We are liberals, but let's not be ostriches. Edwards could have f'd up 2008 and there's NO EXCUSE.

Edwards, like Bill Clinton, has been unmasked as a typical, selfish sociopath, who cared more about getting his rocks off then what consequences such behavior would have for the Democratic party or the country.

There is NO EXCUSE for infidelity...particularly when your wife is fighting cancer. DUers have long excoriated Newt Gingrich for a similar behavior and selfishness.

I am a liberal and progressive because I value logic and truth over faith and blind obedience. Trying to silence liberal outrage over what Edwards did is no different then the actions of Repukes who defend Shrub for any of the hundreds of war crimes he has perpetrated. Granted what Edwards did is not at the same level or severity, but it could have derailed the 2008 election for us if he had become our nominee. He knew when he ran that there was a risk because of his infidelity, but it demonstrated that he cared more for himself than the Democratic Party and its well-being.

A hypocrite is a hypocrite and a sociopath is a sociopath... regardless of the party to which that person belongs.

J

I am pissed at Edwards, but he is not a sociopath (like Bush).

Many psychologists believe that psychopathy falls on a spectrum of pathological narcissism, ranging from narcissistic personality disorder on the low end, malignant narcissism in the middle, and psychopathy on the high end. An almost all-pervasive misconception is that psychopaths are doomed to a life of violence and crime. It is possible for psychopaths to become successful in many lines of work. Psychopathy is frequently mistaken with other similar personality disorders, such as dissocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and schizoid personality disorder (as well as others).

Caring more about getting your rocks off, when your wife is fighting cancer and you have two young children and one adult child, is a prototypical sociopathic behavior. Narcissism may fuel the sociopathic behavior (it is a component), but narcissism in of itself does not determine how a person chooses the behavior.

J

It's done. You all keep talking like he's still running for president.

you are not a liberal.

I think this means we have to turn in our membership cards and they are going to change the secret handshake.

She knew in 2006, yet went along with risking everything knowning thios was out there.

J

"If you want to run, John, then run. But don't count on me. I will make NO appearances because you know you had an affair and you KNOW the REpublicans will dig it up."

Here's hoping that the next generation of American women will be able to make better decisions and will be accepted by society as independent-thinking beings, not constant victims and martyrs who stand by their men to save face.

is that there did not seem to be a strong appearance of him supporting her and prioritizing her illness. Instead, she sacrificed for the campaign- for his ambitions while she was ill.
We are learning a lot about his character, I believe.
It would not be easy to be married to a man who imposes his ambitions upon one's life with an expectation of sacrifice under any and all circumstances.

feel really bad for her that John cheated on her. But I would have expected better of her. She is just as guilty in allowing him risk our party's chance of winning the White House.

I am more disappointed in her participation in the lie than in his actions. I trusted them both but I adored Elizabeth Edwards and would never have believed her capable of taking such an incredibly stupid chance with the future of the country at stake.

Had he come clean when he announced his campaign it would have been a totally different story. A sexual affair is inconsequential. Lies, an entire campaign based on deception WHILE KNOWING THAT THE TRUTH COULD COME OUT AT ANY TIME is totally incomprehensible. How could these people that I deeply respected behave so incredibly irresponsible with no apparent concern for the possible consequences of their actions?

she is saying she knew in 06 when she did not know to back him up.

yet still supported John risking the 2008 election by running with the known deal breaker in the closet.

She was willing to put John's run above the Democratic PArty.

Do. Not. Go. There.

She supported his decision to run knowing he had an affair and what the consequences of that really is.

She was willing to risk the outcome of the 2008 election. I have nothing but disdain for that decision.

Please stop this. You're doing what Fox will probably be doing tomorrow.

None of us are entitled to judge Elizabeth in this situation. She needs our support, not your cynicism.

The responsibility for this is John Edwards' and John Edwards' alone. He was the one who stuck Mr. Happy where Mr. Happy should not have been stuck.

She could ahve told him to run but she would make no appearances.

