Poor Petey.

Here's the thing: his family found out about the affair in 2006. How on earth did he think a presidential campaign would survive such allegations -- and he had to know they would come out, sooner or later -- given that he kicked off his presidential campaign soon thereafter?

It's not just the affair that makes Edwards look bad-- it's the narcissism of deciding to run for president after having been caught in the affair, thinking that it wouldn't eventually find its way into the press. The guy was putting the entire Democratic party at risk by creating the possibility that he might actually get nominated.

I agree Tyro. It pisses me off much more as a Democrat than as a human being.

The worst part of this will be the smug satisfaction on the part of Mickey Kaus. I'm sure he's off somewhere spontaneously orgasming over and over again.

i'm sure we all realize how fucking fucked the party would be right now if Edwards won, which he had a good chance of doing.

what was he thinking running for president?

Why did he "have to know" it was coming out? The whole Jennifer Fitzgerald thing never came out until the 1992 campaign, and only then because the Republicans "started it" by bringing up Gennifer Flowers. Oh, right, because he's a Democrat.

Kaus is infuriating, but at least he covered this during the primary, while Edwards was a viable candidate.

Kaus played a better role in averting the disaster of nominating Edwards than did all the progressive sites which pretended nothing was happening.

Some of us had Edwards pegged as an overly ego-driven candidate long ago, before any of this came out.

What was he thiking? What was he thinking?

What are you all talking about? Edwards actions are completely in line with the Democratic party. The party has never been so truly united, never fought harder, never worked harder for their President then when Bill Clinton screwed an intern.

What did you think your candidates were going to learn from that experience?

Clinton was a rock star, women who opposed men using their power for sexual favors from women did an immediate 180 and trashed the girl and praised Bill.
the media all embraced Bill and painted the women who outed him as sluts, whores and trailer trash.

Edwards is probably wondering where are all those Democrats that jumped on Bills bandwagon when he did the same thing.

He may have seen this as a great stepping off point for Elizabeth to run fro Senator, and then maybe President!

The party has never been so truly united, never fought harder, never worked harder for their President then when Bill Clinton screwed an intern.

Screwed? Learn your history, man.

I have to agree that Petey is the real loser in all of this.

Not only was he the most obnoxious Edwards booster around, but he claimed incessantly that the Enquirer was controlled by a Clinton ally and thus the whole thing was some evil slimy Clinton plot.

John Edwards will be fine, I expect, but will Petey ever recover?

I'm with joel w. As a human being, I don't care about what people do in their private lives. He probably hurt some people, but that's between them.

But jeez, the idea that he had this going on and he ran to be the Dem standard bearer, and that he encouraged Veep and Cabinet speculation (not to mention an anemic Presidential nomination campaign) for months after it was clear that the word was out is just disgusting. Peoples' lives depend on who gets into the White House.

If only out of generosity, I'd almost like to believe he deliberately engineered the proof of his affair coming out during the silly season and before the Olympics and the Convention.

Petey must be dying without Matt's blog to incessantly troll right now.

smartest thing he did was to announce it today.

On the one hand, Tyro is right. On the other, if Tyro is right- then our political system is fucked.

How on earth did he think a presidential campaign would survive such allegations -- and he had to know they would come out, sooner or later -- given that he kicked off his presidential campaign soon thereafter? - Tyro

I generally agree with your point ... speaking as a moralizing Bible thumper, I gotta say what Edwards did was wrong. More importantly, speaking as a Democrat, I gotta say what Edwards did was stupid and destructive to the very causes he claims to believe in.

As to your question of "why?" Since when has being an adulterer been a problem before? As mentioned above and elsewhere, it wasn't a problem for Reagan, it wasn't a problem for Bush I, it hasn't been (yet) a problem for McCain ... of course, it was a problem for Clinton, but he was smooth enough that it didn't kill him politically.

There is some serious IOKIYAR hypocrisy going on that Edwards' affair matters (and would have killed his candidacy if he were nominated) but the affairs of various GOoPers, who claim to be in the party of morality, do not matter.

That being said, ya play the cards you're dealt. Edwards knew these cards and shoulda not run for the nomination (his very running will be used against us Dems) given these cards and what he did.

Oh Ezra, the piety.

At the risk of too much "ought" and not enough "is"... I really think we need to have a national conversation about why why why this is disqualifying for the presidency or anything else besides Husband of the Year?

I mean wasn't that the lesson of Lewinsky? That extramarital tomfoolery really doesn’t affect one’s ability to carry out quite ably the functions of public service? And given that Clinton arguably emerged from that debacle a more popular president, is it possible that the American people have arrived at a place of clear-eyed maturity about the sex lives of their politicians?

No. Instead, in a garish act of national voyeurism, we have to make Edwards confess to the nation what only his wife is really entitled to know. It’s the political/media class who, though many of them I’m sure are libertines in their own personal affairs, have foisted this tawdriness on us. But of course they’re too respectable to go panty-sniffing around hotels. They’ll let the lowlifes at the National Enquirer do that. Once the dirty work is done, though, they’ll stoke the fires of moralism and give over the entire 24-hour news cycle to the astonishing revelation that a married guy was getting some on the side.

Shame on them!

DAS, there's a difference between having committed adultery in your past (McCain, Reagan, Clinton) and saying, "my marriage has had its ups and downs, but we are committed to each other" and having an affair on the eve of kicking off your presidential campaign. One may question whether this is fair or not, but, as you say, Edwards knew what cards he had been dealt and knew the rules of the game and ran anyway. He had a certain responsibility not only to his wife, but to his supporters. He betrayed his wife and put the interests of his supporters at risk.

Will knowing Edwards cheated on his wife make my health insurance cheaper? If Tyro is right, we are fucked as a country. To me this is a little like seeing someone being beat to death, but being more fascinated by the couple having sex on the front lawn. That's America in a nutshell. This is why McCain can run such a trivial campaign about who is a celebrity. Let's be honest- we all each this stuff up like catnip.

I really think we need to have a national conversation about why why why this is disqualifying for the presidency or anything else besides Husband of the Year?
I mean wasn't that the lesson of Lewinsky? That extramarital tomfoolery really doesn’t affect one’s ability to carry out quite ably the functions of public service?

Bart doesn't seem to get what the whole world understands and that is character counts.

A liar is a liar and if he lies to his familiy, what makes you think he wouldn't lie to the voters, congress, etc.? Edwards in particular is more dispicable for having this affair while his wife is in a battle for her life.

As pointed out above many times, he also put his party at jeapordy by seeking the presidency all the while knowing this would torpedo everything if discovered. His selfish actions demonstrate that he was willing to risk it all for a piece of ass.

Yes, character matters...especially in the highest office in the land.

On the other hand, I'm not going to complain if, now, the reply to anyone trying to foment problems over the Edwards affair gets met with the reply, "Certainly adulterous, homewrecking sleazeballs like Edwards and McCain, along with their paramours Rielle Hunter and Cindy Hensley create nothing but embarrassment for their supporters and heartache for their families." McCain is really in a position where he has to remain silent on this one or, at least, make a public statement to the effect of, "The Edwards family must be having a hard time right now, and I hope they get through it ok."

this is a little like seeing someone being beat to death, but being more fascinated by the couple having sex on the front lawn.

I'd implore the couple to stop having sex, stop distracting every one, and call the police about the guy getting beat to death. Sure, you can blame the onlookers, but you can also blame the couple.

When you're a public figure vying for a leadership position, you have a greater responsibility than joe blow.

The whole Jennifer Fitzgerald thing never came out until the 1992 campaign, and only then because the Republicans "started it" by bringing up Gennifer Flowers. Oh, right, because he's a Democrat.

No, because he's a politician. IOKIYAR exists, but reporting on sex scandals tends to be bipartisan. The examples elsewhere in this thread - Reagan's divorce and remarriage, McCain's divorce, adultery and remarriage - both happened decades before either man was a presidential candidate. By contrast, Jack Ryan's predilections were newsworthy, as were those of Rudy Giuliani, Vito Fossella, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley and others.

A liar is a liar and if he lies to his familiy, what makes you think he wouldn't lie to the voters, congress, etc.?

Oh my god, that old canard again? Fella goes by the name of George W. Bush...no evidence that he ever cheated on the missus...and he never lied to Congress or the Amer...d'oh never mind.

I understand why you want to believe that El V. It's a very reassuring way to look at the world. It's bull. You need a healthy dose of cynicism.

While you were wasting time trying to tell the couple to stop having sex, you could have been saving the life of the person being beat to death. Opportunity cost. Thanks for making my point for me. America is fucked.

I'm sorry, you're wondering why Edwards ran in spite of an affair?

Uh, VICKY ISEMAN! CINDY HENSLEY!

It's pretty clear you can cheat on your wife--much, much more flagrantly than Edwards did--and get away with it.

I was so depressed about this for the very reasons Ezra describes but I have to say the "Poor Petey" made me laugh lots.

