And that's true. But that's EXACTLY my point. Public morality and private morality are personal traits that are completely untethered to each other.

Save for the fact that Edwards trumpeted his private life far and wide.

Kari, how long did it take you to write together this masturbatory spew?

Kari typed: "John Edwards should have known better than to run for president in that environment while hiding his secret. Had he been successful in the primary race, he would have put the White House at risk. And that was just flat-out reckless and dumb. That's not the way it should be, but that's the way it is."

This is the point. I can go on and on blasting Edwards, a man I haven't trusted in years (the 30,000 square foot house was the tell-tale sign for me), but there's little more to be said than the above, which hits the nail on the head.

What mystifies me is how many intelligent, progressive Democrats supported this clown over Obama. I never did understand that, and that's even given that fighting poverty is my single favorite cause. Why is it so difficult to spot a guy this phony? Frankly, the only thing that shocked me is that Elizabeth let her husband continue to run. She's the one I expected more from. She's the one I thought -- and really still think -- is the real deal.

Finally, can we please stop blasting the Republicans every time a Democrat screws up. When we do that, we make it more likely that Dems will continue not to take these infractions seriously. Like it or not, there's a Puritan streak in this country. Dems better deal with that if we hope to win the White House and avoid trouble once we get there.

Thanks for enunciating what are essentially my thoughts on this matter. If a couple can sort out between themselves the issue of infidelity, they should. If not, they should separate or divorce. Either way, it's not my business. It's not related to how they do their jobs. I do take offense to blatant hypocrisy, when an elected official campaigns AND legislates to enforce morality, then commits such an offense, as was the case with Vitter, Craig and Gingrich, but those individuals have never represented me; if their constituency sends them back to office, I can't complain about their personal behavior. I can complain about their policy positions in light of their behavior, but attacking policy is a different issue from attacking the person and the person's behavior.

Yet politicians KNOW how the media and the public will react. If they believe in what their party stands for, and they commit or have committed such an act, they shoud drop out. For the good of their beliefs. Tell everyone they want to spend more time with their families. They'll drop off the radar in days. Everyone will chatter for a bit, but it won't be an issue by the next election. This is my source of irritation with Edwards, not the fact of his affair. He should have known how this would effect the party.

American politics wasn't always preoccupied with sexual side shows; the media and rival politicians ignored politicians' sex lives unless they did something that couldn't be ignored, like cavorting in a public fountain with a stripper. There was no mention of JFK's numerous dalliances until long after his death. Can you imagine what the Republican Party would do with that issue today?

Personally I think we were all better off with the old system. We're electing a president, not a pope; his private sex life (as long as nothing criminal is involved) should not be an issue.

I admit I have not paid much attention to the details except to read a small article that details some conversations a reporter had with the woman in question. If accurate, I find it amazing that John Edwards would let someone like that get within fifty miles of his inner circle let alone have an affair with her. She's a total space case.

I've said it before--I wouldn't mind seeing another President who FUCKS. JFK fucked, RFK fucked, Clinton fucked, Martin Luther King fucked, and the Northwests's own Supreme Court Justice William Douglas got a new 20 year old wife every 20 years. They were great liberal leaders and heroes.

And who had the pristine sex lives, even slept in twin beds? Jesse Helms, Richard Noxin, Ronald Reagan, Newt...

I'm standing by Edwards. And Elliot Spitzer, too. They've still got a lot to offer America, if we stop being such prudes about it.

Kari, et al,,,

You're missing, or avoiding a key point.

You were wrong in your prior assessment of Edwards. He is and has been the sleazebag that is now obvious.

"Father of the year"? Not.

Admit you were wrong instead of trumpeting the personal life doesn't matter tune.

Your pretense that a politician's private sleazery doesn't "tell us a damn thing" about their public morality is irrational. Of course it does.

Edwards is the perfect example. He's a sleazebag with his family and the lies and manipulation he used to conceal it makes him the public sleazebag he is.

I have no doubt a person of Edward's low morality would stoop to all sorts of choices where the public interests would be betrayed, if it meant he would benefit.

Your're living in a twisted fairy tale if you think otherwise.