She is as culpable for putting the entire Demoratic PArty chances in 2008 at risk as John. She knew the risks and accepted them.

And I don't have a problem with the affair. That's their business. The only problem I have is these two people were willing to risk the Democratic PArty's chances knowing damned well and good the Republicans would ahve found out about the affair.

Edwards wanted this so bad he skated on razor blades. better to know now than in October.

She's the victim no matter how she responded to this.

And who knows what methods this bastard used to keep her quiet and out of divorce court? He'd make sure she didn't get a penny and he'd probably manage to keep the kids too.

Walk out on him, with two young children and breast cancer? Refuse to show up in public with him? Interrupt his speech and holler "He cheated on me!!" on TV?

Seriously. What was she supposed to do?

Simply not publicly support the run.

She knew he was risking the chances of the Democrats winning the white house and she supported that risk.

I have the highest respect for Elizabeth Edwards, but it really should have been incumbent on her, as the person (still) closest to her husband, to point out to him the unpleasant truth -- that, if some people already knew about the affair, the odds were good that it would come to light sometime during the campaign, should he choose to run.

I'm not saying she should have gotten a divorce or shouldn't have forgiven him; that's a choice for her to make. But she should have been the first to tell him that the American public was unlikely to be as forgiving as she herself might be, and that part of the penalty for his actions, by default, should have been the end of his dream of becoming President.

for his actions. She does not, however, deserve anything. She's been fighting a horrible and scary battle. Who cares why she stayed with him after knowing! His actions were the offensive ones.

She's every much to blame over that choice as he is.

and they both were willing to risk everything with no guarantee it wouldn't explode on us all. Had they been honest at the beginning of the race, it would have earned them grudging respect. Now they both are stained. They took risks they had no right to take that endangered all of our futures. To me that is hard to forgive.

....typical.

In 2008 she made her own decision to support the candidacy of her husband knowing there was a scandal they had to hide with lies.

I don't think she's a saint in this as much as I do agree with her politics.

....if she chooses to put it behind her and forgive, it's not our business to judge. It's her marriage, it's her call. Not mine or anyone else.

They can stay married and live happily, more power to em if they can get past it.

I'm just looking at the fact they decided to lie to us all to gain the presidency. How many times did he lie when asked direct questions? They both knew this scandal could have given us a McCain presidency. God knows what that would have done to the country yet they decided to risk it and hide the truth rather than risk tainting the perfect family image.

That bothers me, it's ugly and I expected better.

...the US would have gone down the tubes if we had a president that was unfaithful to his wife.

You must really hate all of the presidents who cheated...like FDR & JFK. No one presented a more perfect family than JFK, yet he is lauded as one of our great presidents.

is judging Elizabeth for that. The other is John AND Elizabeth running for the nomination. They are both guilty of deceit. I have always seen Elizabeth as being just as ambitious as John. This incident proves just how ambitious she truly was.

This is a personal matter between the family, and it seems like Mrs. Edwards has forgiven her husband and I think it's DU's turn to do the same.

My point is this becomes not just a "family/personal matter" when the very real risk could have been his behavior leading to McCain's victory in 2008 by default.

J

Move on. Let's Go Obama.

As I pointed out in a previous thread, the very fact that the National Enquirer turned out to be true, and those who dismissed it proved to be false, gives the tabloids a lot more credibility in the minds of certain voters. That means that, the next time the tabloids announce "REVEALED: Obama's Crack-Dealing Youth!" or "Obama's Secret Love Child!" or "Obama's Radical Mosque -- Eyewitnesses Reveal Secret Muslim Connection!"...more people will be inclined to accept that "hey, the stories may be true" (and thus assume they are) than would before this was confirmed.