Somehow I think this and the probably horrendous Clinton emails of next week will make everyone realize Obama was, ironically, our safest choice.

The premise of the post seems to be that none of the other candidates were doing anything similar. I see no reason to assume that. For all we know Barack Obama's been getting laid left and right.

This event allows one to make more sense as to why Edwards chose Marcotte as his blogger.

Birds of a feather. Both liars.

I am sure Obama is getting laid left and right ... with his wife.

not surprising, frankly. Narcissistic, ambitious alpha males like Edwards and Bill Clinton are adulterers exhibit A. As for lying about it? I'm reminded of a story Bob Shrum told in his book.

"Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling."

A guy who'd do something like that would do anything.

P.S. OTOH, I would SHOCKED if Obama ever had an affair. For no other reason than that he's way too disciplined to slip up like that.

I am also sure that Hillary Clinton has never had an affair.

We all know that Elizabeth wears the pants in that relationship--and rightfully so. And wasn't it reported that it was *her* desire for him to run despite her cancer recurrence? Well, maybe she made him run as punishment...either so that he could atone for his action by making a difference in the world fighting for important causes (win or lose), or so that he could face the public humiliation of having it come out in the media, which is probably the worst punishment of all.

I am also sure that Hillary Clinton has never had an affair.

I'm not. Unless you define "having an affair" to only encompass intercourse with members of the opposite sex.

(Not saying she did. Only that I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, and hence I'm not "sure."

Petey's official comment on the John Edwards revelations:

Let's see what the specifics are after Nightline. Details always matter in long-lived stories, and let's see what those details are.

I have only two thoughts in the meantime:

- Full props for the discipline of holding it for an extra week to drop it into the best newshole of the season.

- And Whoa! Robert Loggia!

Petey: "- And Whoa! Robert Loggia!"

i'm somewhat impressed, Petey. You showed up.

Ezra: This reaches back and recasts his candidacy as an act of extraordinary selfishness.

Precisely. If you want to have an affair, that's on your conscience. But you have no right to ask your party for THE leadership position, while hiding that very recent affair. It will come out, and it will be damaging - and even if you make it past the electoral finish line first, you are subject to all kinds of pressures that you don't have the right to make possible - not to mention the Ken Starr-like pursuit by enemies.

Shame isn't a strong enough word, IMO. Rejection is appropriate, in all Dem. party forums, now and forever.

Yes! Obamabots proven right again. Petey proven wrong for the ten jillionth time.

If I was a reporter I would so ask Hillary and Bill about their reactions. Bill would probably throw a temper tantrum and wag his finger.

I don't understand the new standard we're adopting here. Are we saying any Democrat who runs for office while concealing a big skeleton in their closet is pond scum? Because, like, that's everyone.

I am sure Obama is getting laid left and right ... with his wife.

I don't know - didn't she say something about them not sleeping in the same bed?

In all seriousness - you can pretty much assume that all presidential candidates have screwed around. You see, men, they like to have sex with women - and not just their wives. I know women don't like to hear this, but if you think your husband or boyfriend hasn't cheated on you, you're either wrong, or he hasn't had the opportunity.

Here's a link about the stats for infidelity:

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html

I should point out that I grew up in a small rural town where the sort of throwing the hands up in the air to moralize was common practice. I ran away from that town to get away from this mindset, but apparently it's an American one. Yes, I get the point about Edwards hubris given our political discourse in this country. But, what I don't get on a deeper political level is our level of discourse in the following --

a) what our reactions say about us when the stats clearly shows we are a nation of cheaters

b) with the form-0ver-substance criteria proliferating for the Presidency- how does this limit our candidate pool?

c) how do we address the double standard- Vitters versus say the reaction to the former governor of NY. I want to take this out of the the tawdry and reflect it as a mirror on the audience here. What does your reaction say about you? Your ability to have discourse that's not subject to easy manipulation?

It's possible that if Edwards had been more blatant about his affair--openly parading around with the mistress, kicking the wife out of the house, and so on, they he could have campaigned for president without this hurting him. This could certainly have worked if he had married her except for one thing.

Elizabeth's cancer was big news and she is a very sympathetic figure in the country. I know Newt divorced his first wife while she was recovering from cancer surgery, but he's not president, is he?

This is not an example of IOKIYAR. The Republican examples are all affairs that happened years in the past and ended in divorce and remarriage.

Edwards is a self-centered pompous phony. I regret casting my vote for him in the primary.

Petey, does this mean we can call you by your real name from now on? Rielle does sound nicer, IMHO. The commercial was a dead give-away.

Monomaniac El Vag can at least be confident that he'll never be subject to a sexual scandal. One has to have sex in order for that to happen.

The Republican examples are all affairs that happened years in the past and ended in divorce and remarriage.

Um, isn't it more admirable to work through the issue and stay married to the first person? Isn't that what the commitment of marriage is all about? Isn't that better for the kids, better for stability?

Rudy, John McCain, et al simply find a new woman and ditch their first wife (and kids).

Pseud, El Viagrao does have sex, every night, with itself.

"I'd implore the couple to stop having sex, stop distracting every one, and call the police about the guy getting beat to death. Sure, you can blame the onlookers, but you can also blame the couple."

How perfectly Puritan; why not just go join the fundamentalists?

Full props for the discipline of holding it for an extra week to drop it into the best newshole of the season.

Agree that the time was well chosen, but the execution is lacking. The exploitation of a news hole depends on the story fitting entirely within it; a partial admission that leaves a number of obvious questions open, however true it may be, won't bring the closure we need.

Good looking candidate has affair, Blog Left, the Village, MSM shocked, as conventional wisdom [as handed down by the RNC] had him pegged as a fag.

News at 11:00

Frankly I'm a little surprised at the hyperbolic language of condemnation spewing fourth from Obama supporters given the fact that Barak has spoken on the subject and was quite clear that affairs are a private matter and in no way disqualify somebody for the presidency.

In the process of pillaring Edwards Blog Left is throwing a lot of great Democratic Presidents under the bus. I hope some of the posters above aren't too clueless to understand, if it comes out that Barak has had an affair you had better expect the MSM to go after him and his supporters with tongs...after all you adopted right wing themes as your own...but hey, when you're young, you throw a lot rocks, it's only later you find out the truth in life...we all live in glass houses. All of us.

It's a stupid move for a president [candidate] to have an affair, but then again our very best have...and the crappiest ones haven't, so you can take your pick. Myself? I vote for policies not personalities. Reagan had a magnetic personality, he never got my vote. I am told by the MSM that Scalia is a charmer, I think his decisions suck. See? Not hard, don't worship personalities, vote for policies you think the candidate will implement. If it turned out Edwards was running a sweatshop in the Marianas Islands, that would effect my opinion of him because it would indicate he was insincere in his policy proposals, but an affair has nothing to do with the campaign pledges Edwards made. Nothing.

It's Elizabeth's and John's matter to sort out...nobody else's. I don't care how sanctimonious you are, you have no business in a candidates marriage. Period.

If the affair was over before the child was conceived, what the hell was he doing in a hotel room with Rielle and said child??? This story is not over, and the affair per se would not have sunk him, imho. It's a strange world where people like Spitzer, and now Edwards, are vaporized over this, yet Bill Clinton continues to be fawned over.

"a partial admission that leaves a number of obvious questions open, however true it may be, won't bring the closure we need."

There is refuge in the truth.

You can tell a complex story if you're rigorous about the details, and if you don't care about the short-term hit.

Considering that I think the hit is his, and not the Party's, I don't see the problem with him only admitting to what he's actually guilty of.

Good people sometimes do selfish, stupid things. I think it was selfish of Edwards to have this affair, but it does not make his whole message phony or ego-driven.

If there's anything that makes me suspect that his message was phony or ego-driven, it's more the fact that as a senator, his record was somewhat at odds with his populist stance. Some might argue that this is just what he "had to do" to be a senator from North Carolina. Fair enough, but on what grounds can we claim that the populism of his 2008 campaign was his "true ideals" and his senate term reflected "doing what he had to do?" Why not the reverse? Or maybe he has generically left-of-center political ideals that have no real dog in the fight between blue dogs and lefty populists, and was just adopting whichever one would be most useful as a senator or a primary candidate?

Okay. At any rate, for all I know, Edwards is a sincere, lefty populist idealist. I'm just saying that, insofar as anything makes me doubt that, it's more his senate term than his affair with Hunter.

Anyway, my sympathies for Elizabeth Edwards, who must be having a tough time of it at the moment. I think she's a tough woman, but life has really been kicking her around hard lately. Having your husband lose the primary and finding that you're terminally ill and having it publicly revealed that your husband cheated on you -- it's at that point that you have to wonder how much worse things can get. Anyway, I hope that she's handling all of this as well as can be hoped for.

Considering that I think the hit is his, and not the Party's, I don't see the problem with him only admitting to what he's actually guilty of.

I agree entirely, and I continue to take Edwards at his word.

