consideration. It's not just between them and their significant others. When they ask for our support then we deserve to have that support be safe and not open to petty disaster. If an airplane pilot crashes a plane because he has periodic blackouts that he kept hidden, should we accept that? If not, then why accept a known potential (and likely) political disaster as none of our business? If they're weak then they shouldn't deceive us. When they do we should discard them as quickly as possible. That the Republicans can do these sexual hypocrisies is a problem with the control of the public dialog, something which Democrats don't seem to care to deal with. Certainly not on the level Republicans do.
--------------------------------------------------

Apparently Edwards claims to have ended the affair in 2006 and so supposedly wasn't cheating on his wife during the time her cancer was announced during the campaign. But then he was in the hotel the tabloid spotted him in during the middle of the night for hours with the woman he'd ended his affair with years prior. And his wife didn't know about this meeting. So I'll stick with cheating on his wife while pushing the sympathy theme for his campaign. A quality human being.

As for the idea that men are "horn-dogs" it reminds me of the old line that everyone's mother was a virgin and everyone's father was well experienced before marriage. So there must have been a few dozen unmarried childless women who fucked every guy they saw. Sexuality has more than one gender.

Matt Stoller wrote this:
..................................................
I never liked John Edwards, I ignored him for most of the primary because he sucked at organizing and messaging, and because I heard of several cases where he was in rooms with hedge fund guys and told them he would turn to the center in the general.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7412
..................................................

If this about telling hedge fund managers that he (Edwards) was just playin' the rubes with his populist shtick was posted before, I'd missed it. If not, maybe it was too sketchy a quote for publication and Stoller doesn't care at this point. But still, this should have been noted for blog consumption. Again, maybe it was and I missed it.

As for any sense of histrionic outrage, I don't have any interest in burning John Edwards "at the stake." I don't think he's the anti-Christ, but then the only imaginary friend I believe in is the lotto ticket I buy (same difference?). But I never want to have to consider anything Edwards has to say in the political realm. He's lost any sense of trust from me. He can go back to being a crusading trial lawyer.

The only thing that seems surprising in terms of the media attention is that I thought Edwards was supposed to be so obviously gay. We've certainly been given that not so subliminal impression by the corporate media for years now. Maybe it's a sort of reverse "Crying Game" moment.

What is it about politicians that they can't keep their pants zipped? Geez, if they can't keep their commitment to a spouse, how are they supposed to keep any sort of commitment to their constituency?

Am I supposed to trust these creatures?

My deepest sympathies go out to his wife for having to endure this boob.

Well, being of Euro raised background, I'm always dumb-fondled with North Americas obsession about the private lives of politicians.
Personally, I surly have done more than my share of idiotic things in my life.

That said, I always do grant, even the most fierce political opponent, everyone's right to eff up their private lives in whatever fashion they deem opportune.
It's human nature. Such is life. We often fail privately, or we find arrangements that work out for those we care for. Whatever.
(Exploitation is a different can of worms, I try to stay focused on one thing)
I don't dislike Hitler for staying unmarried or to finally wed Eva Braun in the downfall - I loath him for tons of reasons, none related to his private life.

Not having that idealized, Disney-picture-perfect-'til-death-does-us-part romance in itself doesn't make us better or worse politicians! This is ludicrous! It is just not supported by statistical evidence. Most marriages (funny enough, even more so in the US then in most nations) end before death. There exist no reliable statistics on how many marriages stay happily married per country till death do them part.
IE: Italy is the world capital of wife-swapping! Or, in admitting it?
I just cannot have an opinion on what consenting adults do. It's just none of my business.

If I do recall correctly (I may be wrong), Mitterand's wife AND mistress both were present at his state funeral.
In any case, good and bad things can be said about his presidency - but his private life had no effect on the fate of the French state; his actions as president did.

All of the above laid out as background - I cannot fault a person for seeking a chest to lean on, while one's partner struggles with creeping death. There is something very humane that I can deeply understand and even identify with. If you don't, hony soit qui mal y pense.

Mister Edwards was not selling out the working and middle class.
He did not start a war of choice on false pretenses.
He did not deliberately loot the treasury to further impoverish the middle and working class.

He did run for the democratic nomination, knowing that he won't make it to the primaries, giving Obama a chance by splitting the potential Hillary vote.
Fault him for that, if you must, but not for being human.

kucinich_fights_for_iraq_against_u.s._oil_companies

gad, i love this guy.
i will never cease kicking myself for not having spoken with him when i had the opportunity 5 years ago when he gave a speech at wiley post airport in oklahoma city where i was working. screw my livelihood! if i'd any inkling how different a pol he is, i'd have risked the job and taken time to talk with him.
kick!kick!kick!

LA Times Opinion

Tim Rutten
August 9, 2008

When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.

From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.

Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd. Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story. Like the Enquirer's reporting, the special-treatment charge is largely true, as anyone who recalls the media frenzy over conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett's high-stakes gambling would agree.

