Jesus, quit obsessing over McCain’s sex life, Dio. Besides, you’ve reached your tu quoque quota for this week already.
OK, first off, I don’t yet quite buy that Edwards was even having an affair. Certainly he’s an attractive man who could land a nice nubile thing on the side, but I keep looking for an innocent explanation.
But if he was, yeah, at least take him off the short list for VP (not that he was there anyway). Push come to shove, McCain’s a confirmed adulterer, & Obama might be able to win with Edwards on the ticket. But this isn’t France. Why take a chance?
Very convenient that the story came out on a Friday night, the same night as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.
You don’t believe Edwards when he admitted to having the affair? Why would he lie about that?
With respect, the Enquirer is generally right about what it publishes in the way of allegations of fact. As, it turns out in this case, appears to be true (we know now the affair part is correct; I’d strongly suspect the father is Edwards as well, which may well turn out to be true, later).
Maybe it will become a political sport.
Damn. Edwards, you idiot! :mad:
That dude just went into the shitter to me. It’s weird, because I didn’t feel that way about Clinton, but then again I’m from Arkansas and knew he was a hound dog already.
I know some of y’all are probably gonna say “see, I had him pegged, the lying sack of shit”.
Well, you got it. Mark that little tick mark on the old tally sheet.
I’m bummed, because he’s one of the guys who had the gumption to take it to The Man and won.
I should just be philosophical and reckon that the gumption required to take on The Man and the gumption required to be a National Politician and the gumption required to fuck out on your wife are likely largely occupying the same mental space. 
You suspect that based on what personal knowledge?
Also, if you’re confident that the Enquirer is reliable in its allegations of fact, does that mean you believe the stories that GWB is drinking again and that Laura is going to divorce him after he leaves office?
You’re lower than a snake’s belly if you cheat on your wife while she’s fighting cancer, and lie about it, and your mistress isn’t even good-looking.
Wait, aren’t we in IMHO? 
I suspect it based upon no personal knowledge, but rather one the basis that A) why else would Edwards go to the hotel, and B) why else would he have spent all this time denying what otherwise would appear to have been a relatively minor affair?
As the the Enquirer, unless you can point me to a story that I’ve missed (I don’t exactly read it religiously, you know ), I don’t recall them as having made the statements you assert them making. You have to read that “paper” carefully. There is a VAST difference between “George W. Bush is drinking again,” and “people in the know say George W. Bush is drinking again.” On this thin line the Enquirer rests much of what it says. When it actually says something is true, instead of reporting what people are saying, it’s very likely to be actually true.
I really don’t see that it’s anyone else’s business besides John and Elizabeth Edwards’, so no, it shouldn’t disqualify him from the running. We expect too much out of candidates’ marriages; the candidates and their wives are human, with all the flaws that implies. Some stray, some don’t, and I don’t really care either way.
I think John Edwards would be a good VP pick but I can’t imagine that it would be all that rewarding for him or for his wife, with her health issues.
If the reaction of one of my physician colleagues to the affair is any indication, The Man is high-fiving and rolling on the floor laughing about now.
Yep, Newt Gingrich already proved that. :dubious:
Um, Suse? You can stick a fork in John Edwards’ political ambitions now - he’s done.
Suse, it isn’t so much the fact he had an “affair,” which would bother the Right much more than it would bother the Left. It’s the continued attempt to not only stonewall, but flat-out lie about it that is bothersome. It shows that Edwards is the same as many politicians: unwilling to admit personal mistakes either out of some arrogance or out of fear that, by admitting mistake, his chances as a politician are done. A “good” man would stand up and admit the error, ask forgiveness, and be done with it.
Please note that, in this case, it isn’t a matter of denying it to keep it from his family, either. According to the reports, he admitted the truth of the affair to his wife some time ago, yet has still continued to deny it to the public.
As Mr. Knightly says in Emma, “Badly done, Mr. Edwards, badly done indeed.”
I don’t really understand this line of thought. The whole point of having an affair is to keep people from knowing about it. The lie is inexorably intertwined with the affair. I suppose its possible to have a one-time affair, admit it the next day and ask for forgiveness, but I really don’t think that fits the pattern of most affairs.
The issue isn’t lying about an ongoing affair. That’s kind of inherent in the term “affair,” though I suppose you could consider an open relationship with someone to whom you are not married an “affair.”
But here, the affair was over and done with when the lying in question occurred. That’s potentially different, though I will submit that, if you are caught in the act, and cornered, and you lie about it, that’s still not a good thing.
But why was it ever the public’s business? I don’t have a problem with somebody lying about an affair. If you tell the truth about an affair, you’re not doing it right.
Because people are nosey. We like to gossip, and that’s probably in our genes.
While that may be the case here, I see this POV all the time when these cases go public. Clinton comes to mind immediately. “It’s not the cheating, it’s the LYING” just doesn’t make any sense to me. I suspect people don’t like being accused of being the moral police, so they channel their outrage over the affair into outrage about lying, which is a perfectly socially acceptable form of outrage.
Two thoughts:
- Couldn’t John Edwards get some prime pussy? Why is he after this skank?
- Doesn’t this violate some campaign finance law? Bang some chick and pay her six figures from donations?
I’m not disappointed, if anyone thinks I’m harboring some secret ambition for Edwards to be the VP pick. At this point I don’t have a preference and it wouldn’t matter if I did. I guess I don’t see that anyone has the right to ask the question except the spouse. Questioning by anyone outside the marriage, including the media, is improper unless the question is invited by the candidate, in the manner of Gary Hart.
And it wouldn’t have gone better for Edwards had he confessed when the story first came out. His career would have been as destroyed as it seems to be today.
I don’t like it when I’m lied to, but if I never should have asked the question in the first place as it had no bearing on my particular interests in the person (which for a politician, means my interests in his manner of governing, not asking about his romantic life), maybe I deserved the answer I got.