Well, I sure feel like a fool after supporting Edwards and calling him a Boy Scout. Jeebus. The big point here is that Edwards was so selfish and arrogant that he figured he could go against the rules. You know - the rules that say atheists are not allowed to run for president. The rules that say you can't be president unless you are willing to push the big red button. And since clinton, the rule that says you can't be a philanderer. Screw you Edwards.

Jesse...I can only imagine your frustration.

Here's a lesson from this episode, for those looking for one.

Individual leaders, as individuals, will always disappoint you. Sometimes in spectacular fashion, sometimes bit by bit. Because...stop the presses...they are deeply flawed human beings. Just like you and me.

We have a democratic institution that, when it works well, helps address this problem. That is...the political party.

Support a party, and you are supporting ideas and policy choices, not just a media-filtered personal vibe. You get, to put it inelegantly, the Wisdom of Crowds.

It's possible, just maybe, that Edwards's good ideas will outlive his political career, through the party.

And the inevitable breakdowns of people like John Edwards, or you, or me, become marginalized.

As such, parties deserve some care and feeding. No doubt, they deserve a lot of criticism, but they exist for good reasons. Remember those reasons this fall.

I'm sharing the pain, annoyance and anger but write mainly in response to Jack Roberts' interesting point. To the extent that there are differing reactions, I think they arise from the sense of hypocrisy that comes attached to the holier-than-thou family values candidate who--it turns out--isn't.

But actually, some of us see him no differently as the family values people who cross various lines, either. As a former Edwards supporter, I'm pissed off at the arrogance illustrated primarily by leading supporters to fund and volunteer for someone who was Nat Enquirer unelectable.

I am always bemused by those who truly do not understand that in life, in this life, we do not operate unseen. Ultimately, all that we do is there, we operate in the open.

A friend was recently asked to run for a pivotal office at this important time. I am glad he elected not to do so. It would have put his tangled personal business out front in a more-destructive way than its denouement already dictated. Smart man. He possibly saved a number of people from massive humiliations, frankly.

I am jaundiced since the last two rigged elections. Yet the disappointment viz Edwards flooded me too. Please, Kucinich - please please please don't have anymore personal revelatory surprises for me. My poor idealistic heart cannot take it.

This is for Jack Roberts:

1) I agree with what David Bonior said about Edwards.

2) As has been said in the past, it depends on the candidate's core message. If a Republican runs on "family values" and then gets caught doing otherwise, that is hypoocrisy. If poverty crusader Edwards were caught being part owner of a sweatshop (or like a post here awhile back owning part of a farm that mistreated migrant workers) that would be the same level of hypocrisy.

As is the case when people who have had multiple marriages attack those who are still married for the first time and have done (are doing) a good job raising their kids simply because of a vote on a bill some group said was a "family values" piece of legislation.

Which is why some of us say "Ditch the generalities, and let us see the details of your proposal".

And about this: "And then you all spend your time trying to figure out why you can't carry Middle America at election time."

Gee, Sens. Tester and Salazar aren't from Middle America?

Here in Oregon, unless Gordon Smith wins re-election, you Republicans will be without a statewide elected official. And if you don't run someone of the hard work and high quality of Frank Morse for Gov. in 2010, once again you will lose that one.

I really doubt that if the tabloid he is trashing in this situation had not caught him there, he would have told Elizabeth, which indicates to me his ongoing willingness to deceive both his wife and the public.

Jesse, Elizabeth Edwards says he told her in 2006.

I realize that since many of us actually supported and admire(d) Edwards, this is a difficult thing to hear about. However, I think there is probably a very very short list of national politicians who have not had some sort of, um, scandalous activity.
That doesn't excuse it for Edwards, but people need to drop the "he was a politician so he needed to be perfect" meme. I think recent history (and actually, most of history) shows the exact opposite.

[Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

People make mistakes, we build politicians up merely to cut them down. It is sad that we hold our politicians to a higer standard than we hold ourselves. I am sure that many individuals myself included that read & post on this board have made a mistake or two and lied about it, when the implications were great deal less important than becoming the leader of the free world.

I am very disapointed with John Edwards, which is why I feel like he needs my support more now than ever. None of his politics, ideals or passions have changed, he simply got a little to big for his britches, and now has been knocked down hard and is lying on the canvas.

The question becomes will he get up and will any of us have the courage to stand next to him if he does? I hope that he does and we do.

The fact that this is news is reflective at how primitive American culture is. Oooo, lookie! It's a naked person! Oooo, what are THEY doing in the bedrooom? Who are they being whipped by?

