Protzman tells John Edwards he doesn't owe anyone an explanation: "You're not running for office...And as to the Democratic convention?  You don't need that crap either."

That is of course a path Edwards could take: skip the convention and remove himself from consideration for a job in the Obama administration, and he doesn't have to say anything to anyone.

But if he wants to speak in Denver, or be short-listed for a cabinet job, it's hard to see how the stone wall stands.

The alleged story has jumped from the National Enquirer to blogs and late-night teevee monologues and newspapers. It's part of the public conversation. Edwards can remove himself from that conversation, or address it, but he won't be able to have it both ways.

Comments

[mick]

Those Eeeeviil Repubs threatening John Edwards' convention appearance and possible cabinet post over this. The nerve.

[Ed Cone]

Other than the fact that the folks to whom Protzman is responding are Democrats, brilliant comment.

[mick]

That was sorta my point, Ed.
Cant blame the opposing party this time around. Which, in case you hadnt noticed, is a popular blogging general topic.

[Ed Cone]

I missed your sarcasm, veiled as it was in the cloak of verisimilitude. My apologies.

[jw]

It's tough having to explain yourself, given the "source."

It's kind of like having to answer an accusation made in, "The Sound Of The Beep."

[Mick]

Ed,
I am in the process of moving my office and dont have my dictionary handy. So apology accepted ... i think.

JW,
I dont think it would be so tough to splain' ... As in - "Yes" or "No" or even "Asked and answered". "As Ed indicated "No comment" aint gonna get it.

If true it is unfortunate and the end of John Edwards public or even quasi-public life. The longer this is out there the "more true" it gets. We are down to DNA type proof at this point. Unfortunate really.

[Fec]

On the good side, JE can look forward to a smashing career on General Hospital. Scuttlebutt is he's an inveterate skirt chaser.

[James Protzman]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to speak in Denver. This will be the Obama show ... and no one, with the possible exception of Hillary spoilers, will say or do anything not carefully orchestrated by the campaign.

I don't make this as a negative observation. In fact, it's about time the Democrats exercised this kind of discipline in pursuit of their welcome agenda. I'm just not willing to pretend that it's anything other than what it is.

As to Edwards getting a spot in the Cabinet? It ain't going to happen. The Republicans in the Senate have adopted a filibuster mindset and they will not allow Obama to have Edwards as Attorney General. Unless the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority (very long shot) or are prepared to go nukular (which they aren't), there's little chance of Edwards being AG.

After so many years in power, Republican corruption is rampant and for Edwards it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. He scares the crap out of them - and they will not let Obama choose a cabinet the way Dems caved on Bush's nominees.

So add it up: Whether the Enquirer story is true or not, Edwards won't be confirmed by the Senate for any cabinet position. He would be their worst nightmare.

Which is why I say he has nothing to lose by telling the so-called journalistic community to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Spag]

"After so many years in power, Republican corruption is rampant and for Edwards it would be like shooting fish in a barrel...."

Edwards has no prosecutorial or criminal law experience so the idea that he has some special quality as an attorney general is nonsense. Nobody is scared of Edwards, but that sure does make a nice cover story to shift any blame away.

Consider if the story is true:

1) Edwards was the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
2) Edwards was one of three Democratic finalists this cycle
3) Edwards has convention delegates
4) Edwards will have engaged in a cover up where a person was paid/bribed to claim paternity of a child that was not his. This bastardizes the child TWICE and is morally reprehensible. Doesn't the child deserve far better than this? If anyone you knew personally did such a thing, you would think they were an utter piece of garbage.
5) Edwards will have done this while his wife is suffering from cancer.
6) Edwards will have lied to his staff, supporters and the public- not once, but twice over this matter.
7) Edwards will have made a calculated decision that his political ambitions were more important than his child knowing who her real father is or establishing a normal relationship with the child. Again, what a piece of garbage.

So he does need to answer these questions because people have a right to know what kind of person they almost put into the White House in 2004 and 2008.