My point was just that if the aim was to have this story concluded by the end of a Friday-Saturday news cycle, that appears unlikely to happen because the admission is partial and somewhat puzzling. The media being what it is, and not what it ought to be, they'll keep covering this story until they know more about why Edwards was at that hotel, and IMO the media strategy should reflect that.

what in the name of heaven was he thinking about, running for the presidency....and when his wife had just discovered she had bone cancer.
there are hardly words for this.
was he planning to take the whole democratic party down with him?
talk about judgement, decency, leadership.
........ john edwards and bill clinton....two model human beings that have no right to be leading anybody anywhere, in the vicinity of the white house...
and after bill clinton's utter disrepect for obama and our party, he doesnt deserve to speak at our convention.
enough of their scandals and chaos.
and i am so tired of watching women and daughters defend them in public life.
their conduct is indefensible for positions of leadership, or role models for their families.

i hope he has told all that needs to be told, so that we dont have to suffer through the rest of the story.
i never thought that edwards had the qualities for a good president.
................
i am going to work my heart out for barack obama even more.

"My point was just that if the aim was to have this story concluded by the end of a Friday-Saturday news cycle, that appears unlikely to happen because the admission is partial and somewhat puzzling. The media being what it is, and not what it ought to be, they'll keep covering this story until they know more about why Edwards was at that hotel, and IMO the media strategy should reflect that."

Assuming he's telling the truth, they have a complex story that's going to need time to unpack.

They're dumping it into one of the great newsholes of the quadrennial cycle: It's not Friday/Saturday - it's August and two weeks of Olympics.

And not insignificantly, General Electric Politics TV is on Beijing vacation for the next two weeks. No Meet the Press. No Morning Joe. No all-day "Super Tuesday" with GE chosen "consultants". No Leno and Conan.

The timing limits the feeding frenzy that would normally take place.

If he's not telling the truth, it's incumbent on him to be not telling the truth in a way that doesn't resurface until after November. But my hunch is that he's probably telling the truth here. And they're timing it well to muffle the fallout they were going to get no matter how they presented the story.

I mean fergawdsakes, in the Caucuses, they've dropped an entire war into this gaping newshole. A bit of trail sex pales by comparison.

actually Petey- your last line isn't true. See the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated. I met the director (nice guy). The movie is about how the movie rating system, but once of its underlying points is that our culture is far more moved by sex, than violence. You can show a killer ripping out a woman's breast implant, and that may get you a PG13 rating, but a man humping a woman will get you at least R and possibly NC 17 if another man involved. THat's our culture. That's why this story seems to be more Tyro above is the norm without understanding why that norm endangers Democrats, not just has destroyed Edwards.

That's a bit unfair. Yes, it was foolish and it would have been disastrous if he had been the nominee and this had come out, but to characterize his entire candidacy as an act of selfishness is the same arrogant judgement-passing common in the mainstream media. This is a huge disappointment for me, as Edwards seemed to be a nearly flawless candidate and individual, but it does not change the fact that his policies were far and away the best of an serious candidate in three decades, nor the fact that most politicians and public figures, like most private people, have made mistakes that could damage them if made public. I'd still take someone who two years ago made a huge, but personal mistake than someone who believes Jerusalem should be the "undivided capital of Israel" and that there is such a thing as "clean coal". This is little excuse, but had he been the nominee, he likely would not have been at the Beverly Hills Hotel that night, and this story likely would not be. Frankly, we care too little about the policies and agendas of politicians, and we care too much, and more importantly ask too much of their personal lives. I am saddened by this, but it does not change my view that John and Elizabeth Edwards are individually, and even more profoundly together two of the most important, admirable and generally concerned political minds in this country.

I agree with much of what Michael Bellefeuille said, however, this meme needs to be struck down:

"...it would have been disastrous if he had been the nominee and this had come out"

Ezra and others repetition of this line doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is, Edwards would be running against a guy who has had sequential affairs throughout his life...as recently as months ago..so no, it wouldn't be disastrous at all. If you notice, McCain ain't saying squat about Edwards. It's just Obama's folks who are making sure that working folks don't have a voice at the convention.

"If you notice, McCain ain't saying squat about Edwards. It's just Obama's folks who are making sure that working folks don't have a voice at the convention."

Elizabeth should speak in Denver to give voice to his voters.

John has to take a time-out and sit in the corner, however fair or unfair that is to those he was speaking for.

"the most important, admirable and generally concerned political minds in this country."

john edwards is definitely one of the most concerned....concerned about himself.
he certainly wasnt concerned about what the eventual outcome of all of this could have been for his supporters and the democratic party.

was he concerned for his family?

i find nothing admirable about john edwards today, and i think that all democrats should be thanking their lucky stars that he did not win the nomination...
character matters.

fuck you jacqueline

Ditto on that.

Fuck you, Jacqueline.

"working folks dont have a voice at this convention."

brennan, i am a working folk, and i have a great, big voice at this convention.
:-)

working folk != Obama blog whore paid by the post
:(

fail, do you have proof of that assertion?

Because I happen to know, with absolute certainty, that you cannot possibly have such proof because you are wrong. And if you were a real person as opposed to a pseudonymous nihilist blog commenter, I would share with you why you are wrong you would apologize for that nasty remark.

On topic:

Yes, affairs should remain private matters, except when, given the political climate of the times, said affair sets off events that affect millions of people outside one's family.

No, not all men cheat on their wives and girlfriends.

Yes, in a general as well as specific sense, character matters.

And finally, while an affair is, by definition, a lie, it is, in the vast majority of cases, a lie that breaks the hearts of one's family alone.

Whereas there are lies that send hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths, break the hearts of millions, and lay to waste a cold trillion or more--a nation's fortune.

Perspective matters, too.

Jacqueline, that is exactly the kind of judgement crap that serves no purpose in a campaign. The fact that personal failings like this are relevant in politics and that people care about speaks very poorly of this country and its citizenry. My advice to you would be to find more important issues with which to be concerned, and let his family decide how they feel about whether or not he was concerned with them. And I think accusing him of lacking a concern for the poor, uninsured, etc in America in light of this affair is extremely foolish. I honestly believe that without his candidacy pushing issues like universal health care they would not be in the discussion now. But, that's right, he fucked another woman, so naturally he can't care about anyone but himself. Get over your condescending criticism of someone for personal failings.

Seriously. This is weak.

So Edwards had an affair and everyone is saying how much harm he put the Democratic party in. Well, he is the only democratic politician who has run a campaign that has exposed class as the major fault line in American life and the only, and I repeat only, politician who has spoken up for the poor in any meaningful way. So to all of you, outraged and mired in the partisan ghetto of party politics, I say take a step outside among the poor and the people struggling to get by. Take a walk through their neighborhoods, maybe even at night. Spend a night in jail. For a lot of folks it sucks, and all I here is griping about the "potential" damage to the democratic party under the faux guise of caring for these very people. Horeshit. The democratic party mouths empty platitudes about middle America and spend the rest of its time beating up on poor people, talking about personal responsibility and kicking them off TANF.

Well, consider me glad that Edwards, unlike the rest of these mopes decided to speak truth to power on issues and for people that no one gives a shit about.

Oh WTF. I have never been more excited about politics than I was one day last winter when The Edwards' walked off a bus in a small town in NH and gave a 10 minute speech to a bunch of on-lookers expecting them. Everything about his candidancy appealed to me right down to the bone.

Now everything just seems different. I still have no doubt that his left-ist populism is and continues to be sincere. But I don't particularily respect someone who cheats on their spouse. It may be technically correct to say that matters of private do not necssarily affect how one handles themselves in public. Bt that doesn't mean I have to like or just accept it, and saying that makes me sanctimonous ignores the fact that personal morals are just as important to some people as public ones.

This isn't about sex (at least not for me.) When you enter into a marriage with another person with the knowledge and agreement that you'll be faithful till death do you part, and you break that bond, thats not something most people take lightly.

I understand that people make mistakes and I do believe in redemption. But is a presidential campaign the right avenue for it, especially at a time when your party has a chance to turn around some real damage, and you have a secret that most people would think shows a serious problem of character?

At the end of the day, what I really want to know is whether I can get my money back...

Elizabeth Edwards's take goes like this:

Our family has been through a lot. Some caused by nature, some caused by human weakness, and some – most recently – caused by the desire for sensationalism and profit without any regard for the human consequences. None of these has been easy. But we have stood with one another through them all. Although John believes he should stand alone and take the consequences of his action now, when the door closes behind him, he has his family waiting for him.

John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.

The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.

