Funny how a little over a week ago someone was on here talking about Edwards getting the veep nod. I brought up this affair as being a HUGE problem and nobody would even acknowledge it existed. Perez Hilton scooped all of us!

Somebody once told me that monogamy was a fiction invented by Christian Churches, William Shakespeare and Greeting Card Companies.

There are millions of children in this country (and others) who go to bed hungry every night. Many of those same kids and their parents suffer aches and pains from untreated medical and dental conditions because they can't afford treatment under our capitalist winner-take-all and screw-the-poor system. Edwards has worked hard to address these problems, and I continue to respect and salute him for doing so.

The fact that Edwards (apparently) lied to his wife about his sex relations is not something that I can understand, and it is up to her - not me - to approve or disapprove or forgive or not forgive his actions.

I don't know....are we holding our heroes to unattainable standards? Do we have to take the bad with the good after weighing the ratios? Because of this affair and the lies to cover up....should we not place public trust in him? Does it necessarily follow if he lied about his personal life will he lie while in office? I don't know what is reasonable to expect anymore....so few politicians seem to have led skeleton-free lives.

I really like Edwards' fire in the belly. Who knew he had fire elsewhere in his anatomy?

Another disappointment from someone who I supported in the past. I disagree that it is just between him and Elizabeth. Many of those kids who go to bed hungry are a result of fathers who abandon their families for sexual pleasures with another woman. At least John is not one of those, but to engage in an affair while running for office shows a distinct lack of judgement, lack of self-control, and lack of being trusted.

I don't think it is a liberal "thing" because conservatives are just as bad, but if we are truly progressive then we need to respect our spouses. Perhaps being in a position of power increases ones libido and works against that standard of decency.

Now report on Obama's GAY SEX with Larry Sinclair

(CNN) -- In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.

As I wrote over at the Oregon Commentator (I know... boo hiss), the real story here isn't that John Edwards is a philanderer, it's that the media completely ignored this story for weeks.

It's a total disgrace for those whose job it is to inform. Whether you or I like it or not, political sex scandals are big news, and the media deliberately hushed this one up until they had no choice but to break it.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

At least he's been 99% honest with us so far.

Actually I'd like to hear what you have to say Karol, as well as Carla, & Kari......

i don't think the affair in and of itself disqualifies him in the eyes of the american electorate (if it did, we'd have nobody in office.) i personally don't care to do any panty sniffing when it comes to someone else's personal life; if i did, i'd be a republican.

but when i think about what this would have been like had he been our nominee, or had obama selected him as the veep, it makes my blood boil. on a personal level this is between him, his family and his paramour, but politically, even the potential damage he could have done to his party is unpardonable. he was willing to risk the future of our party and our nation with his lying about his pecadillos, and that makes him a selfish idiot. i think the best he could've hoped for from an obama administration would be AG, but now that he's shown himself willing to lie publicly (even though i think most people would do the same in a similar situation) i think his credibility is shot. although we did forgive old slick willy, so who knows. for me it all boils down to: i'm sure glad he isn't on the ticket!

as an aside:

ron--although it goes against my grain to question drive-by trolling: what the fuck are you talking about?

And in a bizarre twist, Young — a 41-year-old married man with young children — now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby! But others are skeptical, wondering if Young's paternity claim is a cover-up to protect Edwards. Instead, Rielle has been telling a confidante that Edwards is the father of her child.

"Rielle told me while Andrew Young is a friend, she's not romantically involved with him," says the source close to Rielle. "Rielle says he's been responsible for finding her a place to live and even getting her a car to drive.

"If he really were the father of her baby and had engaged in an extramarital affair with her, I doubt seriously that he'd bring his wife and kids over to her house for dinner — which Rielle told me he did a few weeks ago.

"Rielle has said from the beginning that the baby is John's, but she appears willing to do whatever they want her to do to protect his candidacy.

"I think what's taking place is simply a cover-up by Edwards' campaign."

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER exclusively reveals the woman who broke Bill's cheatin' heart.

Meet Julie Tauber McMahon!

Bill's ex- mistress is 48-year-old Julie Tauber McMahon, the daughter of Michigan millionaire Joel Tauber, a top Democratic Party contributor during Clinton's presidency and a personal friend of the Clinton family.

McMahon lives in Chappaqua, New York. - the very same town where the Clintons bought a home after leaving the White House.

Finally, Julie finally dumped the ex-Prez, breaking his heart and unleashing his libido!

So, while Senator Hillary Clinton attempted to make history to become the Democratic nom for President Bill repeated history -- as a serial cheater!

In a world exclusive cover story this week, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER exclusively reports that Bill's cheating spree occurred after his super-rich mistress broke off their affair.

Devastated over being dumped, and incapable of staying faithful, Bill cheated non-stop on Hillary while she campaigned and the details are in this week's print edition of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

Details of their years-long affair and why Julie dumped Bill appear ONLY IN THIS WEEK'S NATIONAL ENQUIRER!

It's despicable behavior, and we shouldn't hesitate to condemn it. Edwards not only broke the trust of those closest to him -- and we can debate whether that is any of our business or not -- but he broke the trust of all of us by recklessly endangering the entire progressive movement. The hubris that it takes to have an affair as you're gearing up to run for president is beyond my ability to grasp.

Edwards will now be relegated to a historical footnote, which is appropriate.