I suspect your whole bit on Edwards is an attempt at valdiating your prior support for him while not aknowledging how wrong you were about him.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to admit any such thing.

But I enjoyed pointing it out. :)

Good post, Kari

Rather my point is that the claim that people often make is that we should care about a politician's private morality because it gives us insight into their public morality. I disagree entirely. I don't think it tells us a damn thing.

Kari, you have repeatedly attacked Matt Wingard for hitting his son with a screwdriver. So I'm really struggling to see how you square those attacks on Wingard's private morality with your ex post facto justification about Edwards above?

Personally, I don't care one whit about the hypocrisy angle - which is why I didn't raise it.

Yet you repeatedly said in the Craig case that it's not about the gay sex, it's about the hypocrisy. So again, how do you square your attacks on a Republican for public/private moral hypocrisy yet not "care one whit" about a Democrat's similar hypocrisy?

Finally, the Democratic party -- with Merkley's support -- has officially gone after Smith on his golf club purchases. While not specifically a morality issue, the Dems have openly said it's a "values" issue and shows that Smith doesn't represent "regular" people. Since you claim that Smith's personal values have no bearing on his public values, do you now denounce those attacks?

You cannot have it both ways.

It ain't the lay, it's the lie... but at least, unlike our impeached former president, Edwards wasn't under oath when he did it.

I agree that the 30,000 square foot palace for two adults, a teenager, and two small children was an indicator of vanity and self-indulgence that did not bode well for an Edwards presidency.

But regardless of that or of when or how he got laid or lied, I would hate to see this controversy drive either Edwards from public life because I think they're both intelligent and articulate advocates of vital ideas.

I always considered Edwards to be a phony. The house, the haircuts, the Ken Doll primping, the shallow mentality, etc.

Not only am I not surprised by the affair, I'm positive it isn't the end of the story. There is still the hush money, the baby, etc.

Hopefully we never hear from that phony piece of scum again in our lifetimes.

Miles compares hitting a child with a screwdriver with adultery.

Apparently, there's no difference between sex between consenting adults and physically abusing a minor in Mile's world.

Miles, are you aware that child abuse is illegal and adultery isn't?

#2. Why is adultery the one unforgivable sin in American politics?

I don't think it is. In 1992, everyone knew that Bill Clinton had slept around. There was Gennifer Flowers in the primary, and other rumors that didn't go away. No one had actual proof, but come on, we all knew. The whole country knew. Four years later, he was overwhelmingly reelected even though the rumors had only grown stronger with Paula Jones lawsuit. There were even articles written at the time about how Clinton's "virility" had come to be seen as a positive in the minds of many voters.

I do think private morality, values, and ethics matter when it comes to electing our leaders. That doesn't mean that someone who commits adultery should be ineligible for higher office, because I also believe people make mistakes, and I believe in the power of redemption. But I also refused to vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 (wrote in Bill Bradley instead) specifically because I thought he was morally reckless, which led to Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, and also Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Clinton's sell-out on welfare reform, and his general triangulation of the Democratic Congress. As I noted on the other thread, you cannot separate Clinton's infidelity to his wife and his infidelity to his party. And I was right in 1996, since Clinton's recklessness was a major factor in Gore's loss in 2000, and Bush's subsequent presidency and the disaster that has resulted.

Finally, can we please stop blasting the Republicans every time a Democrat screws up.

Amen to that. When we respond to Edward's failures by saying "Look, Vitter! Look, Craig!" we just make ourselves look small.

And John Edwards should have known better than to run for president in that environment while hiding his secret. Had he been successful in the primary race, he would have put the White House at risk.

That's not the way it should be, but that's the way it is.

Word. Having been an Edwards supporter, I'm so glad the kids turned out for Obama. They were far wiser than I.

Kari, you have repeatedly attacked Matt Wingard for hitting his son with a screwdriver. So I'm really struggling to see how you square those attacks on Wingard's private morality with your ex post facto justification about Edwards above?

Assaulting a child is private morality? Wow, you are one screwed up dude.

Miles, are you aware that child abuse is illegal and adultery isn't?

I wasn't addressing the criminal nature of the acts, I was addressing the moral nature. They are both widely considered immoral. They are both private acts. I think they should both be considered when electing our leaders.