Who the hell cares? Not me.

The opinion shared by liberalincarnate is long overdue. As the MSM has whipped this issue up I have been checking out Left in The West and learned that the Crow Trbe has signed a seven billion dollar deal with an Australian entity to build a liquifaction plant. Also, polls show that the right wing is winning in the campaign to convince people that drilling offshore is the answer. On this site it is very comforting to the Republican Party to see a massive guilt trip and pitty party for somone who was once a can- didate. The victory party for McCain is assured. And for that I am truly disappointed.

Even as I say my idealistic heart can't stand another kamikaze crash of a much-needed candidate, that is really just me groaning comedically. From my serious side, I find the adolescent irreality of American's expectations of purity in the political class to be intellectually primitive. Likewise our continued surprise at each revelation of an election that was tampered. I was bitterly disappointed in Jimmy Carter when he opted NOT to make it his business to serve the nation's needs in talking long and deeply on how VERY contexted our electoral ills are related to those in ostensibly notorious nations. It was the time for a thought leader, knowledgable in this arena, to embark on the dialog and education of the incorrigibly faux naifs of the American public.

I do not condemn out of hand and in my ignorance the actions of Edwards: his story is his own, his marriage and their lives are psychodynamic. However, one is revealed in one's character and one's thought when one chooses which things to lie about. And to step up to a major campaign given the inevitable revelations of ANY secrets held.... was not very wise. American politics are what they are. Like them or not, there are certain lamentable rules of hypocrisy that shape and drive the scene. Thinking of Leonard Cohen's again.

Posted by: Evan "We need more candidates who are willing to say "It's none of your business" when asked about their private lives."

Good grief, you don't think severe infidelity and lying has any part in measuring one's moral fitness?

Posted by: carla "Or perhaps, Jack, its because most of my fellow progressives aren't interested in shoving our notion of "family" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it. "

Good grief, what do you call the gay marriage and gay adoption agenda?

Posted by: marv "Also, polls show that the right wing is winning in the campaign to convince people that drilling offshore is the answer."

It's the sanity wing doing so and it aint being pitched as "the answer" . The sane reality is we have huge supplies of our own energy resources. Growing desperate for more foreign supplies while our own sit untapped is insane. Since Global Warming is no more, http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

you need not pretend any longer that the insanity is justfied.

You may not like the whole "family values" canard, but you certainly cannot say that the Republican party doesn't make their politicians pay a political price when they act hypocritical.

Wait a second. John McCain cheated on his (first) wife and the Republicans nominated him for President. Sen. Vitter paid women to do some, shall we say, weird things and he not only retained his seat, but was given a standing ovation by the Senate Republicans.

I think there is every indication that Republicans do not hold their hypocritical politicians accountable.

Good grief, what do you call the gay marriage and gay adoption agenda?

Wow, when were you forced to marry someone of the same sex? Or is the real problem that you've contorted your world-view into such a state that not being able to prevent others from leading a loving and happy life means, to you, that you're losing something you're entitled to?

I for one am hoping marital infidelity MATTERS in this election, because

John McCain is a PROVEN marital infidel!

Once a dog, always a dog I say!

Why do we think personal morality translates into public morality? What does someone's personal life have to do with their fitness for public office?

I don't understand how you can separate the two. Have you ever known someone who is personally amoral but professionally ethical?

Public office requires difficult decision making that often involves morality, ethics, values, and fidelity. This includes political decisions ("Do I throw my allies in Congress under the bus in order to score political points"); personal relationships ("Should I lie to this person about what I've done because I might need him in the future?"); ethical decisions ("Should I accept this weekend golf junket from this lobbyist?"); and policy issues ("Even if it's legal to torture enemy combatants, is it right?").

It's appropriate to look at Edward's private actions and judge his character accordingly. But even if you could convince me that his private actions have no bearing on his overall character, you would still need to explain his public actions, which include repeated lies to the American people. If his infidelity is none of our business, then the appropriate answer when asked is "It's none of your business." You can't first lie, then justify the lie by saying the subject matter was off limits.

I think Jack Robert's point was not really about hypocrisy, but the fact that Democrats are losing "middle America" because we're unwilling to say clearly in situations like this: JOHN EDWARDS WAS WRONG TO CHEAT ON HIS WIFE. This isn't forcing our version of family values on anyone, we're not saying that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, we're not saying that it's wrong to be in an open marriage, we're simply holding Edwards to his own voluntary marital commitment.