Here's what Edwards had to say about Bill Clinton's affair circa 1999:

I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

I want to see our party lead on the great moral issues. Yes -- me, a Democrat, using that word -- the great moral issues that face our country. 1996

The affair wasn't good, but let's keep in mind the serious level of heartbreak the Edwards have had. They buried a child, battled cancer for decades, I'm sure if these were friends of yours, you could see how something like that were wear a guy down. It's a lot of serious stress.

Besides, we don't seem to mind Bill Clinton's affairs, so let's tone down the hypocrisy, just a little.

What? John Edwards was just another ethically challenged, hypocritical, slimy politician? Say it aint so.

Glad he's not the nominee and Obama is. Time to exile Edwards to his mansion and move forward.

This makes Edwards a total sleezebag. And anyone who would perpetrate this highest betrayal of those closest to them is certainly capable of other egregious offenses.

Learning From Defeat

Mr. Obama next set his sights on the 2004 Senate race. Several white Democrats were planning to run. If Mr. Obama could win the black vote and attract liberal whites, he figured he could get 30% of the vote, enough to win in a crowded field, according to his aides on that campaign. Learning from his prior defeat, he visited three black churches every Sunday, delivering his stump speech in the cadence of black preachers. He raised money furiously.

Most importantly, Mr. Obama persuaded Mr. Axelrod, one of Chicago's most powerful political strategists, to run his campaign. Mr. Axelrod specialized in electing black candidates who could cross over and win white votes, emphasizing themes of unity and change. He also worked for Mayor Daley.

Mr. Obama was running third, behind two white candidates. Throughout the campaign, rumors swirled that Blair Hull, the Democratic front-runner, was involved in a messy divorce. The Chicago Tribune filed a lawsuit seeking to unseal Mr. Hull's divorce papers. Under pressure, Mr. Hull released the papers, which revealed that his ex-wife had alleged that he had physically and verbally abused her. No charges were ever filed, and Mr. Hull said at the time that voters should look at "my total reputation in my life." A spokesman for the Obama presidential campaign says that his senate campaign "was not responsible for the release of the records."

Mr. Axelrod, who had been holding money back, unleashed a flurry of Obama television ads. They made no mention of the Hull matter, but focused on Mr. Obama's biography. Mr. Obama won the primary with 53% of the vote.

Mr. Obama's Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, then withdrew after his divorce papers revealed that his ex-wife had made an allegation connected to what she said were trips she took with Mr. Ryan to sex clubs. Mr. Ryan denied the allegation.

Mr. Obama sailed to victory. By the end of the campaign, his aides were sending workers into Iowa, the first Presidential caucus state, to begin developing contacts among Democrats there, according to Al Kindle, an Obama campaign aid at the time.

A few months later, Sen. Obama entered into a real-estate deal that would later come to haunt him. He and his wife bought a mansion in Hyde Park for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. The wife of a longtime friend and donor, real-estate developer Tony Rezko, paid full price for an adjacent lot that was listed at the same time by the seller. Six months later, the Rezkos sold Mr. Obama a strip of their land so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, newspapers were reporting that Mr. Rezko was under investigation for corruption and influence peddling involving the Illinois governor's office. He was subsequently indicted and is currently standing trial.

Monogamy is very rare in nature, says this article in the New York Times.

Why are we so stuck in our prurient religious repression, rather than admitting that monogamy is kind of strange?

And roughly a third of men and a quarter of women admit to adultery.

I'm not much concerned about the affair. That's between John and Elizabeth.

What I am irritated about is that he decided to run for President knowing he had this kind of scandal in his background and knowing it was going to blow up on him sooner or later. That was incredibly arrogant and stupid on his part.

What if he'd been the nominee? Hiding this very recent affair, lying about it, and then it comes out in the middle of a close race? He'd have betrayed his supporters and his party, letting something like this out in the middle of the campaign.

Obama had it right. You have some kind of personal misconduct in your background (cocaine use, years ago), put it out there right at the front for everyone to see. By the time you become the candidate, it's old news.

I will give Edwards this: nice timing, putting out the trash while most of our mass media is focused on the Olympics. Best way for this story to make the smallest splash possible.

If you can't honor a promise made to your spouse, why should the voters expect to be treated any better?

He's a manipulating, lying attorney and he took the weasel's way out.

The only difference between Obama and Edwards is that Obama hasn't been caught. Yet.

99% aint so bad.

It's been reported that Elizabeth Edwards was aware of the affair in 2006. Does it bother any of you that she said nothing and allowed the lies of her husband to continue through their presidential campaign. They did afterall appear many times together during the primary season.

I cannot imagine why Mrs. Edwards kept quiet in front of a voting public, loyal campaign workers, etc....

FWIW, Carla: No slack for Vetter, Craig, or anyone else no matter what political party.....

Edwards has betrayed his family by the affair and has betrayed the party by lying. To the extent that this will hurt Obama, and it might, this is nearly unforgivable given the current political climate. The only bright side to this is that maybe the media will spend a bit more time focusing on McCain's affairs now...especially the ones that led him to leave his severely injured first wife and marry his current wife.

Also, for "Ron":

Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Fails Polygraphs bloggernews ^ Posted on February 24, 2008 5:56:19 PM CST by hotdog777

The man who recently made allegations that Senator Barack Obama met him back in 1999 for sex n drugs in the back of limo has failed not one, but two polygraphs.

