comment #1

JHRussell says ...

The "timing of the affair and the birth" must white trash-speak for "I can't be the daddy cuz I was screwing her 6 months after the baby done did come out her cooch."

When the paternity is revealed, this will be all the more delicious. Why admit to the affair but lie about the paternity? Do these guys never learn anything about the coverup being worse than the original sin?

What a sleaze ball - his love child was born during the primaries while he was chastising the Bush admin for the mishandling of the Katrina aftermath - hey John, keep your dick in your trousers and take care of the aftermath of your wife's cancer before getting so "holier than thou" on us, howzaboutit?

What a jerk. At least we don't have "US Attorney General John Edwards" to worry about in an Obama admin...

comment #2

Count Thread says ...

"It's something a cad would say in this kind of situation."

Ummm, haven't we already established that?

People have affairs. Even good people. Life happens. That I can understand.

Unlike most people, I also forgive hypocrisy. We all know the *right* way to live, folks. Just because we violate those tenets doesn't invalidate those tenets-- it means we fucked up, and should have been better.

No, in Edwards case it's the *arrogance*, the collosally bad judgment, that does him in, that makes this despicable. Lying to your wife? Awful, but private. Lying to his campaign, lying before the country, *trying to get away with it*-- that's what makes him a scujmbag.

Of course, the same could have been-- and was-- said of Bill Clinton, but everybody defended him, too. "It's just a blowjob." No, it's not-- it's the arrogance, the entitlement, the "I can do anything I want and get away with it and I answer to no one-- not my wife, not my co-workers, not my country."

At least Bill Clinton was a decent president. Edwards was a slimy ambulance-chasing trial lawyer.

Hell, I'm guessing he made up the "little girl missing her coat" story, too. ;-)

comment #3

Count Thread says ...

BTW, best line I've already heard:

"Well, there are two Americas. Edwards had a wife in one and a girlfriend in the other."

comment #4

Geoff says ...

What an asshole. I'm not going to judge him for doing what he did, but I would easily tell him to fuck off if he came anywhere near me.

If you're going to run for President and you have a giant skeleton in the closet like this then don't waste my fucking time. Did he honstly believe he could get to where Obama is today?

Imagine if Obama was in third place during the primary. What an arrogant and egocentric jack ass.

comment #5

SmilingPolitely says ...

I always knew that fucker was a flake.

comment #6

Joe Leydon says ...

First, let me preface what I'm about to say with an admission: At the start of the Democratic primary season, I was pulling for Edwards, for the simple reason that I thought he, among all the other candidates, had the best chance of actually being elected President. Obama eventually won me over, but if Edwards had remained a serious contender on the day of the Texas primary/caucus, it's entirely possible I would have gone with my first choice. So, trust me, I am not an Edwards hater, OK?
Now, having said all that: JUST WHAT THE HELL WAS THIS KNUCKLEHEAD THINKING? DID HE REALLY BELIEVE THIS WOULD NOT COME OUT DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION? DID HE LEARN NOTHING FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF BILL CLINTON AND GARY HART? DAMN!!!!!
Did the Dems dodge a bullet, or what?

comment #7

Terry McCarty says ...

Joe Leydon wrote:
Now, having said all that: JUST WHAT THE HELL WAS THIS KNUCKLEHEAD THINKING? DID HE REALLY BELIEVE THIS WOULD NOT COME OUT DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION? DID HE LEARN NOTHING FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF BILL CLINTON AND GARY HART? DAMN!!!!!

If memory is correct, Larry King (mentioned in one of his ghostwritten books) interviewed one of Hart's woman friends; apparently Hart had no problem with parking his car--with Colorado plates--outside the woman's residence.

comment #8

dinther says ...

"If you're going to run for President and you have a giant skeleton in the closet like this then don't waste my fucking time."

So, then I take it that you will not be voting for McCain, who, until recently, was carrying on an open affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman on our fair streets of D.C.?

Watch - the right wing will sensationalize Edwards' affair like there is no tomorrow, with headlines and talking heads discussing this as evidence that Democrats are immoral. But bringing up McCain's affair? That's blasphemy.

comment #9

Geoff says ...

I'm voting for Obama.

Vicki Iseman? That NYT article? Is there any proof?

comment #10

JHRussell says ...

"So, then I take it that you will not be voting for McCain, who, until recently, was carrying on an open affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman on our fair streets of D.C.?"