Mike, Your imagination sure went wild with my response to Carla saying. "most of my fellow progressives aren't interested in shoving our notion of "family" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it."

Strange opinion since IMO pogresssives are busy trying to shove their notion of "everythig" down everyone's throat and forcing them to eat it.

That's what they do. Is it not?

I know y'all like to play otherwise but the left is much more agrressive and on the march than any contigent from the right.

The thing I like best about Steve's posts is how clearly he states the conservative world view. I just wish more conservatives were as up front about their ideas, beliefs and agendas. It would make electing progressives that much easier.

I too call it making a family. Make your choices.

But if you disapprove of forcing people to live under one's standards you better get your values out of our schools, where your "forcing" is clearly on the march to force much.

Jesse:

Thanks for this thread. You opened an avenue to wholistically discuss the human experience of relatedness amongst those of you whose primary endeavours of service take place in the political domain. My decades of primary service are in public health and also closely-held Traditionalist life as a native home. I resonate with the necessity of the multidimensional responses to your commentary.

I appreciate your personal feelings of having been had. You are indeed also a "victim" of Edwards' infidelity. This is an opportunity to review your own pschodynamic, beliefs, human vulnerabilities and the spirit of your own vision of how to serve. Geeky, unfasshionable, beautiful: there really is a "life of the nation", and there really is a warriorlike romance in service to the nation, and a relationship component therein.

For those of us engaged in working spirituality, we must grapple these questions on a frequent basis. These questions of service, relationship, integrity, clarity, as well as projective delusion and co-responsibililities in the community of medicine and prayer -- they are real.

I feel bad for Elizabeth just as I feel sorry for John Sidney McCain III's first wife whom he cheated on after she had waited five long years for him to return from being a POW only to be tossed aside for a younger, richer woman

Both those guys were a holes.

Most dems expect their leaders to be scrupulously honest with their constituents and certainly family members. Most Repubs expect their leaders to be clever and evasive. They appreciate a wily character who works behind the scenes to maintain/degrade the status quo. They trust their evasive leaders to do right by them. It matters little how they achieve the ends. My evidence: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, etc. McCain is just another trickster in heroes clothes.

The lesson for me in the Edwards matter was when he said he began to think of himself as "special" -- became egocentric etc. Here was a man whose main agenda was helping poor people. Yet, he was corrupted by politics just like person after person is, whether they are running for President, or are elected to the county commission, the school board, or whatever elective office.

They get treated like they are special and it is a lot of fun. Very addicting, very powerful. The treatment becomes more important than their agenda they were elected to fulfill. And, in order to not lose that special treatment and that special feeling, they don't stand up for what they believe (or should believe) if it is going to cost them votes or re-election. Or they make errors in judgement they might not otherwise have made. And we all suffer for it.

The premise that Democrats are "losing middle America" is specious, frankly. Polling certainly doesn't suggest that

Well, Carla, we lost to an imbecile in 2000. And we repeated that in 2004, after the disaster was clear. It's impossible to look at those two elections, where a completely outmatched Republican candidate won, without turning the focus inward and asking why we aren't connecting to voters. And even today, it's just not clear why McCain is within a few points of Obama in many swing states, except for the fact that we're just not connecting with certain groups.

what I read from Jack..which is that Democrats have no "family values"--therefore when one of us does something like this, there is no hypocrisy.

That's not how I read it, but I'll let Jack speak for himself. I was picking up his point in relation to some of the posts here and on the first thread that seem to say "Hey, why is this such a big deal, anyway? Who cares whether he had an affair?" There's a dangerous moral relativism that creeps up on progressives and prevents us from making firm declarations of right and wrong. Well, what Edwards did is wrong, period, both the lying and the infidelity. And I think if we were a bit more vocal about saying that, we would connect better with those groups in middle America that are keeping the presidential polls so close.

As for your post about fidelity and qualifications, do you think moral and ethical behavior is necessary for elected officials? If so, do you really think it's possible to act immorally in private but morally in public?

Carla, No, we shouldn't go down that road, because since you think "so many public schools force prayer, moments of silence, abstinence only, etc" you obvioulsy don't live in Oregon.
The hefty evidence in this State shows plenty of progressive force being thrust upon our schools. But we should leave that alone.

Yes in the end, its about making choices. But not as your characterization suggests. Most progressives are about marching the country to the left with selective choices and the very progressive idea of school choioce is not one of them.

Conservatives are for thje most part about maintaining traditional values without any march to the right at all.

Yet liberals always cast the right as puhing the country further to the right when all they are doing is attempting to hold ground against your tsunami.