The site, Whitehouse.com, had offered Sinclair the sum of $10,000 to take a polygraph plus another check for $100,000 if he passed. To prove they were not bi-partisan the site also offered the woman at the center of the McCain lobbyist mini-scandal, Vicki Iseman, the same offer.

Whitehouse.com used the services of highly respected polygraph expert, Dr. Ed Gelb. Sinclair passed a drug test before taking the tests, both administered on Friday. On the first test, questions were administered about Sinclair’s claims that he and Obama had sex. The second test focused on Sinclair’s claims that he and Obama did drugs. Dr.Gelb found “deception was indicated” in both tests. Absent any other developments this is the end of the road for Larry Sinclair.

[video]

As DBKP reported in its story yesterday, the supermarket tabloid, The Globe, had found additional information on Sinclair’s background. According the Globe, the 46-year-old ex-con Sinclair had spent time in prison for credit card fraud, had admitted being a dope smuggler and a “coyote”, a person who smuggles people into the country, for a price. What were the possible motives for Larry Sinclair?

Read rest of the story:

Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Fails Polygraphs

As a former Edwards supporter, this news is disappointing. What is further disheartening is the appearance that the child could be his (the mounting reports seem to indicate that Andrew Young took the fall) and he's still denying it. If it's not his kid, fine - but there really ought to be a legitimate paternity test so that everyone involved can have some kind of resolution.

While I will say that I do think the affair is an issue for his family to deal with, his lack of judgment and subsequent dishonesty is truly troubling. In my mind, I can separate a flawed individual from the policies he supports. But for a position like president when you have to trust that person to make incredibly important life & death decisions, I want someone who is a little less susceptible to cock teases and blackmail. The problem is (most) politicians are human. They have weaknesses and they make mistakes. I think that everyone who runs for public office has some degree of arrogance and egomania - so they're not only flawed but delusional to some extent as well.

Honestly, I cannot say one way or another whether or not I would have voted for him. There are certainly worse choices and plenty we don't know about other candidates' shortcomings and secrets. But I will say this - I wish Elizabeth and their kids the best and hope all this media attention doesn't further destroy their family.

What happens between two consenting adults is pretty much their own business, whether it's within a marriage or outside of one.

I don't like that he lied about it, but I don't have a great deal of respect for the press that's hounded him on it, considering that he has fame but no office.

To quote from Buckaroo Banzai: "So what. Big deal."

We focus way too much on this personal stuff. It's accessible tot he Perez Hilton crowd. But private/ personal virtue gets such huge play compared to even more relevant public virtue and public service and real issues.

The rise in focus on all this personal and family stuff is part of the "me" era and we shouldn't overplay it.

I don't care that George Bush did cocaine in college. I care a lot that that he is working primarily for energy companies, the wealthy, and the war business, to the detriment of other interests.

I don't care that Nixon was a family man, or that George Bush the elder reportedly had a mistress. Or that Bill Clinton _. Or that Obama might have _.

The public interest loses if we fetish-ize too much the personal pecadilloes and private tragedies of elected leaders.

Supposedly this is the end of Edward's public life. Why isn't it the end of McCain's public life for his notorious betrayal of his first wife with his present wife? Why isn't it the end of Giuliani's public life for his public betrayal and humiliation of wife number two while he was still occupying the Mayor's mansion of New York City? Why are those disqualifiers from the presidency? And where is Vicki Iseman?

If Edwards had made the fidelity of marriage a campaign issue, then the outrage of hypocrisy would be legitimate. But he didn't. Plus, he is no longer an elected official or running for office.

Shakespeare was only half right when he had one of his characters say, "Frailty, thy name is woman." The big problem with Edwards's infidelity is that he broke a solemn promise to his wife who by all accounts is a remarkable woman who didn't deserve such treatment, especially at a time when she was having such severe health problems. If this were France or some other nation where powerful men routinely have mistresses this would be a different story, but this is America where people tend to tout their virtues but are often proved to be hypocrites.

From another point of view Edwards is guilty of something much worse. He betrayed his oath to uphold the Constitution when he (and three fourths of Congress) voted to transfer authority to go to war on Iraq to Bush. According to Bob Shrum's book, Edwards and his wife were opposed to voting this way, but he succumbed to Shrum's arguments over his and his wife's better judgment. Edwards has his virtues, but he appears to have an Achilles heel when he is seduced by one means or another.

John Edwards just blew his whole life story--the grieving father who lost his teenage son in an accident and later he and his wife had 2 more kids.

Often I agree there is too much concentration on the personal side of things--esp. when those who have divorced and remarried slam those who have only been married once. Give me someone who has a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out (but isn't a perfect person) over a perfect person who is an ideologue any day of the week.

But here Edwards is, admitting hubris got the best of him and he did the unthinkable, "and don't think you can beat me up because I have beat myself up already". At least he was honest. That is a start but he should have known better!

Once in an English class I learned the definition of tragedy--requires a hero, but also the downfall of that hero due to a tragic flaw. That seems to be the case here. He can kiss any public career goodbye after this--obviously he wasn't thinking of his surviving grown daughter, not to mention the 2 little kids.

Doesn't this put him in the same category as Gingrich--cheating on a sick wife?