Hitting a child is absolutely worse than cheating on your spouse. But cheating on your spouse is still pretty bad. If you think we should take abuse into account but not infidelity, where do you draw your moral line? Why do you excuse marital infidelity, which leads to some very bad situations for children?

By the way, adultery is still illegal in many states, with various penalties including life sentence in Michigan and two years imprisonment in Pennsylvania. And in the military it's a court-martial offense.

Even if it wasn't prosecuted, hitting your kid is not OK.

Wait, are you saying adultery is OK? You may want to limit this to adultery, but I'm talking about moral fitness to serve, which you address in your post: "private morality and public morality are completely unrelated." Why are you now limiting the subject?

This has nothing to do about morality, public or private. Yes, Edwards was a scumbag for cheating on his wife and two small children with this flake of a woman. But that's really beside the point for this discussion. Since nothing illegal happened (unlike with Giuliani's public funding of his affairs) there really isn't a public morality issue here.

Where Edwards went astray in public is in running for office. A candidate for office is selling himself (or herself) to the public as a brand. A great deal of the early parts of any campaign is the fundraising, where the candidate comes to the public hat in hand and says "I'm the person you are looking for...please support me". Fact of the matter is that Edwards was knowingly selling a fraudulent brand. The loyal husband with sick wife and children at his side? The poignant 60 minutes interviews? All of it bullshit. I frankly don't care in the slightest about where Edwards wants to park his tool. But he had damn well better be straight with me if he comes to me asking for money and support. Which is exactly what he did. I was an early Edwards supporter but swung around to Obama after Iowa and long before I had a chance to cast my primary vote.

Fact of the matter is that Edwards was knowingly selling a fraudulent brand. The loyal husband with sick wife and children at his side? The poignant 60 minutes interviews? All of it bullshit. I frankly don't care in the slightest about where Edwards wants to park his tool. But he had damn well better be straight with me if he comes to me asking for money and support. Which is exactly what he did.

Well stated

Somehow the progressive community needs to do a much better job talking about those forms of immorality, of redefining the debate.

sigh exactly

#2. Why is adultery the one unforgivable sin in American politics? We have some strange ethical standards in our politics.

It’s not the adultery itself but the poor judgment displayed by Edwards in handling the entire matter and how it reflects on his suitability for the presidency.

A powerful politician with his connections should have been able to get some nasty on the side without getting caught. Compound that with the bald-faced lying and you’ve got someone who has proven himself far too naive and inept to hand the Oval Office to.

The bigger story is the delay of media coverage which, had it happened just a few months ago, could have altered the outcome of the Dem’s race and who the nominee will be.

I can't agree with your observations numbered 2 and 3. I don't think adultery was the unforgivable offense. Like Larry above, I think lying about it for so long was the problem. Lying magnifies the effect when the truth comes out. Lying was the offense that triggered the media blowup. Doesn't everybody lie about sex? Actually, NO.

As to your number 3, if lying is the offense, it is a character defect, not just an issue of private morality - especially in this case when the lies were to the public. The public certainly has an interest in knowing if a candidate will lie about any inconvenient fact that surfaces.

Question for Miles. If private morally is directly related to fitness for public office, how does this question apply to the suitability of John Sidney McCain III's quest to be President in light of his well known adultery during the marriage to his first wife?

The wife who faithfully waited and raised their children during the five long years he spent as a POW, who was seriously injured in a car accident and was kicked to the curb for a younger, prettier, richer woman.

If Edwards is to be condemned for cheating on his ill wife then I think the same standards should apply to McCain as well.

I'm just saying........

Simple lesson: If you want to be president, be faithful to your spouse. And for f'sake, don't lie about it if you aren't. And for double f'sake, don't even think of it in office. Just don't.

Most Americans - media included - couldn't care less about the past. The country knew Bill Clinton was a slut. Bush was a drunk. Obama blew coke. McCain left his wife for his rich mistress. None of it matters.

I was an enthusiastic Edwards supporter. He even got 50 of my hard-earned dollars. $75 isn't just lot money for some people. It's a lot of money for for most people.