As far as Edwards and others' infedelity? I can't imagine how anyone can unplug the marital and family treason in infedelity from judging one's character.

But here we again debating whether character matters?

Is it not fundementally desireable that our political leaders must be trustworthy, loyal and honest? Could not the family cheater also cheat his country or community?

How many times have we read of local officials, bureaucrats who have swayed from trust and stolen from accounts?

Of course the crime against family, cheating affairs, are a valid measurement of a political leader's trust and honesty. If he or she would betray their closest loved one they would certainly screw the electorate.

Judge tham all you want on issues of policy and the requisite results of those policies but to leave out their character is irrational and naive.

Best comment on Edwards is from Sam Smith.

[Editor's note: Previously, this comment included the entire text of Sam Smith's blog post at ProRev.com. It's been replaced by a link. Please don't publish copyrighted material in whole - instead, excerpt and link.]

Dear George:

Beautiful. & thanks.

Rebecca

I see references to Senator Edwards' lack of 'moral fitness' in some of the above posts. Wouldn't it be great if the Constitution had allowed the appointment of a 'moral fitness' commission to act as a gatekeeper for all those aspiring to public office. I can imagine a panel consisting of myself, Dick Cheney, the Pope, James Dobson, and two or three others who would sit in judgment of all who seek public office. Perhaps we could add the ghost of Joe McCarthy as an ex officio member of our panel. Only those who receive a "thumbs up" from the moral fitness commission could be listed on the ballot.

If you eliminate freedom of expression and freedom of choice, elections would be so much simpler.

Wouldn't it be great if the Constitution had allowed the appointment of a 'moral fitness' commission to act as a gatekeeper for all those aspiring to public office.

There is a moral fitness commission. I'm on it. So are you. So is every voter who casts a ballot.

Think about your personal life - if a good friend was revealed to have cheated on his wife. Would you feel like he "lied to you?"

Had that friend looked me in the eye and said "I didn't do it", then yeah, I'd feel lied to. Had that friend put at risk something that I hold dear, then yeah, I'd feel betrayed. I don't feel betrayed by the fact that Edwards had an affair, I feel betrayed by the fact that he put the entire progressive movement at risk by subsequently running for president.

I think Katy's point is huge - I couldn't care less what someone does in the bedroom, really. If someone cheats on his wife, it might make them someone I wouldn't want to count among my friends, but it doesn't really weigh all that much on the political side for me. However, John Edwards knows the reality of American politics, which is that most of the American public does care about this stuff. That he could know that, do what he did, and still run for the nomination pisses me off tremendously. If he had secured the nomination and then been elected, we'd be reliving the 90s as the Rs made political hay out of an old rumor. And if he'd secured the nomination and then been outed - well, thanks for 8 more years of R control, jerk.

"If someone cheats on his wife, it might make them someone I wouldn't want to count among my friends, but it doesn't really weigh all that much on the political side for me."

Why shouldn't it weigh heavily? Much as I dislike tabloidesque scandals and recognize what a meaningless sham marriage has become in modern America, I find infidelity very telling about ones character and judgment. Furthermore, John Edwards did put himself up there as a moral, ethical, practicing Baptist. At the same time he's screwing around with some over the hill, marginally attractive at best broad while the woman he had sworn eternal devotion to was faced with a serious, life threatening illness. Pointing fingers at old Newt or any other Republican who engaged in similar behavior in no way diffuses Senator Edwards behavior. It's an easy nonpartisan call. A douche is a douche.

Oregonian37, We are swaying from the topic, but if you have no idea what tradional American values are I suspect I can't help you. But country-patriotism, religion, schools without the imposition of multiculturalism and social indocrtination and government doing what government was meant to do isn't hard to understand as traditional Americanism.

Even the simplistic preservation of Christmas in the public square is a good example of American tradition under assualt from the left. The ACLU and many other left wing groups have a full spectrum of assualts on American tradition.
Contrast that, if you will, by providing what you think the "party leadership's arch-conservative, right-wing agenda" is pushing us toward versus standing ground? IMO there is no conservative push to the right. You're only percieving and portraying their objections and resistance to your left wing agenda that way.

Jack, need we remind you that Jimmy Carter (the Sunday School teacher who is the opposite of "anything goes") not to mention Gerald Ford, were not treated well by Reaganites because they were not Ronald Reagan? The GOP Gerald Ford belonged to changed in 1980 to the Reaganite party. Read that wonderful new book of interviews with Pres. Ford titled WRITE IT WHEN I AM GONE where he has pungent things to say knowing they would not be published until after his death.