His close friends who have been interviewed are stunned and / or angry--as they have a right to be. Lying to those close to you is a sin hard to forgive.

It stopped being purely personal conduct when he ran for political office without making it public, recklessly endangering the set of issues he professes to believe in. An Edwards nomination was not out of the question. Where would we be now if he was the nominee and this had just come out? The hypocrisy of running as a family values man immediately after this affair is just the icing on the cake. I feel sorry for his family and his campaign staff.

As to whether an affair is disqualifying, I don't think it is. However, it's clearly something that a lot of voters find relevant. A candidate for whom running for office is more than just an ego trip owes it to their supporters to at least make the sort of generic admissions we've seen others make - I have not been a perfect husband; We have had our troubles in the past, etc. Sure, it's "code" but it raises the issue without going into gruesome detail and prevents it from being an issue later. Obama was more forthcoming about his faults and they haven't significantly hurt him.

I feel bad for the Edwards family. Once again, though, why the recklessness? As with Spitzer, Goldscmidt, Hart, Kennedys, Larry Craig, Gingrich, etc... it's like there is some kind of personality disorder where they just don't get it. Maybe those of us who support these folks financially and otherwise should ask them to submit to a polygraph before they run. I attended the John and Elizabeth Edwards events in OR, but am now so glad he lost. WHy did he put us all through it? For those of you who say the sex lives of candts. doesn't matter, dream on. The modern media has decided it matters.

Will this blow over quickly? I think it will,. I sure hope so; I'm already tired of hearing about it.

I don't buy into the anxiety that Edwards created serious risk to the Democrats potential success this year, for two reasons:

1. Even if you supported Edwards's policy positions, admit it: this guy was a weak candidate. You know this now, and (be honest), you knew it then. Maybe the race was better for his presence, but he had zero chance to win the nomination.

2. His irrelevance is the only reason this story didn't break wide open, much sooner.

It also helps that he didn't wait to announce this any later. By confessing now, the media bottom feeders can digest this before the conventions. I'm glad he did that.

A weak candidate? He was arguably number three behind two exceptionally strong candidates. It was widely assumed that he would hold a very high office in Obama's cabinet (AG, poverty czar, if not VP). As for irrelevance, well maybe he's irrelevant now, but he's going to have an influence in a negative way. The conservative radio jockeys are going to have quite a lot of fun with this, and it's also, typically, clouding other crucial news stories (like the current administration forging letters re: Saddam Hussein). Also, though the focus is on Edwards mostly--Rielle Hunter is a class "A" creep who also should have had an understanding of what this could do to the Democratic party. The only reason this came out now is that the slimy tabloid press really had caught him red-handed, and he knew it. Both Edwards and Rielle are fallible people who can and should be forgiven on a personal level--what astonishes me, though, is that Edwards ran knowing that this could come out, and knowing what impact Bill Clinton's affair had on the Democratic party...when he could have so easily just bowed out citing obvious family reasons, and even the National Enquirer would have left him alone.

The McCain campaign has announced it is giving prizes to supporters who go out and troll the blogosphere on his behalf. It is noted that Blue Oregon has its share of McCain slime trolls spreading their contagion around.

Edwards is a moral slimeball and weak person. As I posted previously, he didn't help Kerry's campaign and will hurt Obama's. DNC has made a mess of this whole campaign.

Democrats should've put up a Clinton\Obama VP ticket. Would've been a slam dunk but instead put up someone with little experience and who is a weak candidate. DNC made their own bed now they have to lie in it.

Tragically, looks like McCain in the WH later this year. Unbelievable.

What a bunch of masturbatory losers, left and right (and Karol, you're the worst for not saying what you think if you just had to bring this up, but instead just trying to stir gossip).

We Democrats have lost the image as leaders because the wimps and losers in our Party don't have the stones to get out there, get in the face of thuggish Republicans and the media, shout them down, chase them out, and generally show guts and backbone:

Unless a candidate makes pathological fundamentalist religion and the CHARADE of family values the theme of their campaign, their private lives are nobody's business. (And don't be stupid, we're not talking about genuine sociopathologies or psychopathologies which need treatment or intervention here.)

If a candidate DOES make pathological fundamentalist values and the charade of family values their campaign schtick, making the private public themselves, they deserve to be hounded, shamed, ridiculed, and ostracized out of public life when they are shown to be hypocrites. (This has nothing to do with personal forgiveness, which is a given.)

Edwards DID NOT make pathological fundamentalist values and the charade of family values his campaign schtick, so just how bad do you people need counseling because of whatever went wrong in your past that it doesn't end with you telling the scum who may never truly mature --- including family, friends, and neighbors, and each other --- to shut up, grow up, and just go away IF this is any way affecting their political judgement and electoral decisions.

This incident reveals one of the primary problems with elections in the United States: The personalities and private lives of the candidates play too much of a role when it comes to voting when we should be more concerned about their capacities for governance and leadership. This is not to say these individual factors should be totally discounted, but they should not have the prominence they currently have as long as they don't get into extremes of misbehavior.

Let's say Edwards or another candidate had all the qualities we need in a president. Should we toss him overboard for one (assuming it was just one) transgression that should essentially have been of concern only to him and his wife? If he had the answers to the Middle East, energy, the economy, etc. should we dump him and switch to someone whose moral standards pass the Hagee-Fallwell-Robertson test?