Dude, no less than the NY Times tried its damnedest to spread this one, but they got their ass handed to them over the shoddy journalism in that piece...

comment #11

dinther says ...

As a post-script, let me note that I think that what Edwards did deserves condemnation - any person who cheats on his or her spouse deserve ridicule and public scorn.

But McCain should be subjected to the same standard. Since at least 2000, journalists in DC have known about McCain's fling, but have said nothing about it publicly (whereas privately, it has been water-cooler banter). When the NYTimes was attacked for reporting it earlier this year, other media outlets sat silent. If "character" is an issue in this race, then why should McCain get a pass?

comment #12

MDOC says ...

Can we finish tar and feathering Edwards before we start with the McCain does it too lies? Sheesh

comment #13

Michael says ...

Come on, dinther...I mean, I'm voting for Obama but you can't be serious.

Open affair? Right out there on the streets? No camera phone pic or nothing? Give me a break. This isn't DKos. Sorry if this invalidates your most favoritest defense-of-Edwards post on some looney site...just take the hit, and cheer when Obama wins in November. The explanation Edwards gives is the very definition of pathetic.

comment #14

Walter Sobchak says ...

Maury: The DNA paternity test is in. John Edwards......you ARE the father of little Madison Hunter.

John Edwards: (beep) you! (beep) all y'all! You don't know me! I ain't no father to no baby by that gold-digging whore! She's all full of (beep)!

(audience goes bananas)

comment #15

Geoff says ...

"Can we finish tar and feathering Edwards before we start with the McCain does it too lies? Sheesh"

No kidding.

dinther, shut up about that article. Like Wells said on O'reilly: "we all have our fantasies."

comment #16

Teacher's Pets says ...

Was that NYT article refuted? I missed it...Anybody have a link?

What about the L.A. Times article about McCain's relationship with his current wife beginning while he was still married to the first one?

comment #17

JHRussell says ...

"Was that NYT article refuted? I missed it...Anybody have a link?"

Refuted? Completely, and also panned by the NYTimes own ombudsman (I think he is called the "public editor") who acts as an objective voice on articles that appear in the paper...

comment #18

dinther says ...

"Dude, no less than the NY Times tried its damnedest to spread this one, but they got their ass handed to them over the shoddy journalism in that piece..."

That's inaccurate, JHRussell. The NYTimes was assailed for bringing up the affair because it was (arguably) irrelevant to the main focus of the story - McCain's ties to the lobbyist - not because it wasn't true. McCain's own aides acknowledged that they were troubled by the perception of McCain spending a lot of time with Iseman. And other publications have referenced the affair - some of them openly, some of them cloaking their references within the lexicon of "relationship."

Look, I've lived in DC for years, and know a good deal of politocos and journalists, and anyone who spent time on the Hill knew this was going on back in 2000. As it goes on with other congressmen. That's the way this town rolls. The first Bush had a mistress, but it wasn't a widely publicized thing because frankly, no one cared that much, and he was a likeable enough fellow. Yeah, people will scream and wax indignant at the idea of bringing this up, but well, what else are they going to do. With McCain, the only thing missing is the videotape.

To wit, remember the "Straight Talk Express" - how McCain would adamantly confront any accusation by coming out on the bus and speaking directly to reporters on just about any issue? What happened the week after the Iseman story came out? McCain shut the STE down - he was radio silent for weeks and would not conduct any personal interviews. Instead, he issued a vague denial of the story, without allowing questions, and let others attack the NYT. Now, if his relationship was purely professional, why wouldn't he simply come out and permit questions to be asked re Iseman? Here's a guy who took on questions re: his role in the Keating Five, why not this?

Not that I think this is necessarily relevant - it could be relevant if McCain postures himself as this noble figure of great character - but whether it is or not, I don't believe that McCain should receive special treatment.

comment #19

JHRussell says ...

"That's inaccurate, JHRussell. The NYTimes was assailed for bringing up the affair because it was (arguably) irrelevant to the main focus of the story - McCain's ties to the lobbyist - not because it wasn't true."

Again, bullshit.

The NY Times was "assailed" because they didn't have the corroborating evidence to support the slimy affair innuendo the article made against McCain. They reported something they had no facts to support - that is a problem in legit journalism, but evidently not here on a movie blog...

You can continue to believe it is true because nobody ever proved it was false, but that is an ignorant way to evaluate these things, friend-o.