John has spoken in a long on-camera interview I hope you watch. Admitting one’s mistakes is a hard thing for anyone to do, and I am proud of the courage John showed by his honesty in the face of shame. The toll on our family of news helicopters over our house and reporters in our driveway is yet unknown. But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

"this is exactly the kind of judgement crap that serves no purpose in a campaign."

like it or not, that is the nature and reality of american politics...and had edwards won the nomination and this scandal broke, he would have done inestimable damage to the democratic party and all that would ensue out of that.
the worst was to watch him lie about his actions to reporters, supporters and the american people.
just as bill clinton did.
personal failings and mistakes are one thing, but moral cowardice and painting oneself as a victim show a lack of accountability and an inability to take responsibility for one's actions.
not exactly what one is looking for in a leader.
character matters.
words and opinions change, but the way a person lives their life and treats others defines their character, judgement and courage.

john edwards was a public figure,used to the limelight and well aware of the exhaustive, relentless scrutiny of the media.
presumably, he knew what he was risking.
if he wanted to spare the people he loved the ruthless glare of publicity and voyeurism, he should have considered it before he ran for the presidency.
........sometimes we find ourselves in situations, and sometimes we put ourselves in situations.

jacqueline,

While I despise Barak's use of sleaze in his campaigns, your abject cruelty on his behalf hardly seems to serve his wishes.

I'm pretty sure Barak would prefer his professionally paid surrogates do the dirty work on Edwards in this delicate matter. Meantime, your merciless attack on [now Elizabeth] shows you to be callous hypocrite who feigned sympathy [above] with the woman in order to attack Edwards to undermine his ability to influence the party platform on behalf of the working class.

And while Obama's campaign used these sleazy tactics to gain a senate seat in 2004, surely, if they are too repetitious in their use, it would become obvious how Barak's political status was obtained and thus negate the purpose for his subterfuge.

Clearly, your master would not be pleased, so do him a favor..and us, stop doing him favors. If he was here right now, I'm sure he would tell to stop attacking Elizabeth.

Jacqueline and S Brennan, you deserve each other. STFU and sit the f*ck down. Jesus. Calling Obama "your master"? Way over the line.

What is with this ridiculous invocation of attacks on Edwards being intended to "undermine his ability to influence the party platform on behalf of the working class"?? Is there any evidence whatsoever that Edwards has done anything to influence the platform? No, not at all.

His campaign obviously moved rhetoric in the primary to the left, which was positive, but this idea that Edwards is the leader of some kind of cadre within the Democratic Party that continues to fight for some specific, coherent goal is beyond silly. The guy saw an opening to position himself as a populist and thereby attracted unions and the other kinds of supporters typically attracted to that kind of thing. But S Brennan and Petey talk about him like he's the leader of an organized sectarian faction, which is a fantasy. Yes, the politics he espoused are worthwhile; no, attacks on Edwards are not attacks on those policies. The guy barely even qualifies as a standard-bearer for those positions and to think otherwise is to project your longing for real class politics onto a mirage.

FWIW, I think Edwards was jusitifed in running, despite the skeleton in the closet. If there was another popular candidate willing to talk about domestic and global poverty, universal health care, a marshall plan for genocide prevention, a west point for teachers, etc., then Edwards should have stayed out. But there wasn't. So Edwards stepped up, and had a really positive impact on the race. He was truly fearless and showed a humility of spirit during the campaign, willing to engage with ordinary people and progressive ideas in a way that politician's usually aren't.

Speaking personally, I often do more good when I sin, and then try to redeem myself, than when I don't sin, and then don't feel the psychological pressure for redemption. Not that that justifies sin. But it shows humility can open our hearts sometimes, and that while lust and gluttony and sloth are all sins, so is pride.

The MSM really screwed this up, big time. If they had paid more attention to Edwards, instead of giving HRC and BHO all the air time, Edwards just might have won the nomination. They they would have had a field day when this story broke. Somehow, we dodged that bullet.

I share everyone's disappointment in Edwards' judgment. But as we theorize why he would run for President with such an awful vulnerability, let me say two words: Gary Hart.

"...it would have been disastrous if he had been the nominee and this had come out"

"But as we theorize why he would run for President with such an awful vulnerability"

"Somehow, we dodged that bullet."

Ezra and others repetition of this line doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is, Edwards would be running against a guy who has had sequential affairs throughout his life...as recently as months ago..so no, it wouldn't be disastrous at all. If you notice, McCain ain't saying squat about Edwards. It's just Obama's folks who are making sure that working folks don't have a voice at the convention.

Posted by: S Brennan | August 8, 2008 8:40 PM

S Brennan: reposting an asinine comment does not make it smarter the second time around.

Care to substantiate how "Obama's folks...are making sure that working folks don't have a voice at the convention"? That's a bizarre charge on so many levels. First, which working folks? Tons and tons of union members and leaders going, after all. Second, what on earth do you mean, "a voice at the convention"? Conventions are now pageants, not decision-making venues, so who gives a crap about having a voice there? Third, what on God's green Earth are Obama's people even alleged to be doing?? You haven't even specified your charges.

The assumption that Edwards hurt a cause he believed in is rather odd to me. How do we know that Edwards ever believed in it? How do we know that it wasn't power he was after from the very beginning?

Certainly his stated policies were anti-poverty, but his biography is that of a man who made himself into a millionaire by morally posturing in a court room on behalf of sick and injured people.

Is everyone really that surprised to find hypocrisy behind the act? Perhaps I'm being unfair to the guy, but I smelled slick lawyer from the very beginning.

While McCain wouldn't have been able to directly attack Edwards on this, McCain would have been socially shielded by his war hero / POW status and by the fact that a lot of POW's marriages soon broke apart due to infidelity. McCain surrogates would have had a field day with this. In addition, when Edwards entered the race, it wasn't clear McCain would win. If Giuliani had won, it would have been a wash. If Romney or Huckabee had won, they would have had a field day with this. In addition, Edwards having more success in the Democratic primary might have changed strategic voting among the GOP to more favor the Southern Huckabee.

The fact that Edwards cheated on a likable wife with cancer would have made the situation worse for the party. That is just sad. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the stress and anxiety of the cancer itself that led to the affair.

"Well, he is the only democratic politician who has run a campaign that has exposed class as the major fault line in American life and the only, and I repeat only, politician who has spoken up for the poor in any meaningful way. So to all of you, outraged and mired in the partisan ghetto of party politics, I say take a step outside among the poor and the people struggling to get by. Take a walk through their neighborhoods, maybe even at night. Spend a night in jail. For a lot of folks it sucks, and all I here is griping about the "potential" damage to the democratic party under the faux guise of caring for these very people. Horeshit. The democratic party mouths empty platitudes about middle America and spend the rest of its time beating up on poor people, talking about personal responsibility and kicking them off TANF."

When has Edwards ever spoke for such people or gotten their support? I liked a lot of his policies, but he was the working class populist for educated white collar workers who fancied themselves class warriors. He was also a DLC darling during his time in the Senate.

Edwards is a hoot, who's the bigger hypocrite? Edwards and his two Americans or Al Gore and his destroying the planet, jet setting lifestyle.

Edwards had to come clean, after hiding out in hotel basement bathrooms, ducking out through kitchens, using service entrances, and running down handicap ramps; he was pretty tired of seeing the other America.

What is even more tragic, is Elizabeth sat right next to him and let him knowing lie to the whole country; just stood by her man just like Hillary.

Litbrit brought up perspective, and the lie that brought us the war.

Edwards was a co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution, and as far as I'm concerned, that's when he screwed the Democratic party and the country.

Certainly his stated policies were anti-poverty, but his biography is that of a man who made himself into a millionaire by morally posturing in a court room on behalf of sick and injured people. Is everyone really that surprised to find hypocrisy behind the act?

I'm not sure you understand what the word "hypocrite" means. Personally, I like the guy who made his way in life working for the sick and injured, after coming from a working class family and going to college and law school.

Surely, in Edwards' same town, there's a guy who also went to college, then maybe ended up as a small businessman, joined the chamber of commerce in his hometown, and rails against taxes being used to support the NC state university system and complains about all those people who are poor because they're "just lazy." That person is a hypocrite.

Edwards is just a guy with astoundingly poor political judgment with an outsized view of the importance of his running for president.

I have to agree with Stuart Eugene Thiel here. The biggest loser in this whole things is the media. Had Edwards' campaign gotten more attention from the press, his campaign could have lasted longer, giving them a chance to score a great "sex scandal!" story surrounding a presidential candidate.

leave it to jacqueline to tie this to Bill Clinton...LOL...how much does Obama pay her, REALLY.

So, jacqueline, Edwards' endorsement of Obama....bad judgement?

"I'm not sure you understand what the word "hypocrite" means. Personally, I like the guy who made his way in life working for the sick and injured, after coming from a working class family and going to college and law school."

You're assuming that working as a trial lawyer is actually the same thing as working for the sick and injured. I think doctors, nurses, and hospitals working for medicaid patients in cities around the country are doing more for the sick and poor than Edwards ever has.

Where is the evidence that trial lawyers have ever created any social change that helps anyone other than... trial lawyers?

The hypocrisy comes from presenting yourself as a champion of the poor, while actually behaving in a manner that consistently puts your own interests first. Or as they say in Hawaii, "he came to do good, and he did very, very well..."

Where is the evidence that trial lawyers have ever created any social change that helps anyone other than

The magic of punitive damages is what causes liability insurance companies to insist that their customers implement better safety practices, and it provides for compensation for the victims.