Unquestionably you are right that private morality and public morality may be quite different. However, in today's political climate there is no way that extramarital sex, particularly during a period of political campaigning, is not a political "no-no" in this day and age. On top of this is lying about it, which really disturbs many people.

What I cannot understand is why Elizabeth did not see this coming. Sadly, she became an accomplice to John's lying when she agreed to campaign alongside him in 2007, after learning about the affair.  Not only should she have stopped him from running in the first place (in 2007), but particularly when her "incurable" cancer was diagnosed in early 2008, she had a perfect excuse to make John exit the political stage.  It would have been logical and would have avoided the ignominy of the final downfall.  For such a bright woman, she should have seen this coming.

If Edwards is to be condemned for cheating on his ill wife then I think the same standards should apply to McCain as well.

Absolutely, McCain's past behavior reflects very poorly on him. When I said we shouldn't focus on Republicans whenever a Democrat gets caught, I didn't mean we shouldn't hold Repubs to the same standard -- we should -- only that we shouldn't ignore the moral failings of our own folks.

Look, I'm not saying that one's private morality is the sole variable we should use in picking a president. That would be absurd. But it's equally absurd to suggest, as Kari does, that it's irrelevant. It's not.

Adultery involves two consenting adults. Beating your child does not.

You make adultery sound like a victimless act. As Karol aptly describes, adultery leaves a trail of pain behind it since the spouse sure didn't consent. Adultery is also a leading cause of divorce, which is harmful to kids. Your attempt to minimize it as "just two consenting adults" is really kind of grotesque.

With regard to Wingard's situation, I want to return to the bold statement you made in your original post: Public morality and private morality are personal traits that are completely untethered to each other.

Are you now amending that to say that private immorality that results in a crime does impact someone's public morality? Because with Wingard that's what you've been arguing.

Kari...great articualtion of my own (and others') mixed reactions.

There really is one sidebar question that tickles at me. This child, whether Edwards' or some other donor's, was conceived when Hunter was a 40 yr old divorced (ex?)-party girl, with a free-living (politely) past, and not much experience in making documentaries at that. Somehow, up until that point she'd managed to survive in an age of sexual freedom without giving birth. Whatever arrangement she made with whom after her affair with Edwards, to live in a multi-million dollar mansion and receive payments from an unknown source, it was definitely a step up in lifestyle for her. You just have to wonder about the motives and bring in the question of opportunity and whether or not Hunter had a rather nefarious business plan fairly early on. From that point it was up to Edwards whether to take a bite of the apple.

Yet I think we will lose such a valuable, if flawed and human, asset in activism if people cannot see past this self-inflicted damage to his character. We so often set standards of our heroes so high that we cannot forgive one transgression, even though some of us could never achieve the expected perfection ourselves. I say forgive him and let him continue to advocate....but I doubt that will happen on a national level. This isn't (pragmatic?) France where things are allowed to season, weather, and age, (and the president can dump his wife for a newer model with a history of rock 'n roll heartbreaking). America has a history of building up and tearing down.

I halfway wish he had been the nominee because I think you and the media completely misread the public who are much more sophisticated and not nearly so puritanical as the media pundits who are fainting over this story.

I know it drove the media crazy when the public failed to adopt their condemnatory attitude toward Bill Clinton. I think John Edwards would drive them nuttier. I would love it and I think he could have still won. After all, McCain really can't cast stones, can he?

I think their puritanical lust was revivified by Eliot Spitzer's swift resignation, but then I think he should not have resigned either. I think that we need some politicians to stand up to these censorious lip-pursing, hyperventilating prigs and prove the American people are adults - unlike the children who run the beltway tv talkshows.

Sure, the ratings go up when there's a sex scandal, but that's because Americans like sex and are interested in it, not because they want to see scarlet letters on anyone's shirt. And we know that these disapproving nannygoats in the media aren't all perfect little choirboys. Honestly, I think Americans would be happy to have a little lechery if it came with competence.

I mean look at Bush. If fidelity and presidential competence are related to each other, it's obviously an inverse relationship. The biggest idiot to ever live in that building is famously faithful to his long-suffering wife. On the other hand, we have the famously indiscreet Thomas Jefferson, FDR and JFK - maybe we need more adulterous presidents, not fewer.

