Thus, a good trait in an officeholder is one who can successfully lie and stonewall about personal crap like this for as long as possible.
The one thing I can say for David Vitter is that I applaud his refusal to let his prostitution scandal get in the way. I’ll say the same about George W. Bush and his cocaine use. I have no doubt that he was a blow fiend, but it’s none of my business and I respect him for refusing to address the questin. Eliot Spitzer should have done the same. Anyone salivating to hear such nonsense deserves a healthy fuck-you from the lectern.
Edwards screwed up big-time by putting his party at huge risk. If he’d won the primary, the Democrats probably wouldn’t have won the election. Such enormous and foolish arrogance is a pretty big indicator that he shouldn’t be in office. I think that is certainly my business.
For those who might be interested, I really enjoyed The art of the public grovel: sexual sin and public confession in America, by Susan Wise Bauer. It’s an analysis of the historical development of the American expectation that a public figure caught in a sexual scandal will make a public confession and apology, what elements are needed in the confession, and why we have this custom when the Euro’s don’t.
And IMHO, that’s why such scandals usually have little traction when applied to the typical Democrat; they don’t hold themselves up as Paragons of Traditional Moral Values, so most people aren’t particularly worked up when they fail to meet standards they never claimed to meet. Thus the extreme Republican frustration with the general public’s failure to be outraged over Clinton ( titillated yes; outraged, no ).
And I do agree with the idea that it’s a bad idea to look at political leaders as “capital-L Leaders”, as Marley23 put it. Someone needs to be in charge and run the government, but the best we can reasonably expect is that they do a good job and obey the law. That’s their job; not serving as sexual role models.
Yes, you can include me in this; I have always loathed him.
I just watched Oprah’s interview with Elizabeth Edwards. She said she found out about her husband’s “indiscretion” only a few days after he had announced his candidacy. And they both agreed that if he had dropped out at that time, it would have invited a barrage of public scrutiny.
I don’t think she would have written the book if she weren’t dying of cancer. She has no idea how much longer she has, and she seems to feel a need to set the record straight, and get the story out from her point of view. The two of them are still working on issues of trust in their marriage. She is in many ways a very strong person, but it’s deplorable what he has done to her when she needs him most.
I think she’s gotten the distinct impression (and it’s an accurate one) that people think she’s a doofus or a doormat for not leaving him, and she wants to tell he side of the story. He’s not going to be President and Rielle Hunter and baby are not going away anytime soon. Her illness is pushing things along and I don’t she wants to die being thought of as a clueless frump with no self respect who supports her man no matter what.
Makes sense, I just seem to feel that she is putting out mixed signals—On one hand she wants to assert her support for him, while at the same time hesitating when asked if she still loves him, if she thinks he has cheated before, etc.
I dont know how to feel about her; certainly there is some sympathy I hold for her (cancer, son killed in car crash) yet I have a hard time understanding why she is still around, as she has all the resources she would need to leave him, and allow him to be with the woman he obivously perfers? to her…
I would imagine that she’s staying in order to give her younger kids as much stability as possible before she dies; they’re going to have enough difficulty as it is. If she’s dying, she doesn’t need to worry much about her own future–just theirs.
Really? You don’t see the difference between taking an interest in, say, major elections in a foreign country (which ostensibly don’t really effect you) and taking an interest in a complete stranger’s sex life?
If the courts conclusively prove that Edwards misused campaign funds, then that is worth a bit of outrage. The issue of whether or not he’s the father of a child is not. The issue of him having sex with a consenting adult is not. Why? Because whether a former politician is maritally honest or not does not matter.
There’s some odd aspects to their relationship I don’t quite grasp.She decided to undergo expenisve and involved medical proceduresso she could conceive at age 48 and again at age 50. While it says “both” of them chose to have kids at that late date I’d be willing the wager ao serious money the decision and motivation was 100% hers. As a 50 year old man myself I’m pretty sure John Edwards was not pushing for more kids in any way, shape or form.
But neither one specified how many people they were the man of.
Clinton gets a pass for his horndogging in part because the perception has always been there that his marriage was largely just a politically career-oriented alliance anyway. Edwards marketed himself as a loving, devoted husband and father – having an affair and possibly abandoning a child run counter to his brand image.
It has nothing to do with John boy’s penile adventures and everything to do with integrity. He broke a vow to his wife, the one person whose trust he should hold highest. The public has a right to know about potential issues regarding trust from someone who would be representing their interests.
They still had a daughter so it’s not like she lost all her kids, and to push her body to those limits to bear two more kids a ages 48 & 50 speaks to some unresolved psychological dynamic in her personality. It’s her perfect right to take advantage of whatever medical tools she can to achieve her objectives, it’s just that the objective to have babies at 48 and 50 is quite odd (IMO) by any stretch of the imagination.
My impression from the interview is that Elizabeth Edwards is relying on a great deal of inner strength, to deal with some very difficult times. She said something that was very heartbreaking: When she got married, she asked only one thing of her husband. Not jewelry or flowers or anything material, but the promise to be faithful. So now we have a woman, almost 60, facing death and her husband’s unfaithfulness, all in the public arena. I believe that she’s trying very hard to maintain a semblance of “normalcy” in her life (she doesn’t know how much time she has), which explains why she’s working with her husband to rebuild her trust in him. She said she didn’t want all of their years together to be defined by his affair, ignoring everything else they’ve been for each other.