Plus, it will make it harder for Obama to seize the moral high ground, or lay any emphasis on responsibility and integrity, when opponents will be able to frame the Democratic Party as "Bill Clinton and John Edwards," and once again present the Republicans as the "party of morality." As I said before, sadly, there is such a thing as guilt by association, and this won't make it any easier for Obama in November. :-(

I hadn't thought of that. I don't know anything about the National Enquirer but given their audience I assume they lean right--so while it would be a good thing if they were to write about McCain's history, what you said about their credibility could really be a problem if they decided to write something about Obama. Grrr. I guess this aspect of the story can't be laid directly at Edwards' door, unlike his decision to run despite having this affair in his background... but it's just one more reason that this whole sad mess is so disappointing.

high degree of honesty. Neither of the Edwards were honest with their supporters or the American people about his relationship with Ms. Hunter when confronted about it in 2007.

That meant that those of us who were out their campaigning for Edwards repeated his lies and defended him over and over and over. That is demeaning to me personally as one who campaigned for Edwards and had to respond to questions about his alleged affair, and to all Democrats -- who once again are rightfully depicted as a party with "leaders" who are dishonest. I do not want a dishonest leadership for the country or for the Democratic Party. He should have told the truth when the first accusations were made.

till the end. He was looking at 2012.

And apparently you have no clue what "sociopath" means. See ya.

HYPOCRITES.

Its about John Edwards being a goddamn LIAR.

Put it this way, if Edwards was a swinger...I'd have had NO problems with him, because everything about him would have been honest. You can be a porn star who worships Satan for all I care, just be honest about it.

Edwards cheated on his wife (LIE), then he lied about it (LIE) in public view. He ragged Clinton for the Lewinsky thing (HYPOCRITE) and now the best argument people like you can peddle is 'stay out of his bedroom'.

No one was in his bedroom, but what I did see what a LIAR...and i dont want LIARS at the head of the Democratic Party...if we find one, they should be removed for honest people. Our party is no better than trash if we justify scumbag behavior (and scumbag behavior isn't having consentual sex with 1000 people, but rather LYING about it).

Edwards is trash

What a creep.

How gullible. I defended them both and now I really regret it. They took such an idiotic chance with the future.

why do the Democrats who run for office have to pass "morality" tests that the Republicans apparently aren't given? Think about this for a minute. It's not just John McCain or "diaper man" or "wide stance dude" I'm referring to either.... what's up with infidelity "ruining" a Democratic politician when it doesn't seem to even slow down the so called "conservative" ones?

Hypocrisy is not as tolerated in our party because it is antithetical to our core beliefs in truth, justice, and freedom. We should aspire to be better persons than Repukes.

The whole "...but Repukes do it too" excuse doesn't fly. I expect this sort of trash hypocrisy from Repukes, not our own.

J

...because, now that the National Enquirer has been shown right in this case, there will be a tendency for "lower-information" voters to believe more of what appears there. Which means that every single Obama rumor, whether it deals with sex, drugs, his religious affiliation, or whatever will seem a lot more credible than it did last night. And, with the right-wing orientation of the tabloids, you can bet that there will be a lot of those rumors showing up in the supermarket checkout lines between now and November.

However much we might wish it weren't so, there is such a thing as guilt by association in most people's minds. And this has just reinforced the G.O.P. frame that Democrats are the "party of immorality." Thanks, John!

:sarcasm:

and edwards (don't you remember their little whisper-off where they wanted a debate between the two of them--the "serious" candidates?)

if he had gotten the nomination and then this shit came out, the media would have destroyed our party--along with those "family values voters." talk about giving them exactly what they would love....

But isn't this rush to judgment NOT what makes us Democrats? We pride ourselves on our big tent and that usually means being open to people and in some cases, trusting that our fellow Democrat is a good person. Like you, I hate infidelity but just because Edwards has been proven to be an adulterer, this doesn't mean that we as Democrats should be ashamed of having believed the best of him before we were proven wrong. So I think that our personal opinions aside, let's not fan the flames as we still have one person to consider who our party IS proud of and that's Elizabeth Edwards.

He ran for the nomination of our party. He duped everyone of us. He conned his contributors and supporters. He put thousands of people to much trouble, all on a lie.

He stole money from contributors, used it to pay his paramour, and laundered it through his attorney as hush money.