Thomas Jefferson committed adultery? What dictionary do you use?

Amen, Kari. My sentiments exactly. And not many people have even touched on your last point (having potentially risked the White House).

I'm with you - I don't correlate male sex drive and leadership ability.

What's really got me frustrated is that this story is about a now private citizen - and it's old - which means tht all it does is embarrass Elizabeth. John's hopes were dashed forever ago. But Elizabeth, despite her knowledge of his affair, was willing to spend her limited healthy hours campaigning for him while terminally ill. Now all of that energy was spent in vain - as his legacy is pretty much shot to hell. Plus, now the nation will have the opportunity to pick apart her apparent decision to stay with him - something we saw happen to Hillary. She really shouldn't have to endure that type of scrutiny.

The question "why didn't the Edwards's see this coming?" is a good one. Self-delusion is one answer, but it's not the only one.

One possible thought process that explains this: "yeah, but you can't win, if you don't enter."

In other words: your chances of winning if you don't enter: zilch. Your chances of winning if you do enter: a small number, but greater than zilch.

Even if you're John Edwards, maybe you might get lucky and, somehow, people won't find out or care. Until it plays out, you just don't know with certainty. Even if the odds don't look good.

And remember: you're playing with house money. "House", as in, Kari and fellow supporters.

Once in a while, fortune favors the brave, and candidates win even when they don't expect to win. To illustrate, I think we have a Republican nominee who didn't expect to win, and when it happened, looked around and asked "now, what?"

Reckless? You bet. Rational? Maybe.

Kari, I appreciated your article and most of the comments that followed.

I too was first for Edwards, while at the same time giving to Obama and Richardson. However, I felt a phony quality in Edwards from the beginning but supported him for two reasons: (1) his program was more progressive than those offered by the other candidates, and (2) Elizabeth. His affair not only has betrayed his wife, it has betrayed his children. It's just another form of sexual abuse to this children.

How glad I am that he did not do well in his race.

I hope Elizabeth will be active in assisting Obama to get a universal health care plan adopted for the country.

Kari, I appreciated your article and most of the comments that have followed.

I too was first for Edwards, while at the same time giving to Obama and Richardson However, I felt a phony quality in Edwards from the beginning but supported him for two reasons: (1) his program was more progressive than those offered by the other candidates, and (2) Elizabeth. His affair not only has betrayed his wife, it has betrayed his children. It's just another form of sexual abuse to this children.

How glad I am that he did not do well in his race.

What I hope is that Elizabeth will be active in assisting Obama to get a universal health care plan adopted for the country.

Sorry I did not read your guidance at the bottom of this diary and posted twice.

Joe Biden was my fav. cand. I liked Edwards the best of the top three, mainly because he said the right things and I thought he could have appeal in the south.

I always doubted JE's sincerity though, especially after the news of the haircuts, house, and hedge fund came out. It revealed a disconnect between his rhetoric and personal reality and also showed that he didn't know or care how it might hurt his chances. The affair isn’t any different, realy.

Still, why beat on a guy who was pretty much politically dead anyway? It’s sad that a tabloid story becomes a news story, even if it’s true.

Not many of us down south appreciated it and most will tell you that, flat out !" Busted Tin Roof Rusted !" Prayers to his family and children. We don't need to know anymore ! We got it !

In a previous thread, I expressed my disillusionment with many members of the far left during my salad days in the 60's and 70's. I was immediately personally attacked by a couple of posters here as a result.

Are not we progressives supposed to be sensitive to human needs? The bottom line is that infidelity is a harmful, hurtful activity to ones spouse and children, especially if one claims to love ones family. While it may be a "private" matter, it is a character flaw that disqualifies one as a true progressive.

What is in the heart is just as important as what is in the mind.

What a bunch of garbage--Edwards used his wife as a pawn in his bid for office - she is caught, if she leaves and dies before the children are grown - as she is likely to do--they are out in the cold.
His campaign slogan should have been "Have dick will travel".
It isn't his lax morals and big shit eating grin - it is his blatant use of Elizabeth.

John Edwards talked about Dad's mill, While sleeping with a chick off the pill, He lied and fibbed to the MS press, And, awoke early to preen and dress.