As I said, you have little understanding of what being a "hypocrite" is.

"The magic of punitive damages is what causes liability insurance companies to insist that their customers implement better safety practices, and it provides for compensation for the victims."

Not to mention that because of the close to complete lack of unions in the American South, trial lawyers acting to punishing business wrongdoing are the only protection labor has in the region.

In the same way that organized labor is the backbone of the Democratic Party outside of the South, the plaintiff's bar is the backbone of the Democratic Party in the South.

The enquirer pays some (maybe most) of its sources. But something to be learned from this is that truth can issue from impure motives: jealousy, anger, drunkenness, greed. This is a fact the Clintons tried to make Americans unlearn in their ceaseless mantra of "trash for cash."

Jacqueline: when it comes out that Barack has been sticking his willy in a woman who isn't his wife, I wonder what you'll say.

You are truly an awful human being. I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but I'm confident that he would be utterly ashamed to be associated with you in any way.

#
susannunes, on August 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm Said:

Instead of gloating about Edwards’ “downfall,” and by the way, the Enquirer, Globe, and other tabloids have been abuzz with recent stories of Bill Clinton’s alleged current or recent affairs, you better be asking the question of WHO leaked the information to the Enquirer and WHY Edwards suddenly withdrew from the race right before Super Tuesday.

Somebody from a rival campaign had the information and used it to force him out of the race. Considering a Republican politician in Illinois had to withdraw from the 2004 Senate race because of salacious stories surrounding his divorce, I think it is clear where the Edwards leak came from.

That is always the question- and why at this time. Also, how did the enquirer know about the meeting that was to take place between Edwards and Hunter. Is it possible she was putting pressure on him because he wasn't paying enough, and informed the Enquirer as a way of tightening the screws?

"The magic of punitive damages is what causes liability insurance companies to insist that their customers implement better safety practices, and it provides for compensation for the victims."

This is rhetorical nonsense, not evidence. In my experience training and professional guidelines lead to better practice, not insistance from a liability insurance company.

Insurance companies either raise or lower premiums, they don't have anything to do with day-to-day decision making in a hospital.

Once again, where is the evidence that creating litigation in any way improves care to the neediest patients?

Elizabeth, Petey, "fail" - how appropriate, S Brennan,

I doubt any of you have the capacity to feel shame. How sad, for that emotion would serve you all well right now.

I've seen jacqueline write in support of John Edwards before. Since several of you migrated along with Ezra's blog, you've probably seen it as well. But you don't remember it - or can't, because your extreme emotions are getting in the way of rational judgment.

You're so caught up with your Johnny Boy that you're angry at how some people think having an affair during a campaign isn't a good idea. Jesus, even Neil the Ethical Werewolf isn't that blinded by his admiration for Edwards.

You seem to have completely forgotten that John Edwards is a Democrat. You can shriek all you want about McCain being a serial adulterer - and he most likely still is - but no one will care. No one. The only extramarital sex that would cost McCain any votes is gay sex.

Edwards, of all people, should know how Democrats are treated in the media. So yeah, it was monumentally selfish of him to fuck around during his campaign for President. And yeah, it was a betrayal of not only Elizabeth - for which alone we should be angry - but of all of us who wanted to see him as the Democratic nominee.

Because if you think for one second that this wouldn't have ended his campaign as the nominee, you're all dumber than you look in this thread. And that's a staggering thought.

You are truly an awful human being. I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but I'm confident that he would be utterly ashamed to be associated with you in any way.

Because she's mad at Edwards. I'd ask you how dumb you are, but it's apparent you don't have the wherewithal to form a coherent reply.

Considering a Republican politician in Illinois had to withdraw from the 2004 Senate race because of salacious stories surrounding his divorce, I think it is clear where the Edwards leak came from.

I feel like I'm climbing Mount Stupid, but every time I reach a peak, there's another one waiting in the distance. First, that's a huge stretch. Second, I bet you didn't mind it at all in 2004 when those leaks led to a Democratic takeover of a Senate seat. And finally, this is politics. If Edwards's real problem is that he wasn't able to play the game the way it needs to be played, then I've got two reasons to be glad he's not in the race.

Anyone else attacking jacqueline's character can die and burn in hell. Why you think it's necessary to level personal attacks against her is beyond me. Apparently it wasn't Obama's supporters with the Messiah complex after all. . .

what in the name of heaven was he thinking about, running for the presidency....and when his wife had just discovered she had bone cancer.
there are hardly words for this.
was he planning to take the whole democratic party down with him?
talk about judgement, decency, leadership.
........ john edwards and bill clinton....two model human beings that have no right to be leading anybody anywhere, in the vicinity of the white house...
and after bill clinton's utter disrepect for obama and our party, he doesnt deserve to speak at our convention.
enough of their scandals and chaos.
and i am so tired of watching women and daughters defend them in public life.
their conduct is indefensible for positions of leadership, or role models for their families.

i hope he has told all that needs to be told, so that we dont have to suffer through the rest of the story.
i never thought that edwards had the qualities for a good president.
................
i am going to work my heart out for barack obama even more.

Posted by: jacqueline | August 8, 2008 7:35 PM

"the most important, admirable and generally concerned political minds in this country."

john edwards is definitely one of the most concerned....concerned about himself.
he certainly wasnt concerned about what the eventual outcome of all of this could have been for his supporters and the democratic party.

was he concerned for his family?

i find nothing admirable about john edwards today, and i think that all democrats should be thanking their lucky stars that he did not win the nomination...
character matters.

Posted by: jacqueline | August 8, 2008 8:51 PM

"working folks dont have a voice at this convention."

brennan, i am a working folk, and i have a great, big voice at this convention.
:-)

Posted by: jacqueline | August 8, 2008 8:59 PM

this is exactly the kind of judgement crap that serves no purpose in a campaign."

like it or not, that is the nature and reality of american politics...and had edwards won the nomination and this scandal broke, he would have done inestimable damage to the democratic party and all that would ensue out of that.
the worst was to watch him lie about his actions to reporters, supporters and the american people.
just as bill clinton did.
personal failings and mistakes are one thing, but moral cowardice and painting oneself as a victim show a lack of accountability and an inability to take responsibility for one's actions.
not exactly what one is looking for in a leader.
character matters.
words and opinions change, but the way a person lives their life and treats others defines their character, judgement and courage.

Posted by: jacqueline | August 9, 2008 12:21 AM

john edwards was a public figure,used to the limelight and well aware of the exhaustive, relentless scrutiny of the media.
presumably, he knew what he was risking.
if he wanted to spare the people he loved the ruthless glare of publicity and voyeurism, he should have considered it before he ran for the presidency.
........sometimes we find ourselves in situations, and sometimes we put ourselves in situations.

Posted by: jacqueline | August 9, 2008 12:32 AM

Anonymous,

Thank you for taking the time to quote jacqueline's comments. It highlights just how outrageous the response to them has been - calling Obama her "master," saying she's a horrible person, claiming she's a paid shill for Obama and all the rest. Obviously her comments don't deserve such ridiculous responses, so you've provided a valuable service to us all.