FDR has been considered by most people with an interest in history as one of this nation's better presidents. He committed adultery while in office. Woodrow Wilson was a prude and some historians rate him very poorly as a president. There is a reasonable argument that Wilson's decision to enter the First World War - as he put it, the war to end all wars - was a factor in setting the stage for the Second World War.

Reagan and Carter were approved by the Christian majority, but they were complicit in crimes against humanity in Central America.

LBJ was probably non-religious at heart, but he could have ended his presidency with an exceptionally good legacy if he hadn't bungled in Vietnam.

So this child can't be John's because it happened long after the affair "ended"?

Well, I'd guess it's pretty safe to assume that outraged Elizabeth is demanding John get that paternity test. Since the love child would have been procreated long after he told her the affair was over and they had "moved on".

This story may not die till Breck gets the test.

And suppose the child is his? That would make him the epidomy of a scum bag. Would it not?

T.A. Barnhart --- Although cryptic cynicism is the norm at Blue Oregon, it is the sign of cowardice and intellectual inferiority if it is not done really well. In this case, you didn't make any distinctions between people not "using their own" names. So I'll tell you that when you, like most of the likely suspects here, use your own name it only leads me to ignore your comments because life and longitudinal evidence shows people like you are most likely a self-aggrandizing ass searching for group identity and status, rather than having individual meritorious opinions that most importantly challenge the dominant group opinion or values, and thereby improve them.

Rather than open your mouth further and remove any lingering doubt about yourself, why don't you dig into WestLaw and a few history books and learn what the Founders and the legal system has said about anonymous political commentary being even more important than signed commentary? And that the reason why is because in too many cases signed commentary is about the author puffing themselves through safe commentary rather than saying what has to be said? There are exceptional individuals of course, some who may not be all that exceptional because of the specific points they raise and the risks involved (or not), but as the Courts have found the very survival of our system depends on not making the exceptions the rule.

An aside for those who care: Broadcast media who have tried to enforce various schemes for insuring identity, or even sign-ins, have seen the richness and value of their on-line comment systems deterioriate dramatically (which is not to say it has harmed their advertising revenue which benefits most from a "safe", uncontroversial, even conservative-leaning online comment space). What they are learning is that while over time in broadcast media letters-to-the-editor gained the role of being part of the public journalistic record and therefore "real names" are important, online comments in blogs or MSM websites are something very different. It is likely they will not, and should not, assume the same role as letters-to-the-editor where trust and identity are essential. They instead have value in their large numbers as statistical snapshots of public opinion where more is better. Anything that mitigates against increasing the numbers of comments, such as trust and identity, misses the point and loses the true value to be gained from these kind of forums that are unique creations of the interactive New Media.

Now, if as I said, Blue Oregon's goal is just to be a club, that is something very different and that goes directly to the initial criticism of your comment. Clubs easily become ignorable and their political goals become legitimate targets of criticism in themselves because they are self-serving.

For a party that is responsible for the bipartisan slaughter and torture of millions in Iraq, your "morality" regarding sex and relationships makes you the laughing stock of world opinion. Congratulations.

And where are the complaints of purity trolling? If Edwards had called for more slaughter in Afghanistan, like your fearless leader, no one would have batted an eye.

Did it occur to anyone that perhaps Elizabeth gave John her blessing to have extramarital sex? Stranger things have been known to happen, and given that she's terminally ill, she might not be up for it herself.

I am sorry for the Edwards Family and ashamed of him. As a NAV who seriously considered him for Pres, I see now that his other good works and idealogy will be clouded by this error and hiding the fact. He is no different than many pwerful people in that reagrd of the affair. He DID hold himself out as the faithful supporter of his wife and will not get over it quickly.

Edwards will, however rise above this. He may still serve some meaningful role in an Obama administration.

Well as long as we're going geopolitical, Harry Kershner observes, "bipartisan slaughter and torture of millions in Iraq..."

That sounds like a headline straight out of Pravda.Ru, comrade.

Today's headline is a gem:

"War between Russian and Georgia orchestrated from USA"

followed closely by "Russia: Again Savior of Peace and Life"

The international community collectively held their breath waiting for the reaction of Russia after the savage, brutal, criminal attack by Georgia on South Ossetia. After having offered a cease fire in hostilities, the back stabbing Georgians immediately violated the cease fire, invading South Ossetia and causing massive destruction and death among innocent civilians, among peacekeepers and also destroying a hospital.

Why does Harry hate Israel and America?

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Upon further consideration shouldn't the otherwise honorable and non-father of the love child John be rushing to get the paternity test in order to assure, to Elizabeth his loving wife, that he had not fallen off the fidelity wagon long after he fessed up and they reconciled?

Or should Edwards just stick to his denial?

Does "Trust me, I'm not the father" work for anyone?

The Maury Povich show suggests that you still wind up looking pretty bad either way, so I've got $20 that says John Edwards refuses to submit a DNA sample.

He would rather maintain plausible deniability.

Re: Josh Marshall: I sense that John McCain is teflon-coated on matters of infidelity. Maybe some allegations will throw him off message, but would-be supporters will not care.

The incredible/wonderful Gail Collins has the last word on this subject in this morning's NYT. She has a great historical riff on Grover Cleveland, and argues that Edwards was always "less than the sum of his parts."

This story is dying, faster than you can say "Silda Spitzer."