The first divorced/remarried President of the US was not one of the "anything goes Democrats". It was that great "hero" Reagan which all good people were supposed to admire.

Those of us who would consider voting for someone in the same league as Vic Atiyeh (Frank Morse, for instance, or other intelligent, independent thinking problem solvers like Bob Repine or Max Williams) don't have to vote for the Republicans who only talk generalities and would rather bash opponents than solve problems.

And sorry, I'll take Ken Salazar, Jon Tester, Jim Webb over Harold Ford any day of the week. They are problem solvers, they won in states Democrats are supposed to lose, and they don't have the condescending sactimony which too often marks what Harold Ford says.

Or do you think Steve Cohen should have lost to Ford's chosen candidate Tinker?

And quotes like "But if Democrats hold themselves out as the party of "anything goes," I believe you will pay a price for it in America." are why people like me (raised the granddaughter of a Republican politician, campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election, voted for Gerald Ford in 1976) don't think seriously about voting for Republicans.

The party of Tom DeLay and the other Abramoff cronies, of Mark Foley the predatory Congressman, and of Taft of Ohio whose ancestor who was "Mr. Republican" in Harry Truman's day says that "Democrats hold themselves out as the party of "anything goes" ????? Have you read David Bonior's statement?

John Edwards made such a major mistake that he ruined his life story--he lied and he cheated on a sick wife. That makes him no better than Gingrich. And what exactly were the details of McCain's first marriage ending?

Or if there are 2 men who lie about infidelity, is it OK if one man is a Republican, but if the other man is a Democrat every registered Democrat better publicly denounce the infidelity or their whole party is culpable?

That is your standard? As long as Karen is faithful to John Minnis her finances mean nothing and Bruce Hanna says the House Republicans will stand behind her -----and yet the "Democrats hold themselves out as the party of "anything goes"?

Get real! Do you really expect us to believe "vote Republican because every Republican is a better person than any Democrat"? For too long, too many Republicans have refused to take responsibility for their own actions because the phrase "But the Democrats..." excused everything.

Time for that to change. There was a story recently that voters with incomes under $30,000 might be the crucial swing voters. If those voters are too busy working to keep track of which party "holds itself out" as something, do you really think that the tax cuts for the rich and santimony aimed at all who disagree with the party line will win elections?

Miles said, "There's a dangerous moral relativism that creeps up on progressives and prevents us from making firm declarations of right and wrong."

That's what I've been saying for years on BO, except I would substitute "Democrats" for "progressives", since the two are almost antonymous.

However, marital infidelity is a far lesser evil than slaughtering tens of millions or destroying the economies of third world countries. The moral relativism that Democrats and Republicans need to avoid is better defined as American exceptionalism, the tendency to believe that we own the world and are entitled to do with it what we wish.

It's as if the U.S., as it presents itself to the other nations of the world and offers justification for its actions, standing on a boast of being the epitome of moral righteousness. To verify this moral righteousness, it repeatedly attempts to rely on the perfect marital fidelity of its president and first lady, apart from any precise knowledge of their relationship or particularly personal inclinations.

For various reasons, the American electorate has come to expect a perfect June and Ward Cleaver kind of marital relationship in their president and first lady. If a presidential candidate doesn't have that going for them, they're pretty much dead in the water. Any candidate that stands a chance of being elected president, is either going to be marketed as a happily married man, or forgettaboutit.

There's no way at present that an american that's talented and honorable in government but has a wild or freaky, open sexual appetite, can be open about that to the electorate and have the slightest hope of being elected. Slick Willy would never have got elected the first time around if he'd let the electorate in on what shape his marital fidelity was in, or was likely to be in, once he got elected.

Read in the NYTimes today about how the last meeting between Edwards and his girlfriend in her hotel room came about. A new-age doctor friend of his apparently talked him into it. Might of worked out, except that when E leaves the room...Surprize!!, Surprize!!...there's the National Enquirer reporters.

We just gotta have someone a little smarter than to fall for some dumb trick like that, leading the country.

Kevin:

What I find interesting is that Republicans don't want to be held to the same standard they want to hold others to.

Bob T:

Oh, they don't mind being held to that same standard -- they just don't think they're gonna get caught. Arrogance in action.

Bob Tiernan

It's amazing that the number of responses on BO goes up when it's a "sex" issue.

Having worked on a number of events w/ Ms. Edwards while serving on the National Women for Kerry-Edwards Steering Committee efforts in 2004, my heart breaks for Elizabeth. Even though I started the race as a delegate for Wesley Clark, I found Elizabeth to be a woman of sound character, empathy, and honor. And it was a unique pleasure to work with her.