Time for you to "put up or STFU" on this one, dude.

comment #20

corey3rd says ...

Notice that Cindy McCain has kept a short leash on John since the rumor of the lobbyist came out. When is the last photo op the guy has done that didn't feature Cindy? She knows that he's a horndog. John McCain wouldn't be where he is if it wasn't for his cheating on a wife. Think he would be the senator from Arizona with his first wife and kids?

He proved that the best way to upgrade your life is to upgrade your wife.

John Edwards problem - he has to pay his skank. John McCain made bank off his mistress.

comment #21

SpinDozer says ...

"In the sexual history of the American Presidency, the list of Chief Executives who have had their bedroom conduct, mores and good judgment questioned, rightly or wrongly, in office or not, includes not just Clinton, Washington, Arthur, Roosevelt and Kennedy but also Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Bush."

comment #22

Geoff says ...

"When is the last photo op the guy has done that didn't feature Cindy? "

I've always attributed this to his image problem. It makes any given photo op easier on the eyes. She looks good and suddenly our attention isn't just on old man McCain.

comment #23

dinther says ...

"You can continue to believe it is true because nobody ever proved it was false, but that is an ignorant way to evaluate these things, friend-o.
Time for you to "put up or STFU" on this one, dude."

JH, I'm not sure that you understand. I and others in DC have known about the affair long before the NYT article came out, so the article wasn't news to us. We came to this understanding independent of the NYT. So when you say that we are asserting something because "nobody ever proved it was false," you're missing the point - thrusting at invisible dragons.

Now, FYI, as for "putting up," evidence of McCain's affair - evidence of McCain's reputation, and this affair, would in all likelihood be admissible in a Federal court of law were character an issue in the proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 405 and its Advisory Committee Notes. So my statements are on relatively solid footing.

Yes, I know, it's upsetting to hear, but you can choose to disbelieve it if you want. And as spindozer points out, it's not that uncommon. No need to let it upset you.

comment #24

buckzollo says ...

Unlike most people, I also forgive hypocrisy. We all know the *right* way to live, folks. Just because we violate those tenets doesn't invalidate those tenets-- it means we fucked up, and should have been better. --Count Thread

Nice words.

comment #25

buckzollo says ...

Here's the deal. Edwards is doing Obama a solid. The issue of "infidelity" slants against John McCain, big time.

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

"If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself."

But we'll try anyway.

The point Dinther is still missing, besides the difference in how solid the articles were (and I don't care what "everybody knew," that proves nothing), is what Mickey Kaus said:

If a politician is a great executive, thinker or diplomat who cheats on his brave, ill wife, you figure, "OK, We're not hiring him because of his sterling private behavior." If a politician whose chief appeal is his self-advertised loyalty to his brave, ill wife cheats on his brave ill wife, what's he good for again? And if Edwards' crucial talent as a public official is his ability to move people with tearjerky anecdotes, and those anecdotes (like the tale of his spousal loyalty, or the girl with no coat, or the anecdote that reportedly made John Kerry queasy about him)--turn out to be BS or half BS, that's more than random hypocrisy, It goes to the core of what he does and what he claims to offer.

The comparable scandal wouldn't be John McCain having cheated, it would be John McCain having collaborated with the Viet Cong-- something that completely invalidates his public persona. McCain's persona already includes screwing around on his first wife, and unlike Edwards, when he "beats himself up" he doesn't include a big heaping dose of self-flattery:

McCain: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

Edwards: "Being 99% honest is no longer enough."

comment #27

SpinDozer says ...

"he doesn't include a big heaping dose of self-flattery:

McCain: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

Sounds like he's being awfully generous in not blaming the Vietnam War...

comment #28

corey3rd says ...

John McCain was working the senate on behalf of the navy. He realized that he wanted to have a real office in Congress, but there was no way he was going to win a seat with his old wife. He was a notorious womanizer and when he found Ms. Bud, he realized it was time to make that career change. He turned down a chance to be Rear Admiral to dump his wife and marry Ms Bud.

McCain has done very well for himself with the new wife and family. And he did a nice job of covering up her bust for stealing painkillers from her charity.

The simple fact is this: John McCain wouldn't be a senator if he hadn't screwed around on his wife and kids. he wouldn't have a shot at being president without Ms. Bud's cash and connections. John McCain is proof that screwing around on your wife can completely work in your favor if you screw upward. You don't buy six houses and a private jet on a retired captain's pay.

comment #29

SpinDozer says ...