Are you people kidding me?

The man cheated on his wife while she battled cancer! And his personal life does matter - the man was running for the most scrutinized position in the world.

It doesn't matter who did something worse when or in what country this would be acceptable and aren't we just a bunch of antiquated religious morons who care about fidelity and honoring your promises and believe in that crazy monogamy! While it is too bad that McCain hasn't been held accountable for his affairs, Come On! I could barely read through the sniffs of indignation: "how dare anyone care about this? Aren't there bigger things to worry about? It's a family matter. Monogamy is just an antiquated religious construct, etc." Bull! It matters the same as it mattered for Gingrich, Vitter, Craig, Clinton - these people are making life and death decisions for our country or were trying to get the job to do so and I don't want someone who doesn't even respect his own spouse to be making these decisions. And the biggest laugh of this thread: saying that Edward's personal conduct doesn't matter because he wasn't running on a family values platform. Who are you people? The man had the wife he was cheating on campaigning for him in public! The man invited public scrutiny into his personal life by introducing his family to the country! His family life was part of his package - it was vital to the image he was selling to us to win! That makes him a fraud - a fraud no better than his Republican counterparts. Which makes this one hurt.

I also don't want the progressive movement and what we have at stake to be a footnote to a candidate for President and a potential VP who can't keep his pants zipped (again!)

Yes, this week the media could have been better focused on the forged Habush letter and actually building a case for impeachment and continuing to highlight China's abysmal human right's record, but JOHN EDWARDS chose this week to confirm his affair! Could he have waited until after the election?

I can understand the instinct to forgive a politician for his adultery with very real and public consequences because you like his policies but it really should be about holding him to a higher standard because you like his policies and you don't want any suspect personal conduct to compromise the agenda.

As progressives, we already have the higher moral ground: universal healthcare, elimination of poverty, ending the war, protecting the environment. We loose our standing with this moral relativism some of you got going on here. The public image that a Presidential candidate projects and makes a central part of his campaign should match the personal behavior of that candidate/possible VP.

I want the progressive agenda to advance so badly that I'm not going to stand to see it compromised because John stinking Edwards couldn't keep it zipped.

Jack Bog for Pres!!!!

Elizabeth Edwards ought to be a hot "get" for the news and talk shows. It'd be great if she'd go out and ask "newspeople" how her husband's lying to the American public ...

I believe Elizabeth Edwards has too much class to get involved with "newspeople" and other wretches who would use her for their own selfish and unethical ends.

tb: Did it not occur to you to pay attention to Elizabeth Edwards' statement before you wrote this drivel? Did it occur to anyone that perhaps Elizabeth gave John her blessing to have extramarital sex? Stranger things have been known to happen, and given that she's terminally ill, she might not be up for it herself.

Chris Lowe said, "Imagine someone who ran for president saying this: In the long run I think the U.S. has too much power for either our own good or for the world's. The cost of trying to exercise it is going to bankrupt us, it makes us a target for hatreds just because it exists, and the way it necessarily gets exercised gives rise to lots of other hatreds with real legitimacy behind them. The world and the U.S. will be better off if we give up some of our power, operate in a multi-lateral manner, and work for an international order that shares the wealth better, even if it means giving up some of the excesses of our way of life. How long would such a candidate survive? There are of course arguments that could be made against such a position, but it's not even a debate that's really allowed to occur."

I think what you're really describing, Chris, is the political limitations of the duopoly, and not of the American people. If we were to make decisions democratically, they would be better decisions. If candidates and issues could be chosen democratically, we would create a better society, one that allows for the sane alternatives that you describe.

"In a political system choking on bipartisan corruption, in the midst of an incumbent-ocracy protection racket, there are only two stark alternatives:

We can trust the same parties and the same institutions to reform themselves, to bring change where they have promised it for decades, and not delivered.

Or we can take matters into our own hands, reform the system, and reclaim our rights to legislate. It is in our name, after all – 'we the people'—that the powers of the constitution itself are delegated."

---National Initiative

Chris, you might want to consider that while from time to time you may have a point, your long rants have an exceedingly low novel information to word-count ratio and are increasingly ignorable for that reason. The observation that power and infidelity go together is about as old as written language. And deserves about as much comment as that now.

The only thing more empty is the spew of adult-child cretins like Ryan, typical of a whole swath of ignorant Oregonians stinking up the political space. Ryan you don't have a clue what progressivism is or isn't about. Serious people concerned about things like war, peace, health care, education, etc., could care less what pimples on the backside of the universe like you and the rest of the trollish left-wing and right-wing moralizers want or have to say.

Here's the hard, cold, political reality: A guy like McCain who was tortured and spent years in a Hanoi prison, who left one wife because she was disfigured by a tragic accident, and then had an affair on the ex-beauty queen he married is not going to be fazed personally or politically by a bunch of pathetic wimps who actually believe such things are a roadblock to political power. By dissing Edwards over this, Obama has once again signaled that the kind of self-serving, self-entitled losers who have gained control of our Party aren't leadership material --- He owes it to all of us who have supported him so far to get tough and turn it around, and to do it starting yesterday.

Googlieyes said, "That ["bipartisan slaughter and torture of millions in Iraq..."] sounds like a headline straight out of Pravda.Ru, comrade."

What you say sounds like a headline straight out of The Colbert Report. Somehow, though, I don't think you have the sense of irony that Stephen has.