"Hope has two beautiful daughters;
their names are Anger and Courage.
Anger at the way things are, and
Courage to see that they do not
remain as they are."
~~~~
saint augustine

One last thing. . .

To those who try to defend Edwards's behavior by citing his advocacy for laborers and the poor, how effective will he be now? How far to the left will he move the Democratic party now that he's pissed away his chance to speak at the convention? How much future good did he throw away for the momentary pleasure of a few sexual liasons?

If anything, his apparently unique place in American politics should have motivated him to be even more careful, and should motivate you to anger that his selfishness has cost us so much.

O.K., Stephen, we know Obama's paying jacqueline for her absurdities; how much is she paying you to defend them?

Thrilled beyond belief that BOTH Clintons will be speaking at the convention because it guarantees at least two good speeches and also puts the fly in the ointment of jacqueline's messiah moment. After all, it's BO's party, and he invited the Clintons to it.

O.K., Stephen, we know Obama's paying jacqueline for her absurdities; how much is she paying you to defend them?

You're pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Why don't you vote for McCain like the rest of America's DINO assholes?

What's a DINO?

No to McCain, though; yes to Green.

Not mentioned here is the determination of Mrs. Edwards to have him seek the nomination. What kind of judgment was that? Edwards, and Mrs. Edwards must have repeated the word "2006" ten times in their statements. She knew then, it ended then, and whatever other significance it may have that escapes me. At any rate, she knew. Why push him forward?

Let me see,

Barak Obama is now:

Pro-Iraq war [wants generals to tell him what to do next in Iraq...uh, words fail me].

Anti-choice [wants priests and boyfriends in on the decision...uh, never mind].

Pro-Death penalty enlargement [Death penalty...it's not just for murderers anymore].

Anti-Mideast Peace [having taken a stance that's as hard-line as any Lukid party member in Israel]

Pro-Telecom immunity [what's a little lawbreaking on a national scale when it comes to potential donors?]

Anti-gun control [yep, that's what I want, Scalia, a guy who hangs with Dick Cheney, reviewing every gun control law]

Pro Government involvement with religion [for a "constitutional professor" that's ground breaking]

Anti-public campaign financing [what's the point of letting the Teleco's off if you can't get paid for it?]

I don't care which way you flip these flops, the guy is not moving to the right...he's already well into Franco territory and moving towards Mussolini. Still, his shills will defend him no matter what he spews...they just attack anybody who dares to question dear leader.

It's hard to tell which is scarier, dithering fecklessness of Barak or his faithful band of online followers.

With all the money and power he has behind him, he's going to win in a blowout, no matter what he says. But three of my neighbors have quietly pulled down their Obama signs this week, so his extreme right wing stances have not gotten under the radar entirely.

S Brennan, what does your list (some accurate, some just a repetition of right wing blogs twisting Obama's positions) have to do with Edwards? Edwards would likely have shifted a bit to win the election if he had the nomination. After all, he had been a bit of a DLC hack in the Senate. Feingold noted that to run as a populist, Edwards had to run away from his Senate record. Just because Obama has made some ideologically bad moves doesn't excuse Edwards's decision to run with this skeleton in his closet.

"Considering a Republican politician in Illinois had to withdraw from the 2004 Senate race because of salacious stories surrounding his divorce, I think it is clear where the Edwards leak came from."

Chicago newspapers had sued to get Ryan's divorce papers unsealed, which is how his weird sexual behavior towards Jeri Ryan came to light. Somehow I doubt Obama controlled the Chicago press, which isn't all that liberal.

Yeah, sure "reality man",

Here's a little Obama Tribune "reality"

"...running for Congress [against Bobby Rush] , Obama recieved an endorsement from the Tribune — (Since then, the paper has endorsed him in every race he has run.)...it’s not every day that a major metropolitan newspaper endorses a two-term state legislator to replace a five-term Congressman.

....No description of Obama’s relationship with the Chicago press can ignore the benefits of Obama’s ties to local strategist David Axelrod, a former reporter for the Tribune, a frequent source for local reporters, and on good terms with most of the paper’s editors. Fortuitously for Obama, Axelrod began the 2004 Senate primary cycle by engaging in early discussions with Obama’s best-funded rival, Blair Hull. Those discussions included Axelrod asking Hull to confirm or deny rumors of spousal abuse; Axelrod told Mendell that Hull offered a “glacial” and evasive answer. Unsurprisingly, Axelrod lost interest in Hull shortly after that.

As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama’s rivals handed Tribune reporter Mendell a packet of opposition research on Hull — the documents noted that he had been divorced three times, and that his second wife had been granted a court order of protection from him.

That prompted the Chicago media to demand Hull unseal his divorce records, and his campaign ultimately showed them to Mendell. The contents were devastating — allegations of abuse and threats.

....Oddly, within a few months, dogged efforts on the part of the local press would eliminate another Obama rival, this time in the general election. Republican Jack Ryan seemed to be out of central casting — handsome, independently wealthy, sharing the name of a Tom Clancy hero.

But once again, the Tribune and a local television station launched a crusade to unseal the candidate’s divorce records. Ryan, his ex-wife (actress Jeri Ryan, best known for playing a cybernetic bombshell on Star Trek: Voyager), and his supporters argued that his nine-year-old son ought to be spared the messy details of his contentious divorce. A California judge ordered the records unsealed, and the entire political world heard accusations that the candidate urged his unwilling wife to have public sex in clubs in New York and Paris. Ryan denied the allegations, but no candidacy could survive a revelation like that."

Umm, you quote something without citing what it's from and blame things on Obama that you can't tie to him but to political opponents? And what does this have to do with Edwards and whether or not he should have ran? Your arguments for why Edwards should have ran haven't held water, so you're trying to change the subject so blatantly and obviously it's funny.

Since Mr. or Ms. Brennan doesn't appear to be aware of all Internet traditions, including the one that requires a link to the source, I'll handle it: here.

The long piece he/she quotes above is entitled, unsurprisingly, Hothouse Flower, and it was written in June by apparent serious Obama-disliker Jim Geraghty for America's Shittiest Website®, as the Sadlynauts have dubbed it.

Said Cornerite is none too fond of Michelle, either, and you can imagine what he has to say about John Edwards--it isn't pretty at all. All the more ironic that Mr./Ms. Brennan, seemingly an Edwards supporter throughout this thread, is quoting Geraghty at all, though it does explain his or her convenient omission of any attribution.

Umm..Librit it's a collage, hence the lack of attribution, but um...I didn't see your noted link, but it's making the rounds because it clearly links Obama to scandal mongering in order to get ahead

However, since you are calling my reply to Reality Man's comment "Chicago newspapers had sued to get Ryan's divorce papers unsealed, which is how his weird sexual behavior towards Jeri Ryan came to light." false.

What part of this:

...No description of Obama’s relationship with the Chicago press can ignore the benefits of Obama’s ties to local strategist David Axelrod, a former reporter for the Tribune, a frequent source for local reporters, and on good terms with most of the paper’s editors. Fortuitously for Obama, Axelrod began the 2004 Senate primary cycle by engaging in early discussions with Obama’s best-funded rival, Blair Hull. Those discussions included Axelrod asking Hull to confirm or deny rumors of spousal abuse; Axelrod told Mendell that Hull offered a “glacial” and evasive answer. Unsurprisingly, Axelrod lost interest in Hull shortly after that.

As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama’s rivals handed Tribune reporter Mendell a packet of opposition research on Hull — the documents noted that he had been divorced three times, and that his second wife had been granted a court order of protection from him.

That prompted the Chicago media to demand Hull unseal his divorce records, and his campaign ultimately showed them to Mendell. The contents were devastating — allegations of abuse and threats.

....Oddly, within a few months, dogged efforts on the part of the local press would eliminate another Obama rival, this time in the general election. Republican Jack Ryan seemed to be out of central casting — handsome, independently wealthy, sharing the name of a Tom Clancy hero.

But once again, the Tribune and a local television station launched a crusade to unseal the candidate’s divorce records. Ryan, his ex-wife (actress Jeri Ryan, best known for playing a cybernetic bombshell on Star Trek: Voyager), and his supporters argued that his nine-year-old son ought to be spared the messy details of his contentious divorce. A California judge ordered the records unsealed, and the entire political world heard accusations that the candidate urged his unwilling wife to have public sex in clubs in New York and Paris. Ryan denied the allegations, but no candidacy could survive a revelation like that."

is false? Please be specific

And since when can somebody dismiss criticism by saying the guy writing doesn't like Obama? Talk about a cult following, it would help if you folks would stop offering evidence to support the case that you only listen to those who agree with your world view.

Try arguing the merits of the case, as for your rules...I could care less...I've been posting with my own name since 2001, you are the first to whine.

The connection to Edwards is his endorsement of Obama, which came out oddly after he said he wouldn't. The change of mind and timing makes it appear, at least, that the Obama camp was behind the extortion.

At the beginning of the thread Ezra said the most galling thing was the damage that would have been done to the party had he won the nomination. To think that is to put the party above the country, because the worst thing would be if he had gone on to the presidency, with this secret. He could then be owned by any blackmailer who knew it.

Internet Traditions, Mr. or Ms. Brennan, not rules, and certainly not mine.

I'm surprised that you aren't aware of them. Heh.

When a writer--and I use the term "writer" very, very loosely--makes a career out of criticizing someone to the point where virtually every consecutive post is a slam of one sort or another, he or she is not a critic, but a person obsessed. See: Dowd, Maureen.