That said - I am stunned that they BOTH agreed to move forward w/ a presidential bid KNOWING this was just beneath the surface. I cannot fathom the level of denial in thinking it would go away or that it wouldn't matter. I am not talking about the pillow talk or chats that go on between husband and wife about acceptable behavior but the judgements that will undoubtedly occur in the heartland that Democrats need to win in November.

I am reminded of Ruth Graham's sentiment (and I am not prone to quote an evangelical minister's wife) when she said she had never contemplated divorce but often thought of murder.

Beyond that I have two words for the BHO loyalists beyond hope and change: unvetted candidate.

Too bad Jack, you're usually better than partisan hackery. Since sex seems to bring it out in you, there any issues you want to tell us about? Since you like the game - here you are:

To assuage your doubts, I'm a way left Democrat and I think J Edward's behavior stinks and I'd question E Edwards on the behalf of Democrats. Democrats don't espouse morality, mostly they live it - your Party talks real big and frames it well and has very little to do with it. Your buttwipes have driven this country into a ditch, broken the Constitution, raped the working man, whored to the plutocrats, destroyed a foreign nation, sold government services to your patronages, can't keep a marriage intact, and you preach to us. You hide behind "values" to gay bash and race bait and talk about destruction of religion while you throw money into your favored varieties and turn religion into a patronage game.

You flat out suck eggs at any real values, you're liars, cheats and thieves and deserve the wilderness exclusion you've gained in Oregon. I look forward to beating you like a cheap drum this fall, not because of an "R" but because of what you've made of that Party. YOU DID IT.

Speaking of us not learning - I give you your slate, anytime you want to appologize to the citizenry...

Whatever respect you might have had from me you've ashcanned - I figure it's time to start running through your service and find out just how "Republican" it was... Sex or money or influence? Come play with me, big boy. I can take the gloves off.

HI!! Remember when you were working for Edwards and wondered how you were feeling about the news.There total agree with everything you've said.Most of us the anger comes when we wonder why he was running at all with this secret? He would won the nomination is his mistress and wouldn't have been the only who got screwed. ======================================================= mike smith

Virginia Treatment Centers

I eagerly await the GOP effort to turn this into another "elitist" attack on Democrats. You know, elitists like Obama.

Brian - the conduct itself doesn't weigh heavily politically for me because it doesn't, for me. If we lived in a world where it didn't matter in American politics, I might not want to hang out w/ the guy, but it wouldn't bug me about his suitability as a leader. I guess it's because historically too many men haven't been able to keep it housed and have led quite ably. I'm more concerned with the practical effect of the behavior, not its morality. He knew the rules in American politics and did what he did. That's what bothers me. That it went against his image only exacerbates the sheer recklessness of his conduct.

If cheating on your wife renders you morally unfit to be President, then what does that say about the candidacy of John Sidney McCain III?

Kari said, "If Obama is up by 2.5% on Election Day, he'll win 300+ electoral votes."

Danny Schecter (mediachannel.org) reports:

"ELECTION PROTECTION

The Obama campaign has announced plans to expand their election protection program by mobilizing more lawyers to monitor polling. But the folks in the election integrity movement say this doesn't go far enough because the problem is that there are unreliable machines and shady software.

Andy Novick, a lawyer in New York State, is bringing suit to try to guarantee fair elections and is running into resistence from Democratic politicians.

'To the dems this is one of those issues no one wants to touch…It's rather extraordinary when you're close to an issue to watch them back away like you've got a highly contagious plague…voting on software is secret vote counting….Voting on software is a corrupt system- opens the door to undetectable tampering. It's the antithesis of a democratic electoral system.'"

So while you Democrats are showcasing your "morality" re marital infidelity, another election is being stolen right in front of your eyes. First you choose a right-of-center, anti-populist candidate who can run no better than even with a psychopath like McCain, and now you ignore the fact that the infrastructure has been laid for another rigged election. Who will you blame for this?

Jesse,

I just wanted to commend you for your moral convictions.

Lying is wrong, no matter what it is about, or when it happens.

I won't pretend to be a saint or judge Senator Edwards for his personal life, but I will say that it only reaffirms the distrust and "apathy" that so many Americans already feel towards politicians when any elected official (Republican, Democratic, etc...) lies to them.

Despite our obvious political differences, I can appreciate honesty and integrity when I see it, and I can appreciate your disappointment.