His wife, Elizabeth, knew the lie in 2006, But supported John in Iowa while sick, They stole Hillary's honest votes daily, And laughed on cue, and hiding Rielle.

Now John's betrayal is common news, And Fred Baron has money to lose, Rielle, now nursing, has jetted away, Even ABC and CNN have joined the fray!

John's affair has hurt his poor kids, More than Clinton's cigars ever did, A sordid tale that some call a crock, The only winner, a loser named Barack!

The offense Edwards comitted on his children by having the affair was far worse than the inadvertent tap Wingard gave his child.

Some of you are acting like sleazy cheating has no affect on the children. That it isn't betraying the children too.

BS. Figure it out and stop trying to compartmentalize the act. Unless those who are doing so are themselves cheaters? Then I get "your" point.

Well, Kari: what else could I say? Couldn't say it better, prolly.

Thanks.

r

The problem I have is the old one of hubris. He cast himself as one person when in fact he was someone else. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?

Miles... Perhaps I should have said, "With respect to adultery, public morality and private morality are personal traits that are completely untethered to each other."

I'll accept your narrowing of the question, although I have a hard time understanding why you separate adultery from other moral failings since it is one of the highest forms of betrayal imaginable.

Instead of the backtracking, it's much easier (and more consistent) to simply accept what I think you know deep down: moral failure, including adultery, is a legitimate criterion on which to judge those we elect to lead us. It's not the only criterion, and since EVERYONE has moral failings we should never expect perfection. But the type of behavior that Edwards engaged in cannot be dismissed without asking what it reveals. And what it reveals is that you, me and other early supporters were wrong about him. Could he still have been a great president? Maybe, but that's much less clear today than it was two weeks ago.

Kari: While I agree with much of what you say, I have two problems:

(1.) As a proud draft-dodging activist during the wars in Indochina, I challenge you to defend your inclusion of this political act with drunk-driving, stealing drugs from a charity, insider trading, racism and prostitution. I have done few things in my life more moral than refusing to kill in an immoral and illegal war.

(2.) You failed to include war crimes and crimes against humanity in your list of offenses committed by political elites. Why is it that supposed progressives are so undaunted by the deaths of tens of millions from US policy but are so offended by extra-marital sex?

You have generated some great discussion about this topic. Thanks.

Thomas Jefferson had an infamous affair with Maria Cosway - a married woman - while he was in France. In my book, that's adultery.

The JOHN, Sen. Edwards is an eco-sanctimonious, smooth talking, lying sack of shit who made a fortune taking ginormous contingency fees from personal injury claimants. Then, rather than samply conceding he built his fortune on the suffering of others, he wrote a book trying to pass it off as service to the downtrodden. Yeah, sure it was.

In his world, he was "99% honest" when de denied everything, he's worried about global warming despite living in a 30,000 square foot house, and he loves his wife as much as ever

What happens when they get there and we vote them in as good people representing issues we all care about.Perhaps we the people, need to start evaluating and be sent quarterly report cards and three f's, and you no longer are on the team. Ya gotta keep your grades up !Public official exams indicating performance accountability to hold them responsible for their campaign promises and progress checks along the way.Think we leave a lot to the news and progress reports need to be mailed to the American people or better yet, E-mail us. We need to keep them on task and focus ! They get there and start fooling around to much.Don't hide your report card and let's see your grades on the issues and what you're up to ! How's that grade on behavior ?

For me it really comes down to one issue alone - He LIED about it. When confronted at first had edwards stepped up and admitted the affair I personally would have had greater understanding.

The admission only came once another source was going to publish the details. Of course I am also more than a little cynical about Edwards' timing as well.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John Edwards' political action committee paid his mistress $14,000 after she stopped working for it to obtain 100 hours of unused videotape she had shot for his unsuccessful presidential campaign, an associate told The Associated Press on Thursday.

John Edwards admitted to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who produced Web videos for his campaign. The woman, Rielle Hunter, already had been paid $100,000 for the programs.

The explanation -- which Edwards' advisers declined to discuss on the record -- is the first effort to justify the payment in April 2007 to Hunter. That payment came months before Edwards' chief fundraiser quietly began sending money himself to the pregnant woman.