Mickey Kaus said:

Lincolns infidelity betrays the concept of ending Chattel Slavery. Roosevelt's indescretions call into question the New Deal. Martin Luther King's zipper problem negates the entire civil rights movement.

Might as well go full on with the Right Wing wish fulfillment theme.

comment #30

Movie Watcher says ...

Edwards is finished, at least for now. He was not going to be prez/vice prez, so who gives a shit? I know our old friends at Fox News will run with it, but that's to be expected. I do feel sorry for his wife, who now must be humiliated. As for politicans, this goes back to the beginning. I wonder what those great leaders, back in the 17 and 1800's, who were white, were doing with the slaves? Same shit as today. Many things have changed, but the fucking stays the same.

comment #31

EB says ...

Gee another politician getting caught with his pants down.

What else is new...

comment #32

dkaye says ...

To show you just how snuggled up in bed the mainstream media is with the Republicans, I heard David Gregory say on "Race for the White House" earlier, "Will (the Edwards affair) be a shadow on Barack Obama?" Never mind the two fucking blonde shadows on the presumptive Republican nominee himself. And even if McCain kept it in his pants, his fellow Repugnant candidate and later endorser, Rudy Giuliani, did everything but put it in his mistress' (later 3rd wife's) eager mouth in public in New York City a little while back.

But no...instead it's "How can we somehow twist this back onto Obama because all us so-called journalists love Johnny and our corporate masters need us to keep to the script?"

comment #33

Ogami Itto says ...

David Gregory is one of Karl Rove's back-up dancers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYZre8kEsuw

A pretty good metaphor for the establishment media.

comment #34

dkaye says ...

Wolf Blitzer, another water-carrier for the Bush/Cheney/McCain/etc. crime syndicate, was also asking what this means for the Obama campaign, just like a good furry little lapdog.

comment #35

Mgmax says ...

Boy, good thing we didn't get too many rightwing kooks from Jeff's appearance on O'Reilly....

comment #36

SpinDozer says ...

'Boy, good thing we didn't get too many rightwing kooks from Jeff's appearance on O'Reilly....'

One of the few things we've always managed to run a surplus on...

comment #37

MDOC says ...

Clearly Edwards only engaged in this stunt to challenge Anne Coulters questioning of his sexuality. Finally a candidate who can take on the vast right wing dominated media. Maybe we have our VP after all.

comment #38

MilkMan says ...

John Edwards looks like a college basketball coach.

comment #39

snackyx says ...

The National Enquirer is currently working on their next blockbuster expose: that a certain Andy Coulter had a "delicate" surgery many years ago in Sweden and has been posing as a political pundit in the United States. Developing.

comment #40

Mgmax says ...

"One of the few things we've always managed to run a surplus on..."

Really, Spinny, I might agree that me vs. a dozen liberals is an even match, but it would be arrogant to say that there's a surplus on my side.

comment #41

SpinDozer says ...

it would be arrogant to say that there's a surplus on my side.

One nutter is too many, plus DP's Gut, Ferris, Massey, Sobchak, JHR, Soopa, Indeed, NYBB, DBomb, & several others whom I've forgotten. Not so much the qty, but the excess number of posts.

comment #42

SpinDozer says ...

even match = mgmax v. wet paper towel/5 fingers

comment #43

dangovich says ...

It's too bad Brian Ross didn't apply those great investigative reporting skills to his bogus "the anthrax is from Iraq!" stories in 2001.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

JHR: "What a sleaze ball - his love child was born during the primaries while he was chastising the Bush admin for the mishandling of the Katrina aftermath -"

I'll agree with the first part, but we haven't established it was his child. And Bush is still more evil than Edwards, especially since he had his own affair.

Count Thread: "People have affairs. Even good people."

I never considered Edwards to be "good", since he helped Bush win re-election.

'Of course, the same could have been-- and was-- said of Bill Clinton, but everybody defended him, too. "It's just a blowjob." No, it's not-- it's the arrogance, the entitlement, the "I can do anything I want and get away with it and I answer to no one-- not my wife, not my co-workers, not my country."'

I think the reason we defended Bill was because his wife didn't have cancer, and because the Republicans were doing the same things, while claiming the moral high ground.

Geoff: "Did he honstly believe he could get to where Obama is today?"