"Merits of the case..."--what case? I'm not arguing anything. Just pointing out that you selectively quote from The Corner (and conservative essays elsewhere, but who knows) when a sentence or two dovetails with your own irrational hatred of someone, never mind that the essayist might have slammed your own favorite politician two paragraphs earlier.

Whining? About what? I gave you two honorifics because S by itslef is neither masculine or feminine, at least it was the last time I referred to a style manual.

Speaking of which, it should be I couldn't care less, not I could.

Cheers!

Yeah, your big on Roberts rules of order, now:

What part of this:

...No description of Obama’s relationship with the Chicago press can ignore the benefits of Obama’s ties to local strategist David Axelrod, a former reporter for the Tribune, a frequent source for local reporters, and on good terms with most of the paper’s editors. Fortuitously for Obama, Axelrod began the 2004 Senate primary cycle by engaging in early discussions with Obama’s best-funded rival, Blair Hull. Those discussions included Axelrod asking Hull to confirm or deny rumors of spousal abuse; Axelrod told Mendell that Hull offered a “glacial” and evasive answer. Unsurprisingly, Axelrod lost interest in Hull shortly after that.

As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama’s rivals handed Tribune reporter Mendell a packet of opposition research on Hull — the documents noted that he had been divorced three times, and that his second wife had been granted a court order of protection from him.

That prompted the Chicago media to demand Hull unseal his divorce records, and his campaign ultimately showed them to Mendell. The contents were devastating — allegations of abuse and threats.

....Oddly, within a few months, dogged efforts on the part of the local press would eliminate another Obama rival, this time in the general election. Republican Jack Ryan seemed to be out of central casting — handsome, independently wealthy, sharing the name of a Tom Clancy hero.

But once again, the Tribune and a local television station launched a crusade to unseal the candidate’s divorce records. Ryan, his ex-wife (actress Jeri Ryan, best known for playing a cybernetic bombshell on Star Trek: Voyager), and his supporters argued that his nine-year-old son ought to be spared the messy details of his contentious divorce. A California judge ordered the records unsealed, and the entire political world heard accusations that the candidate urged his unwilling wife to have public sex in clubs in New York and Paris. Ryan denied the allegations, but no candidacy could survive a revelation like that."

is false? Please be specific

S Brennan, do you even know what the National Review is? We are talking about a publication in recent years that has published a conservative tribute to the communist terrorist Trotsky and is the home of the openly and proudly racist Derbyshire, Jonah Goldberg of "Liberal Fascism" fame and professional fangirl Katherine Jean-Lopez. In short, it is not a reliable source of anything except for anthropological information on what a certain type of conservative is currently thinking. Why a supposed Edwards supporter would trust it is just odd.

Also S Brennan, what does any of that have to do with Edwards, who after all, is the topic at hand?

Again, Reality Man, the connection here between Obama and Edwards is that Obama most likely used knowledge of the affair to his advantage if not downright extortion of Edwards' endorsement, coming right after Edwards said he'd endorse neither Clinton nor Obama.

Also offers an explanation for Elizabeth Edwards' endorsement of Clinton's health plan.

What huh? How does it explain endorsement of Clinton health plan? She was blackmailing him too?? BTW, the Clintons must have known of the affair -- they have an unparalleled oppo research machine.

Climbing never-ending Mount Stupid here, each peak with an anonymous or S Brennan at the top, jumping up and down, giggling and clapping their hands at their latest conspiratorial ramblings.

I'm sure we'll be hearing about the Obama death list soon, and how Obama's actually a Kenyan citizen, which is why he forged his birth certificate.

And then we'll find out that Rielle Hunter is an Obama operative sent to Edwards by Tony Rezko specifically to seduce him so that Obama would have a way to extort Jack Ryan with the threat of Obama's half-brother getting Robert Mugabe to endorse Hillary Clinton's health plan ARGLE BARGLE WHARRBLURRFLABBLEDABBLE!!!1!!

it's a collage, hence the lack of attribution, but um...I didn't see your noted link, but it's making the rounds because it clearly links Obama to scandal mongering in order to get ahead

Ahh, It's making the rounds. In other words, the above commenter copied it from a garden-variety rumormongering e-mail without checking its source(s) and pasted (and pasted and pasted!) it here as fact. Don't bother checking it against Snopes--they're in on the conspiracy too!

Next up: Obama is an elitist Muslim whose wife hates Amurika and demonstrates it with terrorist fist-bumps. Even the New Yorker cover says this is true. Send this to ten people in your address book and Something Nice will happen to you later today!

(by "above commenter" I meant the Mr. or Ms. Brennan of several comments in this thread, not Stephen, who is directly above.)

Again, Obama folks,

What part of this:

...No description of Obama’s relationship with the Chicago press can ignore the benefits of Obama’s ties to local strategist David Axelrod, a former reporter for the Tribune, a frequent source for local reporters, and on good terms with most of the paper’s editors. Fortuitously for Obama, Axelrod began the 2004 Senate primary cycle by engaging in early discussions with Obama’s best-funded rival, Blair Hull. Those discussions included Axelrod asking Hull to confirm or deny rumors of spousal abuse; Axelrod told Mendell that Hull offered a “glacial” and evasive answer. Unsurprisingly, Axelrod lost interest in Hull shortly after that.

As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama’s rivals handed Tribune reporter Mendell a packet of opposition research on Hull — the documents noted that he had been divorced three times, and that his second wife had been granted a court order of protection from him.

That prompted the Chicago media to demand Hull unseal his divorce records, and his campaign ultimately showed them to Mendell. The contents were devastating — allegations of abuse and threats.

....Oddly, within a few months, dogged efforts on the part of the local press would eliminate another Obama rival, this time in the general election. Republican Jack Ryan seemed to be out of central casting — handsome, independently wealthy, sharing the name of a Tom Clancy hero.

But once again, the Tribune and a local television station launched a crusade to unseal the candidate’s divorce records. Ryan, his ex-wife (actress Jeri Ryan, best known for playing a cybernetic bombshell on Star Trek: Voyager), and his supporters argued that his nine-year-old son ought to be spared the messy details of his contentious divorce. A California judge ordered the records unsealed, and the entire political world heard accusations that the candidate urged his unwilling wife to have public sex in clubs in New York and Paris. Ryan denied the allegations, but no candidacy could survive a revelation like that."

is false? Please be specific

Posted by: S Brennan | August 11, 2008 12:21 AM

Again, Obama folks,

What part of this:. . . .s false? Please be specific

Who says it's false? Please be specific.

Really, who is making the claim that your particular bit of irrelevant nonsense is false? Further, how does that excerpt do anything to damage Obama? From the article, emphasis mine: "As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama’s rivals handed Tribune reporter Mendell a packet of opposition research on Hull."

One of Obama's RIVALS did the research and got the press on it, dummy - not that figuring out how many times someone has been married is hard or anything. It's shocking that someone had to point out to the Tribune that a candidate for the US Senate had a freaking court order against him!

Once the Tribune got wind of that story, someone decided to check and see how many times each of the other candidates had been married, and whether any of them were having trouble with their relationships. It wasn't Obama's fault that Jack Ryan was a sick, misogynist freak who thought Jeri Ryan was his trophy to show off to the world.

Or was it. . . . .

Chicago newspapers had sued to get Ryan's divorce papers unsealed, which is how his weird sexual behavior towards Jeri Ryan came to light. Somehow I doubt Obama controlled the Chicago press, which isn't all that liberal.

Posted by: Reality Man | August 10, 2008 2:15 PM

and it was written in June by apparent serious Obama-disliker Jim Geraghty for America's Shittiest Website®, as the Sadlynauts have dubbed it.

Said Cornerite is none too fond of Michelle, either

Posted by: litbrit | August 10, 2008 10:49 PM

Once again, slowly for the Kool_Aid impared

...No description of Obama’s relationship with the Chicago press can ignore the benefits of Obama’s ties to local strategist David Axelrod, a former reporter for the [Tribune], a frequent source for local reporters, and on good terms with most of the paper’s editors.

Axelrod told [Mendell] that Hull offered a “glacial” and evasive answer. Unsurprisingly, Axelrod lost interest in Hull shortly after that.

As the primary heated up, a consultant for one of Obama’s rivals handed Tribune reporter [Mendell] a packet of opposition research on Hull — the documents noted that he had been divorced three times, and that his second wife had been granted a court order of protection from him.

That prompted the Chicago media to demand Hull unseal his divorce records, and his campaign ultimately showed them to [Mendell]. The contents were devastating — allegations of abuse and threats.

....Oddly, within a few months, dogged efforts on the part of the local press would eliminate another Obama rival, this time in the general election. Republican Jack Ryan seemed to be out of central casting — handsome, independently wealthy, sharing the name of a Tom Clancy hero.

But once again, the [Tribune] and a local television station launched a crusade to unseal the candidate’s divorce records. Ryan, his ex-wife (actress Jeri Ryan, best known for playing a cybernetic bombshell on Star Trek: Voyager), and his supporters argued that his nine-year-old son ought to be spared the messy details of his contentious divorce. A California judge ordered the records unsealed, and the entire political world heard accusations that the candidate urged his unwilling wife to have public sex in clubs in New York and Paris. Ryan denied the allegations, but no candidacy could survive a revelation like that."

S Brennan, are you really as stupid as your comments in this thread make you appear?

"One of Obama's rivals" - that's from your own dumb "email collage that's making the rounds." Obama didn't give the Tribune any info on Hull, and your silly excerpt doesn't say, imply, or suggest that Obama - or Axelrod, for that matter - supplied them with any info about Ryan.

And Kool-aid? You're the one drinking it, and it's Rove flavored, dude, if you really believe the bullshit you're peddling.

What I don't get is how, when Jack Ryan was a sick freak who tried to force his wife to have sex in public, this is all supposed to reflect badly on Obama. Unless your next email collage will explain how that's Obama's fault.