Is it that you deny that U.S. policies have caused the deaths of millions of Iraqis? If so, that's easy to debate. Madelyn Albright was quite forthright in her agreement that 500,000 Iraqi children were killed by the Clinton Administration's murderous sanctions. Add to that total the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who were killed in the years 1991-2000, and you'll get a million and more. Add to that the deaths caused by Bush Administration policy, and you'll get another million and more. That's millions.

Although I've never read Pravda, and the Bolsheviks I know detest my political philosophy, I do see reason to believe that the U.S. has been involved in provoking the dispute between its client state Georgia and the hegemonists in Russia.

Re: "Why does Harry hate Israel and America?"

Also a Colbert Report kind of question. Why do you, Googlieyes, hate justice, peace, and human decency?

The only thing more empty is the spew of adult-child cretins like Ryan, typical of a whole swath of ignorant Oregonians stinking up the political space. Ryan you don't have a clue what progressivism is or isn't about. Serious people concerned about things like war, peace, health care, education, etc., could care less what pimples on the backside of the universe like you and the rest of the trollish left-wing and right-wing moralizers want or have to say.

Am rolling my eyes and wondering why I even engaged in the first place.

If Elizabeth knew about this in 2006 and played along with it to get him elected, why aren't people equally outraged? She's no neophyte; surely she'd know that there was high probability of reporters digging. Did she just not care? Didn't she worry that entering the foray could subject her kids to daddy's sins?

Frankly, I think it's total crap that he confessed to her. I'm sure she's had her suspicions but did she really know in 2006? I think this is a carefully crafted admittal full of lies. Let's pick a time when you are in remission and then we'll pretend that my late night visit that you didn't know about to see her was simply to convince her not to go public. Then we'll say yes, I'll take a paternity and Rielle will decline. Wrapped up in a nice little bow.

Elizabeth knew and did not care one whit for the Country (if John was discovered).

Sleazy.

ta is a bozo.

Harry (I was Harry years before Keshner was born)

Elizabeth knew and did not care one whit for the Country (if John was discovered).

Sleazy.

ta is a bozo.

Harry (I was Harry years before Keshner was born)

Uh Chris, if anything I think you suffer from a little self-projection when you solemnly pronounce that others have visions of being a philosopher-king.

Frankly, most of us are much more concerned about letting those here who claim to be Democrats know when they don't speak for the rest of us. Especially when you further the image of our Party as one of impotent navel-gazers who aren't even close to being capable of providing real leadership. After all, it's not like Wyden, Blumenauer, DeFazio, or Hooley, who people in turns vociferously defend here when their weakness is criticized, have done anything close to putting their careers on the line to lead the fight to hold this administration accountable (including by impeachment) for it's criminal behavior, now is it? Surely someone as wise as you can grasp the difference?

So tell us, in your Solomonic wisdom do you think McCain and his supporters would even be fazed by the kind of thing that the children here (being played like fiddles by the right-wing media and the trolls here BTW) are going into conniptions over? And do give us the advantage of your obviously superior insight into human nature and tell us just how you feel Democrats, including Obama, are winning votes with their cowering over this like so many other things?

Believe me, I don't have the vaguest idea what it even means to be a "progressive" here, so I like any other average person have absolutely no desire, much less an idea of how, to be "more progressive than anybody else". That obviously would only be possible for people who run in the rarified circles of intellectual leaders such as yourself.

And by the way, just who do you think amongst the average voting public really cares about the anatomy of the Smith's ridiculous attack ad? Or do they just find it laughable that useless goofs like you actually think anyone cares, and that it explains once again why DPO membership in a working-class state like Oregon still is below 40%? How's Merkley's unpromising poll numbers showing that at least for now he doesn't have the "Big Mo" --- which as the 2004 election showed is worse for the challenger than the incumbent having an approval rating below 50% --- working for you? And the undervote in the Senate primary? Who do you want to blame besides the candidate for that, voters who just aren't as perspicacious as you?

Please Plato, do condescend to enlighten those of us who really want to learn from someone as exceptional as you.

And Ryan, you shouldn't bother unless you have something intelligent to say and the maturity to take the criticism when you don't.

In case you don't get it Chris and the rest. The real point here is that I'm wiling to bet the only issue for those with a modicum of commonsense is whether they are more disgusted at Karol for even putting this on the table, especially in the dumb way she did, or at the people here who didn't blow it right back off. Why don't you just cut the BS and tell us which you find more disgusting?

Less than 24 hours after John Edwards announced, "I would welcome participating in a paternity test...I'm only one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one." Rielle Hunter announces (via her lawyer) that she wishes to maintain her privacy and that of her daughter and will not allow any testing to establish the baby girl's paternity at any time.

How convenient!

I wonder if Ms. Hunter discussed her objections to paternity testing with anyone before Senator Not-her-daddy announced his willingness to clear the air.

Because maintaining the illusion that Andrew Young is willing to raise the precious snowflake is more important than outing John Edwards for the lying POS that he would become if the public learned his big apology was just another variation on the Big Lie.

Shouldn't Edwards urge Ms. Hunter to cooperate and allow him to clear the air for his family?

John surely wants to make it clear to his wife that no additional child conceaving infidelity took place after their presumed marital renconciliation.

Imagine the conversations the Edwards have been having about "who's the father".