If you don't think he owes an explanation, than to me that is tacit approval of whatever bad and morally reprehensible behavior he has engaged in. That's what the Democrats need- other Democrats making excuses just like they did with Clinton. But this would be worse than Clinton if only because of the double bastardization and Edwards ailing wife. Ends justify the means. Perhaps that is what Edwards has been thinking, too.

[Dave Dobson]

Double bastardization? Kind of bending over backwards to get your archaic moralistic terminology replete with connotations in there, aren't you?

If it's true, it's sad, it lowers my opinion of Edwards, it makes me relieved he didn't win, but it's still, now, nobody's business but the people involved. If it's false, then it's horrible.

Suppose that it's true. I don't think the Enquirer has proved anything of the sort with grainy photos and a late-night chase. But even so, supposing it is, at the risk of running a Sam-style "but you do it too" type argument, I'd propose the following comparison, though:

McCain's wife is maimed and disfigured in a horrible accident while loyally supporting John during his incarceration. McCain has affairs with a younger woman, then abandons his kids and divorces his wife to marry his mistress, who happens to be a fabulously wealthy heiress.

Edwards' wife is stricken with a horrible cancer while loyally supporting John during his campaign. Edwards has an affair with a younger woman, which produces a child.

What's the essential difference here? Edwards didn't wear a condom? Edwards isn't actually running for anything now, and McCain is, but other than that, a secret affair is a secret affair.

[Dave Dobson]

Here's a link to one version of the McCain story.

[Spag]

You believe that is morally equivalent to lying to your child about paternity? Sorry, man, but I guess we're on a different moral plane. Having handled hundreds of custody cases and juvenile delinquency cases, I see firsthand the damage these issues can do to children. This isn't about Edwards merely fathering a child out of wedlock. That happens all the time. It's the fraud perpetrated upon the CHILD. It's the secrecy and lack of parental contact to avoid public exposure that causes the damage. How in the hell do you explain that to the child when she is old enough to understand? How f'd up do you think that makes the child?

If a friend or family member of yours knowingly lied about paternity and enlisted a third party to lie about being the father of a child for no reason other than to advance their personal goals, what would you think of that person? Forget that Edwards is a politician for a moment, and think about that.

[Dave Dobson]

Way to duck the McCain issue, Sam.

Assuming everything the Enquirer publishes is the absolute truth, Edwards still hasn't lied to the child. You can't lie to a newborn infant. He's lied to the paparazzi press; there would be a number of reasons for doing that from the purely cowardly and self-interested, as you propose, to serving the interests of the mother and child - if they want to stay out of the spotlight, Edwards denying this might be an attempt to spare them the kind of hounding, camping out, and chasing that led to the death of Princess Diana.

I don't know what's going through Edwards' mind any more than you do, or what the situation really is, or how he's agreed to deal with it with the parties involved. You do seem instantly willing to assume the worst about him on every front, something you routinely accuse others here of doing about Republicans.

So, Sam, how about McCain's affair, infidelity, and abandoning a stricken wife? Doesn't seem like you should be reviling Edwards while praising McCain, does it? Or is this a case where "it's never the same, is it?"

[Graham Shevlin]

Did I miss an event where the NE actually published some compelling evidence, instead of a collection of unrelated photos, at least one of which is highly blurred and does not (to my untrained eye) appear to be a picture of John Edwards at all?
If the media are going to get all excited about this pile of circumstantial, mostly unrelated rubbish, should they not be also getting excited about the other NE and tabloid stories about bad behaviour by President Bush?
Between stuff like this, and articles musing whether Barack Obama is too thin, I am seriously starting to doubt the overall level of intellectual awareness within this county.

[Spag]

Fine rationalization. Why am I not surprised.

I am not assuming the worst about Edwards. I wrote on my blog yesterday that I hope this story isn't true for the reasons I stated here. However, if it is, it is indefensible and ranks at the higher echelon of political scandals in terms of moral turpitude. It won't be simply that he had an affair and lied, it's the scope of the lie and the ramifications for those involved.