Hang in there; politicians shouldn't have the right to taint "politics" for the rest of us.

Poor old Edwards and company. It comes with the territory, unfortunately. All of this dust and noise. It's why some people turn down a chance to "serve" [I have only known two politicals who were truly about service and not about themselves]. Because they know it won't turn out well when their mixed up business is pulled up frontstage. I wonder if we could turn our minds to other things now? It's gone spiral at this point, well beyond circular!

the conduct itself doesn't weigh heavily politically for me because it doesn't, for me. If we lived in a world where it didn't matter in American politics, I might not want to hang out w/ the guy, but it wouldn't bug me about his suitability as a leader. I guess it's because historically too many men haven't been able to keep it housed and have led quite ably. I'm more concerned with the practical effect of the behavior, not its morality. He knew the rules in American politics and did what he did. That's what bothers me. That it went against his image only exacerbates the sheer recklessness of his conduct.

what amanda said.

nail.

head.

bang.

i may not agree w/ the rules, but the last 2 decades have amply demonstrated to us that they are what they are. edwards knew the rules as well as anyone. he chose not to play by them.

that's what p&sses me off & disappoints me.

he had absolutely no business running for president with that skeleton in his closet. what were they thinking? just because his wife may have forgiven him doesn't mean the electorate as a whole would have. that's the country we live in.

My meds, Jack? You should lay off the hallucenogenics, fella. I had something to say about Larry, not about gayness, about hypocritical stance.

I'm not running for any office, 2CD or otherwise. I'm not trying to win a vote, other than show what YOU stand for. Jack Roberts:

"When a Democrat does the same thing, it's a more nuanced discussion of who he lied to about it or when he lied, apparently because Democrats don't believe in "family values" or "traditional values" in the first place"

You talk a good game, how're the odds your "values" folks in violation of "values" outnumber the Democrats with their traps shut on the issue who violate "your" values. You're a partisan hack, bubba. You address not one of my ethical values points regarding YOUR Party. How's the divorce rate in YOUR southern red states? Exceeds the Blue states by a wide margin. You've got values? Why don't you lay some of them on me? I understand that gays getting married is a bigger threat to the US than, oh say, your masochistic fascination with torturing people. How about turning the Constitution and BOR into toilet paper? Surely that gay Barney Frank ought to be "detained"? Indefinitely. Yeah boy, I want to impose your fake Christianist values on the citizenry. I've read the New Testament, quite a few times, your guys don't pass what the name sake had to say. Period. Since I don't claim to be what I'm not, I can kick you in the teeth for it. Jack Roberts: "But if Democrats hold themselves out as the party of "anything goes," I believe you will pay a price for it in America." Only in your Party's framing, so you parrot it and act as though it is reality because you say it. Thanks for your "concern," Faux News isn't a good source of reality, Jack. But like a good Republican you say we are what you accuse us of, despite facts. You know something regarding a guy named Vitter? He seemed to believe anything goes, despite all his "values" rhetoric. Your problem is that the facts and the numbers aren't on your side, just your political framing. Jack Roberts: "Ironically, the Democratic politician who probably has the best handle on this is Harold Ford." He's about as close to a Republican as a Democrat gets, and since he got a real dose of your "values" in the campaign I'm surprised you'd bring him up. Race baiting is a Republican value, eh? Jack Roberts: "That may sound "sanctimonious" to you, but that kind of proves my point, too." No, it proves you prefer image to reality, and the public is beginning to realize that. Your "values" mean no more to you than any other marketing ploy. You've demonstrated it in your statements. Sanctimonious has a conotation of belief rather than outright propaganda. Jack Roberts: "Read your post above. You really think that's the way to win rural Oregon?" I'd rather eat mouse turds than do it your way. You see I'm not into lying to people, I'm not in favor of selling my constituents out to Big Money and seeing what I can do to wreck counties owed payment in lieu of taxes so Oil feels good. I'm all about treating all law abiding Oregonians to the same rights and responsibilities versus Waldenbush's ideas. I'm more than happy to debate policy and not get wound up about it, but you want to play "values" and you're a lying sack of partisan hackery on that one. You don't like it? Don't play. You don't have the ammunition. Jack Roberts: "Keep this up and Obama better start practicing the Dukakis line from Saturday Night Live in 1988: "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" You've got McCain and you tell us what to do? You've got GWB and a dozen years of Congressional control with these results and you tell us what to do? Keep what up? Your guys went crazy over Craig, Vitter - the silence was deafening. Craig and 'teh gay' makes you nuts but diapers and hookers for a married guy, not so much? His wife was talking about Bobbit she was so unamused by the unverified speculation, once it was real - she Hillaryed. Your hope is ignorance and you've got your 28% Foxed.