I mean get real,,,, Elizabeth has to have trouble beliving her "husband".

Edwards' credibility is shot, so the paternity question is only interesting in the sense that to have fathered the baby means a more enduring affair. It seems unlikely. What is of greater concern to me is the source of funds expended to quiet those involved, including the putative father. Did he receive a bonus when he impregnated her?? Perhaps the expenses are categorized as "stud service"? Look for Rielle's book in the future when her lifestyle exceeds the hush money.

These fantasy elections we've been having -- overblown sports contests with great production values, decided by haircuts and sound bytes and high-tech mudslinging campaigns -- those were sort of fun while they lasted, and were certainly useful in providing jerk-off pundit-dickheads like me with high-paying jobs. But we just can't afford them anymore.

We have officially spent and mismanaged our way out of la-la land and back to the ugly place where politics really lives -- a depressingly serious and desperate argument about how to keep large numbers of us from starving and freezing to death. Or losing our homes, or having our cars repossessed. For a long time America has been too embarrassed to talk about class; we all liked to imagine ourselves in the wealthy column, or at least potentially so, flush enough to afford this pissing away of our political power on meaningless game-show debates once every four years. The reality is much different, and this might be the year we're all forced to admit it.

http://www.alternet.org/story/91927/

Forgot what name I posted under a week or so ago, but I told you all that Edwards was no good. He gives North Carolinians, yet again, another reason to despise him.

Nice article Matt. Rolling Stone is a long way from the eXhile. I imagine there must be times when you miss Russia.

From Paul Krugman's column this morning; maybe this should be the last word on l'affaire Edwards:

One more thing: if we do get real health care reform, a lot of people will owe a debt of gratitude to none other than John Edwards. When Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, I credited him with making universal health care a “possible dream for the next administration.” Mr. Edwards’s political career is over — but perhaps he and his family can take some solace from the fact that his party is still trying to make that dream come true.

Maybe that claim isn't true, but I'm willing to believe it.

KTDM: Your argument that "there must be times when you miss Russia" is devastating and has destroyed my journalistic career. Why a brilliant writer like you has failed to garner fame and fortune is a mystery. And thanks for the eXile link, comrade.

Matt, I think we're all missing Russia right about now, even if we've never been there. Seriously, great stuff...as for the destruction of your journalistic career, I thought your book did that! :) (I store it under my Marx on the shelf). I was once friends with the former Assistant Manager of the Hungry Duck. But enough of old home week. Ciao, comrade.

KTDM: you are irritating. How about posting under your real name for kicks?

BUT [article request alert], thank you for mentioning Russia, for this has been on my mind all day today. I come back from a three day ceremonial sequester to discover Russia has stormed Georgia in half. I have been waiting for someone write a commentary about the situation in Russia/Georgia. I am not smart enough about politics nor history - my responses are emotive in the main - so I am disappointed not to have heard a single peep yet about Russia and the calls for quid pro quo on the part of Georgia, which I've heard likened to the Sicilians/Mob of the former Soviet Union. The labored responses on the part of Obama were painful to observe. McCain was pretty unequivocal. Our Fearless Leader continued waving his little flag in the grandstands.

I'm sure some of you thinkers who post know history and politics post-Glasnost well enough to give us some thought product on that? Tom? Kari? Carla?

I've been waiting all day. I do not dare to offer comment here, as I've not the background to make more than reaction. I have no "position" to offer. But can appreciate when the thoughts launched are well-constructed or merely reactive.

Rebecca, others who badger those of us who do not post under our own names to do so: have you give any thought to the fact that some of us are not able, for professional reasons, to post under our own names? There are teachers, politicians, civil servants, untenured professors, and members of the clergy among us who, for important reasons of professional discretion, should not reveal our given-name identities. I am sorry you are irritated by my posts. If I was being abusive, thoughtless or rude or was a troll in any of my posts, then you would have good reason for your lack of graciousness. If you had been paying attention, you would not have to ask Tom, Karl, or Carla to discuss politics post-Glasnost. Matt Taibbi, whose article I was perhaps praising too directly, and who has the good fortune of being able to post under his given name, is an expert of the highest order on this topic.

Thank you kindly for explaining why you must use initials instead of a name. Staying hidden is sometimes the best strategy for those of us who open our mouths. Me, I'd rather put myself on the spot for being utterly responsible for the clutter I put on the waves. If I embarrass myself, so be it. I'll possibly stop being an idiot or a foolish ideologue more quickly if that happens.

I also have much to lose as a result of being in the open. I nevertheless choose to be in the open. It is part of my personal commitment to transparency, standing for what I stand for, fighting hypocrisy within myself first. It's not a fun road, I pay handsomely for my foolishness sometimes by the day.

Many fear the repercussions of being known for what they really do think.

As to attacking me for requesting knowledgable discourse? My strength is in knowing somewhat the limits of my knowledge; and my intention to move beyond mere emotional reactionism such as mostly found on all blogs, including BO. No matter how fine the articulations, the reactionary bones are there, and all too often a lack of awareness of elitism, bias.

I am aware of my lack of expertise here, and am drawn to remedy that. One will hope you are able to respect this? Or is this an elitist rag-session closed to those transitioning and available only to the completly ignorant and the all-knowing? <grinning>

<h2>I was irritated only by that one post, and did not call you a troll.</h2>