Again, if someone you know told you that they paid someone else to claim they were their child's father for selfish reasons (or even quite a few unselfish ones), what would you think about that persons character? Father of the year? A good upstanding citizen? A good role model? Take the politics out of it, Dave. If it's true, Edwards is a pariah and morally bankrupt. He will have used his considerable wealth to buy out the innocent life of a child, not to mention what it does to his sick wife.

[Spag]

And I suppose if it is true, you will have a rationalization for that too, Mr. Shevlin, or will you stay silent, which is a common tactic of many commenters (and hosts frequently) here when confronted with unpleasant realities about ideological comrades.

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, if it's true, then Edwards will be vastly diminished in my eyes, the same way Bill Clinton was, and he'd have no credibility for anything he says about character and morality again. I'd have a lot of trouble supporting him for any elected or appointed office, partly because of the event, partly because of the handling of the event, but mostly because this stuff would be a distraction. Infidelity sucks, but it should not disqualify you automatically from everything.

But this personal tragedy, if it's true (and I use tragedy in the Greek sense, where a person riding high is brought low by their own actions), doesn't seem to have much to do with his work on poverty, or on college access for low-income folks. If he keeps working on that stuff, then I would certainly support that work.

I still wish this hadn't turned into a lurid Britney/Brad and Jennifer-style story. Elizabeth Edwards deserves better, wherever the truth lies. Even so, I'm waiting for better proof than a few grainy photos and an exclamation-point filled tabloid article before I pass any judgment on anybody.

So, uh, what about McCain, Sam? "Will you stay silent, which is a common tactic of many commenters (and hosts frequently) here when confronted with unpleasant realities about ideological comrades?"

[Fred Gregory]

This will no doubt get me in hot water but here goes.

Another discussion on the same subject

[Timbo]

Dave, give up now. Spag will never answer the question. If he answered your question, he might have to address the oh, 'bout a thousand questions that are still on the table in threads all through this blog. You see, we're stupid, and Sam doesn't have to explain himself to stupid people. We wouldn't "get it" anyway, but watch me try to hold his feet to the fire and ask several answers of my own that he will never answer.Here goes:

Sammy!

"So he does need to answer these questions because people have a right to know what kind of person they almost put into the White House in 2004 and 2008"

Buh, buh, buh, bullshit. "Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, as they say. Dude, he was only the V.P. candidate on a losing ticket in 2004, and, what, third in the race for the presidential nomination this time. He a private citizen now. There is no "need to answer these questions because people have a right to know". What we have here is prurient interest. Yeah, if it's all true, he is a pencil-thin mustache wearing cad, but based on the quality of the evidence, and the source, there isn't much that would hold up in court. The photos show him holding a baby. How is anyone to infer an affair from that? It didn't look like sexy time to me. If I were alleged to have fathered all the children I've been photographed holding, I'd have quite a brood. It was early in the morning when he was spotted by the NE reporter. So? Nobody has ever hung out with a friend until the wee hours of the morning before? Or are you alleging that men and women can't be friends without benefits, because if that is the case, could you explain that to several of my female friends that they need to get with the program?

"If you don't think he owes an explanation, than to me that is tacit approval of whatever bad and morally reprehensible behavior he has engaged in."

If you don't think Bush owes an explanation about his alcoholism, drug use, and National Guard service, because people have a right to know what kind of person they put into the White House in 2000 and 2004, than to me that is tacit approval of whatever bad and morally reprehensible behavior he has engaged in. And what of McCain's affairs? "During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame." and "In April 1979, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co. Also in 1979, he pushed to end his marriage with his wife Carol, who accepted his request for a divorce in February 1980; the divorce became effective in April 1980(Wikipedia)." I guess it's OK because he has said he was "selfish and immature"?

I know, I know. I'm stupid, uneducated, didn't read carefully, have a bumper sticker mindset, am on a different moral plane, just don't get it... I could go on.

The whole kerfuffle and Edwards'(non)reaction can be explained by him knowing that a reporter would be able to portray this in the worst possible light, regardless of the truth, and saying anything would prolong the media spotlight. Or maybe not. But we don't know nuthin' and he doesn't owe anyone an explanation except Elizabeth Edwards.