He could have gotten there, if he had backbone.

dinther: "So, then I take it that you will not be voting for McCain, who, until recently, was carrying on an open affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman on our fair streets of D.C.?"

McCain's always had a scummy side to him, especially when he was in bed with Charles Keating. What bugs me about Edwards is that he's wasting his time with the "other woman", when he should have been standing up to Bush.

Walter: I was hoping he'd do a dance like that other guy on Maury. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wbLdYeZvoc

corey: "John Edwards problem - he has to pay his skank. John McCain made bank off his mistress."

Edwards' problem is that he claims he's on the side of the little guy, but hasn't done a damn thing to back it up since he became a politician.

"The simple fact is this: John McCain wouldn't be a senator if he hadn't screwed around on his wife and kids."

Kerry's equally as uncharismatic as McCain, and he still managed to get a seat in the Senate.

Finally, I'm going to have to agree with Mgmax's analogy; and I was willing to let Bill slide.

comment #45

BurmaShave says ...

haha so we know that it's spindozer who is assembling the blacklist...

comment #46

CMAC says ...

OH MIEN GAWD!

A human being (who had the audacity to run for president) had an affair!! Wait ....(catching my breath)......Get the rope! He should be hung!! NO! ELECTRICUTED!!!!! Wait!! Let's get many tons of folk to drag him out into the streets and then have many "people in ski masks with pretend army uniforms" present to SLICE his head off. ON..?...No...vait...YOU TUBE! Excellent.

Oh my Gawd,....I feel SA-HOH much better...Tanks Wolf Blitzkreig and Anderson Cooperhahgen. You make me feel safe again.
Zeig Heil!
(see you at the next meeting MEIN FURHERS!!! oooooops I mean my friends.)

comment #47

Walter Sobchak says ...

Aahh, DKaye... someone who finally speaks the TRUTH!

Those rightwing Republican shills like Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs, Jack Cafferty, Greta Van Sustren, Terry Moran, Barbara Walters, Leslie Stahl, Dan Abrams, Bob Schieffer, Everyone at NPR, David Shuster, Robin Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, Steve Kroft, Mike Barnicle, Charlie Gibson are ALL in the tank for John McCain!

Finally someone tells it like it is!

Thanks, DKaye!

comment #48

Craptastic says ...

Since there's nothing here to comment on the Olympics, I'm going to take it on my own....

I had an inkling based simply on observing the William's-esque music and the simple, yet powerful obviousness of most of the presentations during the opening ceremonies and then spoke with a couple of people who were close to the project...

A majority of what you saw tonight were Spielberg's original ideas.

Think about it: kid-centric, the music, space exploration, an E.T.-esque "ship-thing"
rising out of the floor...

All it needed was Christian Bale and Janet Yang to round it out... :)

comment #49

Mgmax says ...

Not to continue my orgy of D.Z.-praise, but he seems to understand what many do not, so I'll repeat it.

Two big differences with Clinton's affairs. One, he portrayed himself from the beginning as a fellow with a roving eye-- as a sinner. If you didn't want an adulterer in the White House, you had your chance to evaluate that after watching 60 Minutes in 1992. No doubt many did, many others did not. (Much the same, of course, applies to the verifiable parts of McCain's history, and to how one might perceive any subsequent rumors floated by tabloids like The New York Times.) If you bought Clinton anyway, as I did, it was because he was a man of vigor and substance, who could talk your ear off about the lending practices of the Grameen Bank and whatnot.

Edwards, on the other hand, ran as a saint, a Robin Hood champion of the poor. Paper thin on policy, he was all about feeling our pain and making us cry, all about the deep sincerity of his feelings. When it turns out that's all humbug, there's nothing left but the popped balloon, no substance but the air. A Tartuffe like that is just waiting to have his hypocrisy revealed for all to laugh at.

The other, simply, is the baby. I think most people would say that a man who has created two families already, one with a new baby and the other with a woman with breast cancer, has his hands full with the mess he's made of his own life-- and doesn't need to be taking on the responsibilities of the free world to boot.

comment #50

Mgmax says ...

There are reports (apparently more solid this time) that Bernie Mac has died:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/1099622,xmac080908.article

comment #51

JHRussell says ...

"JH, I'm not sure that you understand. I and others in DC have known about the affair long before the NYT article came out, so the article wasn't news to us. We came to this understanding independent of the NYT. So when you say that we are asserting something because "nobody ever proved it was false," you're missing the point - thrusting at invisible dragons."

