Its pretty clear to me that a good portion of Dopers and media reported Democrats are pretty disgusted with Edwards.
What I want to know is what if it was Obama. How would you feel about supporting him and how do you thing it would play out with the upcoming convention.
Personally, I was expecting several months ago for some sort of miracle for Hillary’s campaign(the Clinton mystique) only it was the wrong guy.
If it was Obama, I think he would honourably release his delegates and put Hillary over the top. And that’s what I would hope for as well.
Of course i would be disgusted, but i would still think he was lightyears ahead as the best choice for president than any republican. A lot of the disgust towards Edwards comes because of the harm it does the party and their chances in the next election, not out of actually caring where he sticks his penis.
I pretty much expect pols to have sexual liaisons. It is one of the fringe benefits of the job. Beautiful ,educated women throwing themselves at them. When I was young I might have caught a few. But it is common for the competitive, conquering types to believe they actually deserve the attention they get.
Kissinger and Jill St. John were linked for crying out loud. Power corrupts.
McCain caught a bunch when he was young. Does that DQ him?
King Bush the first had a long term girlfriend, did it hurt him.The list of polls that messed around is longer than the list of those who did not.
Elvis the problem with that McCain story is that there was nothing there but innuendo. There may have really been something here but they had nothing more than a suspicion. If they had presented more solid proof than “the appearance of a close bond” then maybe it would have had legs. Those are the kinds of things that the Enquirer runs with but the NYT usually waits until they have something a bit more solid. And the latter is exactly what happened with Edwards: the Enquirer ran with it from innuendo on and the MSM, including the NYT, ignored it until Edwards himself fessed up. And fessed up that he had lied about it before even after he had already come clean to his wife. You think that they’d ignore that if it was a Republican? Really?
As it shouldn’t for Edwards, either. So why does it?
Or is your point, and DSeid’s too apparently, that the “crime” is in not keeping personal matters personal when asked? That the “crime” is not colluding with an irresponsible, vacuous mass media?
Sigh. Another round of Elvis totally twisting points around in knots that should even being able exist in Newtonian space.
No, Elvis, my point is that you claim that It’s OK If You’re a Republican (IOKIYAR) is inaccurate at by the example that you gave. Comparing the two if anything the Democrat got more of a ride on it than the Republican did.
As to the “crime”, nah the crime in my book is Edwards’ hypocrisy in marketing himself as such a dedicated family man, and in putting himself in position to be a candidate who had such clear baggage waiting to be unpacked.
The effect, whether it be crime or not, would be the same if this was Obama or McCain with a recent affair proven either by eventual confession or solid proof. Unelectable. Even I wouldn’t vote for someone with this documented as going on - do I really want another administration during which the focus is on where cigars get stored and whether or not young ladies get blue dresses dry cleaned?
I do realize that, if you see my name on a post, you automatically think it’s wrong - but you need to address the content, not the user name, if you wish to persuade anyone else.
I’ll be honest - I’ve said a lot of anti-Obama stuff on this board and I’ve meant all of it. I think the guy is all hype and no substance, I think he’s probably the most anti-gun presidential candidate ever, and his cult of personality annoys me to death. With that said - I honestly and truly do not give even one half of a fuck about his sex life, and in fact if I did like Obama, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him even if slept with a boatload of Singapore whores.
Let me lay it on the line here: there was a time when a leader was expected to be able to have as many liaisons with women as he wanted. A great man was supposed to be a conquerer and take all the spoils accorded to him, and that includes the hordes of women who were hot for his power and prestige. Kennedy, for instance - there was a great president, and a great man. Or going back even further, although I don’t think monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy, but all the great kings throughout history, no matter what country you’re looking at, have had more mistresses than you could count. If you were to list them all, it would take thousands of sheep just to get the parchment to write that scroll.
This is just the natural order of life. Power turns women on, and instead of denying it and sticking our heads in the sands we should fucking embrace it. We should celebrate presidents who have impressive lists of sexual exploits. What the hell difference does it make as to how he’s going to lead the country? If anything, guys who are sexually liberal-minded and open about it tend to be far more honest and enlightened than bible-thumpers who have affairs behind their wife’s back.
I wish we could have a president for once who not only had a wild sex life, but was actually honest about it.
However - this is a pipe dream of the highest order. It’s more than a pipe dream, it’s a bong dream. It’s the kind of dream you have to be completely wasted in order to believe in. And yet - I still maintain hope that someday, it could be.
least: If that *is * the reason, then why not apply it evenhandedly?
You’re right in saying that, if you want to find out who’s been doing something, look for who’s preaching against it most loudly. Just look at the pious condemnations of Clinton’s adultery from the likes of Henry “Youthful Indiscretion” Hyde et al. ad nauseam, or at Larry Craig’s gay-bashing, for just a couple of examples.
But you’re wrong in saying that it doesn’t matter. The supercilious moralizing and press scandalmongering focused on it help screen out candidates who might do a superior job in office on the basis of something irrelevant to it. That’s a real consequence.
I"d be furious. The same way I was with Clinton. I myself don’t care. But, the United States didn’t need the year of dragging ourselves through the Lewinsky mud. There are too many real issues this year. This is not a year when all we have to debate is kids from Cuba or the lock box.
I read an article about Elizabeth Edwards and her comments on how the press had reopened and paraded for public scrutiny a painful episode they had already been dealing with privately. Since Edwards is no longer a Senator or a presidential candidate I think it’s ridiculous to the edge of cruelty for the mainstream media to behave like supermarket rags and sensationalize this matter as if it’s important news. It isn’t. Leave them alone. Aren’t they dealing with enough without heaping this on them. I’m more disgusted with the vulture like media than I am Edwards. If the story was about a still viable candidate it would be relevant and likely end any presidential bid.
So someone who feels it is okay to cheat on his wife repeatedly should be embraced as a great leader? We should even celebrate it and embrace it declaring that repeated adultery is their right as a powerful man? What about a powerful woman? Can they be sluts and still keep our respect.
Apply it evenhandedly how? I’m missing what you’re asking.
I still don’t buy the second part. Just because they might want blowjobs from hookers doesn’t mean that Candidate X’s foreign policy also blows. The only thing that makes it a stumbling block is if the person bases everything on their family life and values, and then takes a spill like this. That’s a loss of credibility on the one thing that they hold above everything else. In this instance, it doesn’t change the fact that Edwards is right about poverty in the United States.