Edwards last week acknowledged he had an affair with Hunter in 2006. The former Democratic presidential contender and senator from North Carolina has denied any knowledge of those payments to Hunter from Fred Baron, Edwards' national finance chairman and a wealthy Dallas, Texas-based trial attorney. Baron also has described his payments to Hunter as a private transaction.

But the $14,000 payment to Hunter is significant because its source was Edwards' OneAmerica political action committee, whose expenditures are governed by U.S. election laws. Willfully converting money from a political action committee for personal use would have been a federal criminal violation.

An associate of Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the $14,000 was paid to Hunter only after she relinquished about 100 hours of cutting-room floor videotape excerpts that were not part of four short Web videos she had produced for Midline Groove Ltd. in 2006.

Legal experts said it was important for Edwards to demonstrate the political action committee wasn't paying Hunter merely to keep quiet about the affair.

We could put together a fair evaluation of what our representatives voted on over the last six months and if they skipped class and didn't vote as well as condense it in an organized manner to inform progress and ares needed for improvement.An over-all average must be kept or you're on restriction until we see improvement with your behavior and scores."The beatings will continue until morale improves ?" We could sell T-shirts with their report cards posted to fund the process.Okay,gotta go and don't laugh to hard but somewhere in all this, we've gotta keep our sense of humor in the face of tragedy and John Edwards just flunked out.Our political science University majors may consider report cards and be fair and serious concerning in evaluation.Their report is reviewed by the dean or their professor before going to print as well as having to be approved by 10 judges in their state.Report cards just went out on your elected officials concerning accountability.

Miles, I've long maintained that non-criminal sex is not a legitimate criterion for choosing our political leaders.

Interesting. So in the states where adultery is illegal, those voters should take it into account? But in states where it's legal, they shouldn't? Why let the government do your moral thinking for you in the first place?

Besides, this isn't really about the sex, it's about the betrayal, which is never criminal but certainly a factor in one's ability to lead.

......But the $14,000 payment to Hunter is significant because its source was Edwards' OneAmerica political action committee, whose expenditures are governed by U.S. election laws. Willfully converting money from a political action committee for personal use would have been a federal criminal violation.

Very good point. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.....

Kari,

I too want to smack John Edwards for a boneheaded mood. Also, not to nitpick, 50% of all marriages may end in divorce but when marriages under the age of 25 years old, are correlated, the divorce rate greatly reduces to about 24%.

Education and maturity matters. Unfortunately, Edwards is over 25 years old.

johnnie

I have heard, for quite a while, that George Herbert Walker Bush had a "Mistress" for some time. If I was married to a bug-eyed freak who spawned such human trash as Little George, Neil, John Ellis (JEB), and Marvin (with no offense to Dorothy...just why did you seem to turn out OK?), and refused, mutually, to even acknowledge the untimely death of a young daughter, I would very likely either find other gratification, or steal Little George's Cocaine Stash...So I have come to expect little actual Morality from the Republicans. But John Edwards isn't a Bush, or a Republican, and Elizabeth isn't a Pierce, and has much more Class than the in-bred (just like the Walkers, Prescotts, Bushs...etc.) British Queen of the same name...So John, you seem to be just another arrogant, Hedge-Fund appeasing Lawyer who just had to have that "little bit extra". I shook hands with you in Portland in Sept., 2004 (but, no autographs!), and I didn't see then what I see now...shame, shame, shame...My Sister was right some years ago, when she said that Bill Clinton was just a "Pretty Boy"...I'm sure she would say the same about you...And to think that you were always my close second choice, just after Dennis Kucinich...I have no doubt that he will adore and be true to his Elizabeth "'til Death do us part"...that is the integrity I expect in my elected officials.

Steiny

As soon as somebody admits to supporting Kookcinich for President, their fringe status undermines anything else they have to say.

It's like listening to a beggar tell me to "have a nice day, sir" after I fail to make a donation: the words belie their sentiment.

Well...I supported Dennis Kucinich for various reasons, but the main reason is that he is very likely one of the most honest people in the political world today. He has more honor in his toenail clippings than the vast majority of Congress has in their entire beings.