No, I understand. You have ZERO evidence. The NY Times had/has ZERO evidence. Nobody has produced a single scrap of evidence.

But that is not going to stop you from "believing" what you want to believe...

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and breath some fresh air for a change.

comment #52

SpinDozer says ...

'Edwards, on the other hand, ran as a saint...A Tartuffe like that is just waiting to have his hypocrisy revealed for all to laugh at.

Like MLK?

Here's an example that even you should be able to grasp, Larry Craig & Mark Foley were Right Wing Saints slashing taxes on the rich and (anti-Robin Hood) posed as morally upright fellows. Which specific political platform they advocated was undermined by their extracurricular activities?

Grow Up.

comment #53

dinther says ...

Heh - thanks for that JH - you gave me my laugh for the day. Seems like someone has some anger-management issues. And I love your use of ALL CAPS - that is really an effective way to get your point across...

Yeah, "no evidence." You plainly have no clue as to what goes on in DC, or what we are exposed to here - but that doesn't stop JHRussell! I mean, the idea that McCain would be having an affair with an attractive women that he spent inordinate amounts of social time with and who even Republicans believed was involved with him romantically - that's just impossible to believe!

But apparently, this is too much for you to bear. I didn't mean to upset you so much.

Now please, return to your regularly-scheduled wife-beating.

comment #54

MDOC says ...

Mgmax you are probably my favorite poster here. Don't use DZ as an example of someone who gets it. It instantly invalidates your position, your better than that.

comment #55

Mgmax says ...

I was rather hoping it would make the point to those who still don't see the point. Like SpinDozer, who seems to be arguing that because Larry Craig and Mark Foley had their careers ended in scandals, John Edwards should NOT suffer the same punishment.

The point, for the very simple, is that it's only career-killing hypocrisy if it relates to the core of your appeal. Edwards talked big about what a family man he was. He was so big a family man he started two of them! That's why it's a killer.

The comparable thing for King would not be adultery, it would be, I dunno, if it turned out he only hired high-yellow blacks and not very dark-skinned ones for the SCLC.

comment #56

supertaster says ...

"the right wing will sensationalize Edwards' affair like there is no tomorrow"

uhh, I think the left wing is doing a fine enough ob themselves.

Why do these things always dissolve in left vs. right swordfights?

Doozy (I'll refrain from my normal Dozebag monicker), most people come here to engage in some civil debate, and for the most part it stays that way. If someone sways me I'll admit as such ... I'm actually OPEN to NEW ideas. Imagine that. The fact that I'm rarely persuaded by what is often the tired rehashing of the same objectivity-bereft arguments is besides the point. Every once in a while it happens.

The counter-liberal posters here (I hesitate to say conservative) seem much more articulate and intelligent than your run of the mill Voight-emailer, and I think if you looked up from the crosshairs now and again you'd be able to tell the difference. Like the left, the right has a ton of retards who make it harder pick the good ones out of the crowd, but we must not let them destroy debate entirely.

Whether you simply refrain from acknowledging any good ideas or believe you have all the answers, I can't say. The former takes the fun out of it, the latter is narcissicm.

Lighten up just a little and you'll be a much happier person (and more enjoyable poster for the rest of us).

comment #57

MDOC says ...

Mgmax, oh I get what your trying to do, I'm just saying watch out who you hitch your wagon to.

I posted a similar thought on another blog but I have been thinking a lot about what it would take to get someone to switch their vote from Obama to McCain, or vice versa. To the entrenched it's probably impossible. I could produce a photo of Obama sodomizing a kitten and the first poster would mention the Keating Five. It's hopeless, if your a Red Sox fan the Yankees are evil, and vice versa. It's no different here with politics. There's no middle ground.
The bottom line is if your a Dem, and you step for a moment out of damage control mode, you have to acknowledge that you needed John Edwards to keep his nose clean, the guys a key figure. As it turned out he lost the primary but he was in the hunt. Let's say he won and right now this story broke a couple weeks before the convention. It would cost him votes and possibly the election. Under that scenario this guy would have handed over power to Republicans. Let the guy have it, he seriously let you down. I know everybody cheats and it's accepted in society, but not in politics. It's a double standard but it is what it is.

comment #58

MDOC says ...

I will admit that Democrats should be proud of themselves for not embacing Edwards candidacy. You backed the right horse, good judgement.

comment #59

Mgmax says ...