[Spag]

McCain gets divorced like half of the people in America who get married, and you think there is a moral equivalence? Further, the story of McCain's divorce is BS. He divorced her 10 years after her accident, and 7 years after he returned from Vietnam. To assign the divorce to her accident is pure speculation and makes almost no sense. Again, I think I have a lot more experience in divorce than the average commenter here, and I have never had one case in at least a thousand where the divorce was caused by an accident 10 years earlier. And guess what? Nearly ALL children are devastated by divorce regardless of the cause; and regardless of who is to blame.

The early defenses of Edwards' yet unproven conduct illustrate even more why so many liberals have absolutely no standards and will justify anything to advance their cause. Timbo, you clearly don't give a shit about the effect this could have on the child involved if the story is true. But you aren't alone as some of the other comments indicate. I can only speak from my extensive experience in family and juvenile law. I guarantee you that I have read far more psychological evaluations of children than you have. But none of this matters. It's all about pushing the party line over everything else. Lefties must maintain the moral high ground by deflecting any faults within their cherished ranks. Excuse Democrats; malign Republicans. Stupid, because you can't maintain the moral high ground if you have no morality in the first place.

The fact that you and others like you would excuse such behavior on political grounds is revealing but not a damn bit surprising. I'm still doing a Google search for all the Republican's who defended Larry Craig- whose actions were far less severe for people around him than Edwards (if true).

If you think someone who does this to a child and his very sick wife is okay, then you are part of the problem. Somehow I doubt you would truly feel the same way if John Edwards was your neighbor or in law and not a Democratic politician.

I will say it again, I hope this story is not true, but if it is, there is no defense from any decent person.

[Timb0]

The moral equivalence is in the affairs, Spag-o, but wait, McCain is known for a fact to have had at least one by his own admission, but Edwards has not been proven to have had one, nor has he admitted to having one. McCain started dating wifey # 2 in April 1979. McCain asked for a divorce from wifey # 1 in February 1980, and it was granted in April 1980. So he was shtupping Cindy for a year before he was a free man. That's adultery. Me no likee adulterers. So would you say McCain gets a walk on being a lying, cheating sac o'merde because he had the sense to do it 29 rears ago, because I wouldn't. Notice the car accident isn't relevant to the argument I am making, but cheating on a disabled wife doesn't get you any points in my book. I am prepared to condemn Edwards if it is shown that he too is a lying, cheating sac of shit, but you ain't got the goods on him and he hasn't any obligation to provide said goods. Your or my sneaking suspicion ain't enough. You once again assume too much.

As for me giving a shit about "the child", you have nothing but you hubris to indicate you anything about my attitudes towards children. I am a father, and a excellent one too. I'll match my caring for children individually and as a group against anyone else's. As for Edwards, him I don't give a shit about. The world being a small one, I have a former girlfriend who knows him professionally (she's an attorney too) and knows the scuttlebutt about him in the courthouses around the Triangle which is according to her he was a high-priced ambulance chaser who cherry picked only the highest profile, slam-dunk cases, and the charming facade is just that. That's my take on Edwards, but you just assumed... My concern is that the evidence is slim, not that I love Johnny Reid.

I know why you assume that everyone operates strictly on political considerations. Its because you do. Similarly, you assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal because everything is political to you.

[Dave Dobson]

I think there would be moral equivalence between one illicit affair and another, yes. Call me old-fashioned.

The additional similarities - medical problems for the wife, political careers, etc. - make the equivalency more pointed. And yet, none of the people crowing over the Edwards story seem even to be troubled by McCain having done essentially the same thing.

[Spag]

Dave, this goes beyond a mere affair. Sorry if you can't see that.

Timbo, some points well taken.

[Triad woman]

Spag: You would probably consider me liberal, but I wanted you to know I am in agreement with your posts about Edwards. You have clearly spelled out why his actions are odious if it's true that he has fathered a child and orchestrated an elaborate cover-up.