Why so serious?

Jeff Alworth brings a dose of sanity to the discussion. McCain's Keating Five association won't be discussed, and Dems need to ask why. Is it for the same reason that Gore failed to fight for his victory in 2000?

When your money changers are the same ones who fund the Republicans, you have to dance to the puppet master.

The frame on that discussion is whether a person who screws around can be expected to be an honest leader and a competent policymaker. Let's lay to rest the second issue--I don't think anyone can credibly make the argument that screwing around has anything to do with governance.

I don't think I'm willing to exempt governance so quickly when it comes to ethics and morality. As I noted above (August 11th, 2:29 p.m.), there are lots of ethical and moral issues that leaders deal with on a daily basis even when dealing specifically with policy and governance. The hard part about being president isn't picking one option and moving forward, it's the morality/ethics that form the context of each decision. If someone has a propensity to disregard commitments and throw away the trust of allies, that's going to play strongly into one's ability to govern.

Clinton was a cheating slimeball, which was somewhat clear in 1992, pretty clear in 1996, and crystal clear by the time he left office. He also engaged in triangulation with the Democratic Congress in order to boost his own popularity. Can you really argue those two things are completely distinct? I see a similarity between his infidelity to his wife and his infidelity to his party.

So let me reframe the question to you: Why do you think that someone who cheats on a loved one will refuse to cheat on his party or the American people if it comes to that? Why do you think he'll be faithful to his beliefs/values if he won't be faithful to his spouse?

McCain cheated on his first wife and dumped her while she was recovering from a horrible accident--after she raised their three children alone. He also lied about it.

But it's okay when a Republican does it.

"First you choose a right-of-center, anti-populist candidate who can run no better than even with a psychopath like McCain, and now you ignore the fact that the infrastructure has been laid for another rigged election. Who will you blame for this?"

Ralph Nader, no doubt!

That's you that is quoted, Jack. You snark and avoid the question regarding the ethics of your Party Of Values you proffered Dems advice from. You played partisan hack and you want slack? Stay away from people who say what they mean and stand by it, then. You want to play 'better than'? You best not bring up your Party when it comes to ethics. There was a time...but it ain't now. As for what you believe - you just made yourself clear.

Do I seem a little pissed off? 'Better than' from the likes of you might just do it, I get to look at this country's plight from your Party's BS and be very sad. But you're 'better than'. I'd suggest an anatomical impossibility to you, but you've evidently already indulged.

I told you, whatever respect I had for you was ashcanned by you. You think your politics of yester-year mean something to this discussion? If you wanted your standing of then, you should have stood on it rather than your latest crap. What ever you think you were, this was partisan hackery and you get what it deserves. Disdain. Dismissal.

By the way, it is neither original nor witty to use old tired comeback lines with no content regarding the "comeback." You should have your carotids checked if that's your best. You care to use your supposed "values" superiority to explain the "values" demonstrated by McCain cheating on his banged up wife with the pretty rich little heiress? Something he learned from "hero" school was it? Oh yeah, I'm reeeeaaal impressed by what you think we don't know how to do. Sad, tired, old, and lacking in originality and content, I'm impressed, Hack...er Jack. Blame QWERTY for that...

Jack, Save your prayers for somebody in need of them, or with any desire for your version of god - (R) is a good qualifier on both counts. Thanks, but I sleep real well.

JR: "I was primarily referencing national elections, although I think the urban/rural split is applicable to Oregon as well."

JR: "You obviously have no idea what I believe and your attempt to hang on me every position of the Republican Right makes it obvious you don't follow Oregon politics."

Funny how that works when a person can read, comprehend, and remember what was written by whom. Values includes selective memory does it? Or memory loss - you and Gonzales? More values. Real class act there, Jack.

You decided to play. You wanted to play Craig (R) vs Edwards (D) reactions on the basis of a couple comments? You've earned every bit of this with your dishonesty and then trying to weasel it. Jack Roberts (R), no kidding...? You think I don't know who you are? So what? You wrote what you wrote, so I guess that's who you are, also.

Democrats and Republicans continue to see only the crimes of the other, and they ignore the most egregious crimes. That Clinton should be called "a slimeball" for his sexual embarrassment, but not a slimeball for his crimes against humanity is the most telling of all the comments here. The man, along with the Bushes, is a war criminal, and all you see is sex. Shame on you.