Dems who can get past partisan tit-for-tat surely realize that this helps Obama slightly; one less alternative to think might have been better, one more disgraced pol who makes Obama look like the, so to speak, white knight.

Certainly the timing is preferable to, say, a month from now. And may have been pushed by the Obama folks for that reason.

comment #60

SpinDozer says ...

" SpinDozer, who seems to be arguing John Edwards should NOT suffer the same punishment."

Spindozer did no such thing. Free clue: Edwards career is over, his ambition for political office was over some time ago. the sexual lives of pols is not nothing, but its closer to Nothing than Everything.

"The point, for the very simple, is that it's only career-killing hypocrisy if it relates to the core of your appeal. Edwards talked big about what a family man he was. He was so big a family man he started two of them! That's why it's a killer."

You dodged the question, but here is the answer. Foley & Craig's campaign rhetoric on sexual morality issues was the only part of their "public service" undermined by their extracurricular activities. To the extent Edwards shared the Foley & Craig public posture on these issues, he is justifiably exposed to censure on that specific issue.

What you, Kaus, & (thankfully few) Obamamaniacs/Edwards haters (Like Wells) have done is to conflate the adultery with all the public policy & campaign rhetoric you disagree with. Straight outta Tailgunner Joe's playbook.

Edwards stressed his family in equal proportion to other candidates, & if you think he's the only one of that number playing hide-the-salami on the side, I have some real estate opportunities you might be interested in.

comment #61

SpinDozer says ...

'Doozy (I'll refrain from my normal Dozebag monicker), most people come here to engage in some civil debate'

On the contrary, grasshopper, most of the "non-liberal" posters here come here to regurgitate propaganda unfiltered from right wing media sources, and we can agree to disagree on whether they are civil o,r whether such material in its very nature is civil, or not.

comment #62

SpinDozer says ...

partisan tit-for-tat'

Exclusive property of mgmaxkaus associates, all rights reserved.

comment #63

JHRussell says ...

dinther:

Provide evidence of McCain's affair or STFU.

Pretty simple standard.

FWIW - I lived inside the beltway for 20 years as an adult. Not sure what that has to do with anything...you are trying to paint yourself as some "insider" when you are nothing but a douche bag hump posting unsubstantiated rumors on a movie blog...you are just like every other idiot I ever met in DC who tries to climb the power ladder and will stop at nothing to get to the top...

Face it, you are a nobody who knows nothing...

comment #64

Mgmax says ...

"Edwards stressed his family in equal proportion to other candidates"

I rest my case on your cluelessness.

comment #65

Mgmax says ...

By the way, no love for Bernie Mac? I thought he brought a lot more to the party than most of the current bunch of black comics (if Martin Lawrence disappeared tomorrow he'd still owe me $16 for What's the Worst That Could Happen? and Nothing To Lose).

comment #66

JHRussell says ...

"By the way, no love for Bernie Mac? I thought he brought a lot more to the party than most of the current bunch of black comics (if Martin Lawrence disappeared tomorrow he'd still owe me $16 for What's the Worst That Could Happen? and Nothing To Lose)."

I agree.

Jeff has lost his grip on the proper balance between movie stuff and political crap...I participate in both kinds of threads, but I come here for the movie stuff, and that has been lacking for months...I used to come every day, but I go weeks between visits now (nothwithstanding the last few days)...

comment #67

SpinDozer says ...

'I rest my case on your cluelessness.'

OMG! You're right! I have never gotten a flyer for someone campaigning for Lt. Gov. with a picture of his wife & family, candidates for city council never mention the duration of their marriages or how many offspring they have bestowed upon humanity. Nope, no one has ever tried to pass tehmselves off a a regular guy because, like you he has a family. You will never, now that Edwards is outta the way, see a spouse and children up on the convention podium, etc. Thanks for setting me straight clued-in guy!

comment #68

dinther says ...

"you are just like every other idiot I ever met in DC who tries to climb the power ladder and will stop at nothing to get to the top..." (!) "Douche bag hump?" "STFU" (?)