The real question, though, is whether you'll pay any attention to what I've brought up, or if you and your toady "anonymous" will just cut-n-paste, afuckinggain, the same set of irrelevant, and by now boring, paragraphs in a vain attempt to prove by repetition alone that Obama really is the Antichrist.

Looking at the universal support by Obama Fans to the intrusion into Edwards private life and subsequent blackmail attempt above, one can only conclude that Barak's vote on setting aside prosecution of the telecom's domestic illegal spying represented his supporters views.

The way the Kool Aid crowd is going they'll make excuses for anything Barak does.

Count me as someone against Obama's sellout on telecom immunity. You're just trying to spin away how Edwards put the entire party in jeopardy. You have nothing to offer and only want attention. If you really think Obama is to blame for something his political opponent did back in Chicago, you are just beyond stupid. Unless you think Obama was the monarch of Chicago back in 2004 who controlled all, even his opponents, you have no argument to make.

No matter how you try to attack others Stephen, it's becoming clearer with everyday that Barak is one of the sleaziest politicos to come out Chicago.

Just reminder, if the hotel scene has been correctly portrayed by the press we have attempted blackmail. If an investigation shows any involvement by the Obama campaign, we have violations of the RICO Act, which would lead to impeachment of Barak Obama.

Unlike the hysterics of Ezra's original post, this action by Axelrod & Obama could lead to serious damage. Setting aside your lame excuses for Obama, it's time to find out what involvement the Obama campaign had in the Edwards hotel set-up. Republican would jump for joy if we nominated a man who could be prosecuted for aiding blackmail. At the very least, good Obama people should be calling for Axelrod's entourage to exit the campaign.

So you've provided no real evidence of Obama's involvement, but he's guilty anyway. Stay classy S Brennan!

Ok, S Brennan, let me get this straight. Hull was a 3-time loser at marriage whose ex-wife had to get a restraining order against him and Jack Ryan was a psycho douchebag who repeatedly tried to force his wife to have public sex with him - which is attempted rape, BTW, married or not - and Obama is the sleazy one?

Is Jack Ryan who should be in the Senate right now? Is that what you're saying?

If real proof comes out that McCain maintained his status as a serial philanderer, will you condemn that as well? Will that be more evidence that Obama is sleazy?

Speaking of "evidence," you don't seem to understand what that word means. Your silly email collage states that Axelrod used to work for the Tribune, which is the paper that broke the Hull and Ryan stories. And that's it. How you get from there to the claim that Obama orchestrated the whole thing is a mystery to everyone but you - and you're not able to coherently explain yourself, so maybe you don't actually know.

Tell me, please, how Obama arranged it to have opponents who were dangerously unstable and an attempted rapist. After that please feel free to explain how that reflects bad on Obama, even if he's responsible for those facts getting out in public.

And after all that, you can explain how Obama took hold of Edwards's dick and forced it into Rielle Hunter. Because the central fact of this whole thing is that Edwards literally fucked up and neither he nor you can blame that on anyone else. It was stupid, utterly stupid. Any Democrat who paid the slightest attention during the 1990s knows not to do that, and any Democrat who does deserves nothing but scorn.

Obama will never be investigated, let alone indicted, for blackmail, because your fevered imaginings don't count as evidence in the real world.

You need help.

Umm..a little reality dude,

Obama has a pattern of being involved in campaigns where the press is used to reveal the bedroom secrets of his opponents. This has been well documented on three separate occasions...Axelrod has conections to all the players involved...at some point reasonable people are able to connect the dots.

On this last occasion, however, we have a probable violation of the law and RICO cover this type of crime...which is a felony...which of course is impeachable.

As for "staying classy" might I suggest you notice the opening post was an attack piece on candidate who is no longer in the race, or read the above comments of Obama people including yourself, by comparison my posts have been quite mild.

Oky Doky Stephen,

Right from the horse mouth, Axelrod's buddy David MENDELL speaks:

"Though Obama has been a passive beneficiary of Ryan's latest problems, the Democrat's campaign worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings."

- By David >>>Mendell

- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406240383jun24,0,5972661.story

Did Hull have a restraining order against him or not? Did Ryan try to sexually assault his wife in public or not?

Well? I'm waiting.

Did the Tribune publish lies about them? Did Axelrod or anyone else lie about them?

Well?

Do you think Edwards has never done any oppo research before?

Well? Is that what your really think, or is it ok if you're not Obama?

Or do you think that Obama physically coerced each of those men to act the way they did? Is that your big accusation?

Maybe you think that Obama blackmailed all the Democratic primary voters this year, since Edwards kept losing races. Or maybe you think Obama blackmailed the media to, with the sole exception of Mickey Kaus, to completely ignore the rumors about Edwards having an affair. I'm not sure how forcing everyone to keep the rest of us in the dark about it was going to help that devious Obama, but this is your fantasy world, not mine.

You're so far in the hole right now you don't even know what you're arguing for. So let me sum it up for you. Obama is sleazy because:

1. His primary opponents were sick freaks.
2. He may or may not have run standard oppo research against his primary opponents and done the standard thing of leaking the information he may or may not have had to the press.
3. He has an advisor that used to work for a newspaper.
4. John Edwards had an affair. Not Obama, Edwards.
5. The news of the affair broke long after Edwards had already dropped out of the race, endorsed and started campaigning for Obama.

And all this is proof that Obama is a serial blackmailer - even though your super-duper evidence of this completely disproves that, since Axelrod's BFF said that Obama was a passive beneficiary of Ryan's sickness and he tried to stir up controversy about another freak. That's not blackmail or extortion or any other crazy scheme you can come up with. That's politics.

I supported Edwards while he was in the race, and I've been more critical of Obama than anyone this side of Hillaryis44, but you're just having an extreme freakout about this whole thing. You can't blame Obama for Edwards misplacing his dick and for the media deciding that a Democrat having an affair is "news."

Are you really the S Brennan who used to comment reasonably at Ezra's old place, or is he offline now and you're just a freeper using his nick?

The above was me. TAP has the worst comment forms ever.

You realize Stephen,

Your post makes clear that you approve of Obama breaking the law in order to obtain power?

I believe the fascist of the 1920/30's felt the same as you do and ironically, they too used Obama's tactics.

Yes...yes..any criticism Barak is too much for Obama folk...and I get it, we know Obama folk think he is to be treated as a messiah even though he's the greasiest thing to come outta Chicago since that awful pizza dough.

Sorry to clue you, Obama's FISA vote...his continuing votes to support of the war...et al is just the tip of the iceberg...wait 'till he rips down SSI for the entertainment of those affluent white professionals that support him.

S Brennan, you known you are just making yourself look like a crazy person? Your Chicago Tribune link is the only legitimate source you have used and your chosen quote in it accuses Obama's campaign of "fuel[ing] controversy." Is that somehow illegal? You are arguing how conspiracy theorists argue and I just find it amusing. If Obama was behind the Edwards leak, then why would it come out months after Obama had sealed up the nomination? Petey was going on about how the Enquirer story was just a lie of its pro-Clinton owner, so are Obama and Clinton in some conspiracy to end Edwards's career after the primary? Your understanding of how the world works is just odd.

Again dude,

Obama has a pattern of being involved in campaigns where the press is used to reveal the bedroom secrets of his opponents. This has been well documented on three separate occasions...Axelrod has conections to all the players involved...at some point reasonable people are able to connect the dots.

On this last occasion, however, we have a probable violation of the law and RICO statutes covers this type of crime...which is a felony...which of course is impeachable.

What Barak say? Something like "well...John and Elizabeth have to think about it"

Revenge served cold

Stephen must have been abused as a child...so much anger!

I hope he doesn't have kids.

Here is the Clinton camp's take on it, straight from the mouth of Wolfson: he is complaining that the material was not leaked soon enough, because he thinks the cover up helped Obama. It's really rich to see the Clintons demand more expeditious release of "trash for cash", as they always disparaged it. So they think the exposure of Edwards would NOT have been in Obama's interest. got it?

It was widely reported that Elizabeth did snub Barack, so he probably figured the (b____) had it coming to her. Besides, why let Edwards live to fight another day? Obama sounds like he has just what this country needs. People like brennan are afraid of a fearless leader.

like [me]

The Democrats are certainly not having their shiniest moment this cycle...first the thievery of the MI delegates and now this...how embarrassing.

Still better than repubs, mind you...just sayin'

S Brennan,

I'm still waiting to see your breathless commentary on the Obama death list and his Kenyan citizenship.

And you still haven't actually shown anything that implies, let alone proves, that Obama had anything to do with Edwards's' story coming. All you've said is that since Hull and Ryan had their freakish behavior come to light, obviously Obama did it and obviously he did it to Edwards to.

I bet you think Obama's actually the person who got Linda Tripp to wear a wire around Lewinsky so Hillary's 2008 primary campaign would be damaged by Bill's indiscretions. C'mon, admit it. It's ok, we won't lose any respect for you or your ability to think logically.

Again dude,

Obama has a pattern of being involved in campaigns where the press is used to reveal the bedroom secrets of his opponents. This has been well documented on three separate occasions...Axelrod has conections to all the players involved...at some point reasonable people are able to connect the dots.

On this last occasion, however, we have a probable violation of the law and RICO statutes covers this type of crime...which is a felony...which of course is impeachable.

What Barak say? Something like "well...John and Elizabeth have to think about it"

Revenge served cold