I have never trusted Edwards. He has always seemed to be in politics for himself, despite the high-sounding rhetoric. As a Democrat, I was furious with him for abandoning his Senate seat to run for president. It clearly seemed then that he cared nothing for advancing the goals of the party, either in North Carolina or nationally, but was all for advancing himself.

Then, his decision to stay in the race after his wife was diagnosed with incurable cancer made him seem even more vile. Yes, many said this was her decision, but that press conference with the two of them seemed to show something else. It even led me to wonder if he pushed her to have the younger children because he thought it would improve his presidential image. And that thought made me wonder if she had had to take fertility drugs in connection with that pregnancy and if those drugs contributed to her getting breast cancer ...

John Edwards is all about John Edwards. I feel sorrow for the children scarred by his self-lust.

Edwards has been for himself for a long, long time...

[Dave Dobson]

I get it, Sam. It's never the same.

You've made the leap of assumption that Edwards is guilty. You've made a further leap of assumption on how he's handled it, and that it was completely self-serving and cowardly. And you want me to not think less of McCain for an affair that's admitted, real, and no less cowardly, and handling of it that's also bad? When McCain's still running for office, on a values platform no less, and Edwards isn't running for anything, and when McCain's personal wealth increased a thousand fold through the affair?

Betraying your wedding vows is crappy. If Edwards did it, he's a schmuck. McCain did it. He's a schmuck. And he's running for president.

[Spag]

Whatever, Dave. This goes beyond merely cheating, but I guess you haven't been reading well enough. I never thought Clinton should resign over an affair, either. Rather, I thought he should resign because he violated the law by lying under oath. What Edwards is purported to have done- lying about his paternity of a CHILD and getting another married man to take the fall all while his wife is gravely ill goes beyond a mere affair. I guess your moral compass is just different than mine. Edwards has nothing to resign from, but if this story is true, he clearly lacks the honesty and decency to ever hold a public office again.

It also occurs to me that one reason there is nobody listed on the birth certificate if Edwards is the father is that he could face disciplinary action from the State Bar for knowingly encouraging a person to make a false statement to a government agency.

I also have never assumed Edwards was guilty.

[Dave Dobson]

Can I at least get you to point your vaunted moral compass at McCain for a second, and indicate that cheating on your injured wife and kids, who waited for you while you were in captivity for five and a half years, as a 43-year-old, with a 24-year-old heiress is perhaps just a wee bit dubious?

[Jonathan Jones]

So he cops to the affair, but not the kid. Interesting:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/?hpid=topnews

[keith]

thanks National Enquirer

NationalEnquirer

[Dave Dobson]

Well, that's a big disappointment. Edwards is far less a man than I thought he was, and plenty stupid, too. I feel very bad for Elizabeth and his kids.

[Roger Greene]

Edwards could not be a lesser man than I thought he was. Now, maybe we'll find out if Eric Montross is the bag man funneling cash to the man who claims to be the daddy, Andrew Young. Maybe that part WAS tabloid trash. I bet you'd never catch a Duke player associated with such activities. ;-)

[jc]

It's hard to believe him when he says it's not his child. Why in the hell would he be holding a baby in the middle of the night in a hotel room where he was just visiting if it wasn't his? Dubious at best. Another lie at worst. Reminds me of Clinton when he said he tried pot but he didn't inhale. Just come clean Johnny Reid. I'm afraid he will have to answer questions about this child for a long time or until a paternity test proves otherwise.

[jaycee]

So the National Enquirer was right, and the liberal sycophants who drink Ed Cone's kool-aid were wrong.
Eat crow, you fools.

[jw]

I agree with DD. I am deeply disappointed. Elizabeth doesn't need THIS on top of all she's had to deal with.

Cheating is bad enough. Cheating on your wife while she's suffering from cancer...I don't know how much lower a man can get.

[Big L]

Guess we shouldn't be surprised that we have to come back to an old topic to write about this, since Ed has no interest in posting the actual story. Not when there's perfectly legitimate comments that need to be deleted.

This doesn't make me hate Edwards any more then I already do. All it does is put into writing what we true conservatives already knew: Edwards, like every other liberal traitor, has no problems flushing their morals and the best interests of America down the toilet when it interferes with something they really want.