Brilliant argument, JH! Obviously, you grasp the finer nuances of modern civil argument! Yes, you have uncovered me!! I am clawing my way to the top by posting on Hollywood Elsewhere - the most obvious avenue for anyone seeking to gain the upper hand in DC's dog-eat-dog political world. And yes, posting about McCain's affair was my ticket - because I am the ONLY ONE (how's that for use of all-caps?) who has ever conveyed this story!! But for your uncanny ability to sniff out the truth, I could have leveraged this exclusive bombshell to, dare I say, a prominent cabinet post?? But for you, you meddling Hollywood Elsewhere poster - you foiled my plan!!

Listen, JH, I don't have a dog in this fight and I am not, sadly, an insider - I prosecute dumbshits like you for a living. You don't have to be an insider to have known about this. But, alas, you got me - I don't have a video of McCain and Iseman bumping uglies. I guess, in your world, it never happened then.

comment #69

JHRussell says ...

dinther:

You must be a hell of a prosecutor if you prosecute "dumbshits" like me without any proof, any evidence...that is some standard you live by - rumor and innuendo trump evidence, thus one is guilty until proven innocent...

No proof. No evidence. Show us some, or link us to a credible journalistic source, but until then...STFU.

comment #70

D.Z. says ...

Spin: MLK fought the good fight. Edwards let Bush do whatever he wanted, including win 2004.

comment #71

Mgmax says ...

Another point for DZ. Nobody zoomed from centrist to far-left populist faster than Edwards, not even Al Gore.

As somebody said yesterday, we were just another jury to be hornswoggled for a payday.

comment #72

Scott Mendelson says ...

Let's presume for the moment that it's high moral outrage to cheat on your wife and then use your strong family ties as a core point of appeal for your political reputation (ie - if Chris Dodd had been caught in this situation, it wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal). It's wrong, it's sleazy, it's not appropriate behavior for an alleged role model. Having said that...

On one hand, it was incredibly narcissistic and reckless of John Edwards (with the apparent full knowledge and consent of his wife) to run for president with this major and recent skeleton in his closet. On the other hand, myself and others have been saying for years that the unrealistic expectations concerning the private behavior of public officials has been one of the reasons that so few genuinely good and interesting people choose to get involved with politics.

It's a complicated situation and I don't claim to have any more wisdom on it than anyone else. I still highly approve of John Edwards's politics and where he stands on social and economic issues. I voted for him in 2004 and, after Christ Dodd and Dennis Kucinich dropped out early, I was seriously considering voting for him this time around before he too dropped out. Were he to run again, I'm not certain that I wouldn't vote for him, depending on who his competition was. I've always said 'it's about the issues, not whether you like the person'. This may be the ultimate test of said philosophy.

On a slightly less high and mighty note, I wonder if the veracity of this much discussed tabloid story will cause anyone to think again about the 'tabloid rumors' that occasionally pop up concerning the crumbling of the Bush marriage (a librarian and an anti-intellectual alleged illiterate - I really thought they could make it) and allegations of infidelity between George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Just a thought...

comment #73

D.Z. says ...

Scott: "On the other hand, myself and others have been saying for years that the unrealistic expectations concerning the private behavior of public officials has been one of the reasons that so few genuinely good and interesting people choose to get involved with politics."

Well, as I said earlier, Eddie's had a wretched political record, too.

"I've always said 'it's about the issues, not whether you like the person'. This may be the ultimate test of said philosophy."

I care about the issues, too. It's just a shame he was willing to throw them under the bus to win 2004.

"On a slightly less high and mighty note, I wonder if the veracity of this much discussed tabloid story will cause anyone to think again about the 'tabloid rumors' that occasionally pop up concerning the crumbling of the Bush marriage (a librarian and an anti-intellectual alleged illiterate - I really thought they could make it) and allegations of infidelity between George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Just a thought."

I think cheating's the least of Bush's problems.

comment #74

Josh says ...

another phony liberal comes out. spitzer, clinton, and now edwards

ouch

comment #75

bb says ...

Dinther,

Living in LA, I know a lot of actors, directors and gaffers and I know a lot of people that had friends that had friends that were in the emergency room when a gerbil was pulled out of a certain actor's ass.

Where I come from, that's not inside information, that's rumor.

comment #76

dinther says ...

this thread is still alive?

bb, yea, no doubt, there's a wide spectrum of sources of varying reliability. And if this were conveyed via "a friend of a friend" I wouldn't put much stock in it. But this information was first hand, from Senate staffers who worked in offices around McCain, and yes, news media people as well. Back then, it wasn't that big of a deal.

You'll form your own judgment, but based upon what I've heard, I do believe the story is essentially true.