Edwards, 55, now admits that he had an affair with Hunter, now 44,in 2006, but denies that he is the father of the child she had in February. Andrew Young, another former Edwards aide, has said he is the baby's father. In a statement released Friday, Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test; doubtless we'll hear more on that issue.

So far, so sordid.

But what's really significant here is the cone of silence the nation's major newspapers -- including The Times -- and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign. Next, the Enquirer reported that the unmarried Hunter was pregnant. Still no mainstream media interest. Indeed, never in recent journalistic history have so many tough reporters so closely resembled sheep as those members of the campaign press corps who meekly accepted Edwards' categorical dismissal of the Enquirer's allegations. Late last month, Edwards came to Los Angeles, and Enquirer reporters trailed him to the Beverly Hilton hotel, where he met Hunter and her daughter in their room.

The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence. The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton. As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been "confirmed."

Well, there's confirming and then there's confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, "Find somebody and have them make a few calls." Then there's the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada's and says, "Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion."

Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer's story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.

Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside.

more

"--instead of good-versus-evil you only get befuddlement-versus-evil. Goodness has lost its way in the dark night of the American psyche, as might be understandable considering the nation of louts, liars, grifters, bullies, meth freaks, harpies, and tattooed creeps we have become." from:
http://ristocrats.blogspot.com/
Just about sums it up. Wolf Blitzer used the term lying on CNN in the Edwards story at least 100 times yesterday. Everyone else is disingenuous. Start a war. Kill, kill, kill. But that's not lying.
Dude gets a boner. Woman sez hell yes. It's over in a couple hours. Yes, a mistake worth lying about was made. Can't anyone tell the difference?
Makes me wanna puke.

Edwards

The whole myriad of emotions made me giggle. Then again it just might be my mood today.

I can understand mid-life crises.
I can understand the desire to seize the moment and feel alive.
I can understand the desire to temporarily escape from chaos and cancer and loss (of a child in the past and a spouse in the future).

I can't understand lying to people who believed in you.
I can't understand risking the loss of the White House for another 4 years.
I can't understand believing the truth would never emerge.

But, I can understand Icarus. And, the Icarus Complex explains all that I can't understand.

I'm just glad Obama won the nomination. He actually wants to be President.

if Obama is found to have had an affair?

Grow up really quickly?

I don't know why anyone would defend politicians from allegations of an affair. They're big boys/girls. They can handle it. What was the last statistic on cheating? A little over 50% with women quickly catching up? Play your odds right. ;-)

of the child that was born to a potential mistress. Why is Edwards resisting taking the DNA test that establishes beyond question the paternity of children?

Is it because he's a scumbag that cheated on his wife and then lied about it? She's being the adult by sticking by him because she doesn't want the children of their marriage to lose two parents simultaneously when she dies from her terminal disease.

Been there did that I was 29-years-old and decided to return to my husband for the sake of our child. Never regretted that I lived beyond what the prognosis indicated, but in my case there was no question that the person I was married to had fathered 'OUR' child. Best decision that I ever made. My time on earth at the announcement of the disease was very limited. Our daughter appreciated that the two of us got back together and combined we proved to be excellent parents for our child. No-one knows absolutely when the dice are rolled how much time is allocated to survival! The best we can hope for in this life is living up to the responsibilities imposed as being an adult.

In retrospect, I always put the decision as to whether to separate as 'temporary insanity' due to the harshness of the Cancer prognosis. Yes, I have to admit I'm looking at the dilemma from Elizabeth's perspective having been there and weighing the options that were available at the time. I understand completely why Elizabeth is electing to stay with Edwards regardless of whether he warrants her decision.

If she lives beyond the term of what the prognosis provided, she may or may not regret what she decided, but for the good of the family, I betcha regardless of whatever time is left, she'll resolve in her own mind that her decision was wise.

Edwards himself destroyed his future. Elizabeth's choices were brutally constrained. Had my husband not been the father, I still would have returned because two parents are better than one. When children are involved one has to think beyond themselves and consider what their future holds. It isn't morally ethical to bring children into this world without reflecting what their future will be regardless if it requires some sacrifice of one's own. That's a known before eggs and sperms meet.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/?y=1

And the earlier discussion on the non-MSM rumblings about Edwards:

http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20080722/edwards_seriously_considering_being_obamas_veep

By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The ex-mistress of former presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday she will not participate in DNA testing to establish the paternity of her daughter.

Rielle Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, says his client is a private individual who wishes to maintain the privacy of herself and her daughter.

In a statement, Gordon says that Hunter is ruling out any kind of testing that could establish who the daughter's father is.

``Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future,'' he said.

On Friday, Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair with Hunter in 2006 but denied that he was the father of Hunter's 5-month-old daughter. Edwards said he will take a paternity test to prove he is not the father.

The decision by Hunter means that the issue of who the father will remain an open question.

more

running for pres is also an IQ test and he flunked it huge... effing moran... we're well rid of him, i hope.