None of the family is clean. There's what Faggot here did (whoops, can't describe him as that, it makes liberals mad), which was piss over the wedding "vows" he swore to uphold. His gold digging wife played the cancer sympathy card to try and jump-start his failing campaign (which failed miserably), and more then likely knew about his affair but kept quiet about it in order to try and get him into Hussein's gang of infidels. At least we know she's going to getting her Final Judgment sooner than later. As for the children, terminal diseases tend to be hereditary, so hopefully they'll be smart enough to find legitimate parental role models and do some good with their lives before it's too late.

Edwards can only hope something comes up to make this disappear over the weekend. Either way, a good week ends with a major liberal going down in flames. Great way to start a beautiful weekend.

(By the way Ed, I have this saved in case you feel like doing some censorship again.)

[Spag]

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic."

-John Edwards

Ya think?

I have no doubt the true believers will deny what Edwards himself seems to acknowledge.

[jaycee]

The sad thing is that Edward's ego and elitism forced him to continue seeking the nomination even though he KNEW this would come out eventually and destroy him. What position would that have put the Dems (and our country!) in if he were currently the presumptive nominee instead of Obama?
Edwards willingly forsook his marriage vows on a whim. He was willing to sacrifice his dignity, his family, his party, and his country for the sake of some lil "fluff" that apparently was banging everybody on the campaign bus and then lie to the entire world in order to further his personal aggrandizement.
We frequently see this type of moral turpitude in Dems; what makes us think Obama is any different??

[Spag]

It's just a shame that Edwards isn't Mel Gibson, Larry Craig or George Allen. Then we might actually have multiple posts around here. But as it stands, silence is probably the best policy.

His affair is his business, but to do it in between '04 and '08 shows absolutely terrible judgment. Further, that he lied about it during a campaign has made him unelectable. His political career is over- which he seemed to acknowledge. I also am not convinced the child is not his because he has no explanation for why he was with this woman again, two years after he claimed that he told his family about the affair.

Edwards doesn't get to pick the jury this time, so his story is a lot harder to sell.

[Ian McDowell]

Jaycee, just how short was your schoolbus, anyway? Ed didn't express an opinion on Edward's guilt or innocence, but said that Edwards couldn't have it both ways, couldn't expect to a play a role in public life AND remain mum on this issue. The so-called "liberal sycophants" here were DISAGREEING with Ed, arguing that Johnny Reid Douchebag doesn't need to explain himself. Even by your own low standards, your metaphor doesn't make sense. That "drink the koolaid" meme was already gimpy, but extending it to include people who DISAGREE with Ed's position staggers completely past the suburbs of Lametown and straight into Doucheville.

And speaking of errant douchebaggery, I would point out to "Big L" that non-Mormon homosexuals rarely get women pregnant, and that Johnny Reid Douchebag wouldn't be in this predicament if the "faggot" epithet actually applied. But the liberal buttplug who, when he or she has had a few too many wine coolers, likes to post as "Big L" in a transparent attempt at making conservatives look bad, knows this already.

[Timbo]

I said I was prepared to condemn him as lying, cheating sack o'shite if this turned out to be true, so here goes: Johnny Reid, thou art condemned as a lying, cheating sack o'shite.

Three things: 1) A broken clock is right twice a day. The NE never had the goods on Edwards really, remains a dubious and unreliable rag, and will cause me to doubt any story about anyone that originates in it. A correct inference from next to no evidence is just a lucky stroke for them, and is in no way indicative of them having any journalistic ability or integrity. In other words, it'll take more than this for me to see the NE as a credible news source. They were able to start the snowball of pressure to get Edwards to say something rolling: yippee. 2) Edwards would have to be a whole different class of stupid to admit to the affair, deny paternity, then essentially ask for a DNA test to establish if that is the fact. But, he has proven he at least on occasion thinks with the small head, not the big, so I'll wait to see where the chips fall on that one. But if the affair WAS over in 2006, then the gestation period math doesn't work. We'll see. 3) Any wingnut who uses this incident as to support a claim of moral superiority for the wrong wing obviously hasn't been paying attention, or has a very selective memory. There are horny bastards of every political stripe, so shut the fuck up about this having anything to do with being liberal.

[Roger Greene]

It's a sad day in this world when a man is being 99% truthful and it isn't enough anymore. Because after all, he'd come clean in '06 so his recent visit to his 'former' concubine must have been totally innocent. I bet the Mrs. knew where he was all along. I think we can all be about .99999% sure of it.

[Roch101]

Jaycee wrote something about a Democrat banging a little piece of fluff on the side, then asked, "what makes us think Obama is any different??"

We don't need to speculate about McCain, he was banging a little piece of fluff or two on the side while still married to his first wife who he later divorced after she suffered a disfiguring accident.

It's no wonder Obama haters must resort to the most outrageous leaps of innuendo against Obama: Must distract from the real and admitted transgressions of the Republican candidate.

[Dave Dobson]

Wow, that was ugly to wade through. Edwards has now admitted to doing exactly what McCain did. I assume all your gloating, holier-than-thou comments apply to the other John, too.

[jc]

Dave, I dont think anyone is happy that McCain had an affair and left his first wife under the circumstances.

But was McCain running for President when it happened some 25 years ago? Did he lie about it to all his supporters? Did he have a bastard child that he wouldn't own up to? Did he give hush money to the mistress to shut her up? Did he pay someone else to become "the father" of the bastard child? Did he continue to solicit support and donations knowing full well this sorrid affair was gonna blow up in his face and embarrass all his supporters? Did he use campaign money to pay everyone off?

Basically, the Edwards used and lied to everyone that supported them. Total sleazebags.

But to compare the two, they are not even close. I'm suprised you can't figure that out.

[Dave Dobson]

But was McCain running for President when it happened some 25 years ago?

No, but he's running now, isn't he? Edwards isn't.

Did he lie about it to all his supporters?

Yes. All affairs involve lies.

Did he have a bastard child that he wouldn't own up to?

Did he give hush money to the mistress to shut her up?

Did he pay someone else to become "the father" of the bastard child?

Did he use campaign money to pay everyone off?

Not in evidence; I'm sure we'll see if there's anything to any of this, I'm sure, but for right now, these accusations just demonstrate your being willing to blindly accept the interpretation you like rather than waiting for proof.

Did he continue to solicit support and donations knowing full well this sorrid affair was gonna blow up in his face and embarrass all his supporters?

Here, you have a point. I'd say "could" rather than "was gonna", but this is John's biggest betrayal of his supporters. It's also a knock on Elizabeth Edwards, although she's clearly a victim in the rest of it.

[Roch101]

JC, you are missing the point: Of the two presidential candidates, McCain cheated on his first wife, then divorced her after she was no longer the beauty queen he married. Obama has not.

[Dave Dobson]

Yes. For those of you who say, "I'd like not to vote for an unfaithful adulterer," the choice this election is clear.

[jc]

Dave, I think its very schitty what McCain did 30 years ago and I do not hold him in very high esteem at all.

I'll admit if I'm wrong on the other accusations but why in God's name is Rotten holding up someone else's baby in the middle of the night if its not his? Just a little too coincidental for me to believe otherwise. Please don't tell me the pics aren't real either.

Lying and cheating are wrong, no matter who is doing it but when you publicly lie about it and cover it up with hush money, you are not comparing the samething in my book.

Roch, we are comparing McCain to Rotten. What has Obama got to do with this? He would have had to cheated on his wife to be a part of this this discussion. :)

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Dave: I think the point is that Edwards tried to keep his adultery a secret while running for president and then lied about it while running for president.

To my knowledge, McCain has not.

[Roch101]

jc wrote: "What has Obama got to do with this?"

Ask Jaycee, he was the one who wrote: "We frequently see this type of moral turpitude in Dems; what makes us think Obama is any different??"

I was just pointing our the immense hypocrisy in trying to link Edwards' behavior to Obama when it is Edwards and McCain who share the "moral turpitude."