He needs to personally pay back everyone who gave him money since last fall, when he lied and denied the affair.

already been said?

:boring:

that lot. He'd have sorted them and their pet MSM out in rag-time. That's the key.

Liberal and progressive? I'm a social conservative, and only an economic liberal, and I can see this is a glaringly obvious political stunt, identical to the Gary Hart and Bill Clinton attacks. And you think it's being realistic not to stand up to them, but let them pick your candidates and nominees. Heaven help the America if you people are a characteristic, not to say a characterful, sample of progressive Democrats.

"DUers have long excoriated Newt Gingrich for a similar behavior and selfishness."

So mean of them, wasn't it? There, there, never mind. All come out in the wash. Since your moral perception seems to be so blunt that you see little or difference between JE and the Grinch ..... John didn't beg his wife to sign divorce papers while she was in hospital, so he could marry his younger, sleeker model. And I'll bet he wouldn't have wanted to, in the deepest corners of his heart. Sex is one thing. Love is another. Despite what the politically very conservative MSM would have you believe. And unlike you nut-jobs, Elizabeth clearly knows it and has said as much. Still you don't want to know.

One minute, he's kind of androgenously good-looking, kind of a pretty-boy; the next he's a womanising sexual-depraved psychopath. You people are beneath contempt. Even for operatives.

"To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.' For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

On the one hand, slurs concerning a putatively ambiguous sexuality because he doesn't look like a pug-ugly Republican - on the other hand, he's a wild womaniser.

And, on the one hand, because he's made a lot of money as a top-flight lawyer (hammering the big corporations), and lives high on the hog, he's a villain. On the other hand, because Solzhenitsin despised consumerism and, like Tolstoy, tried to live a life, as simple and as austere as possible, he was an anti-modernist crank!

* Here is a beautiful poem posted by Joe Bageant on his blog, joebageant.com, on the subject of those who our right-wing recidivists in the UK are pleased to call, "Champagne Socialists".

I am unjust, but I can strive for justice.
My life's unkind, but I can vote for kindness.
I, the unloving, say life should be lovely.
I, that am blind, cry out against my blindness.
Come, let us vote against our human nature,
Crying to God in all the polling places
To heal our everlasting sinfulness
And make us sages with transfigured faces.
-- From “Why I voted the Socialist Ticket,” by Vachel Lindsay

Jesus spoke to stop an execution for adultery, not to stop condemnation of wrongdoing.

John Edwards' professions of loyalty to his wife and devotion to things godly would surely have made Jesus consider him exactly like he considered those hypocritical Pharisees Jesus chastised.

be judged: and with what emasure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
And why behodlest thou the more in thy brother's eye, but considereth not the beam in thy own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, forst cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote ut of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7: 1-5.

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Romans 14:10

Note that at the Last Judgment, as described by Christ, himself, the sole Criterion he mentions as absolutely essential for Salvation, is love expressed by a person in deeds towards the less fortunate, whether in terms of sickness, imprisonment, poverty, etc. Now who do you think will be saved, a man like John Edwards who wants to help the millions of poor, destitute and even homeless in your county, or a pious Christian who votes right wing, and relatively-speaking, puts nickels and dimes in the Poor Box in his Church? Your Salvation and mine and everybody else's depends on answering that correctly - but not just in words. If you think otherwise, your own soul is in great danger.

As regards the incident of he "woman caught in adultery", your contention is clearly not the point of the story, although he told the woman to "go and sin no more".

John 8:3-11

"Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman
caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the
midst,
4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in
adultery, in the very act.
5 "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should
be stoned. But what do You say?"
6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have
something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped
down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though
He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up
and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let
him throw a stone at her first."
8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their
conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the
oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and
the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the
woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers
of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her,
"Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Let's begin with this line:

"So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up
and said to them, "'He who is without sin among you, let
him throw a stone at her first.'"

The point he is clearly making is that they are all serious sinners, although the older they are, the more aware they are of their own sins - and it's guaranteed that they each knew that it would be at best dangerous, and probably utter folly, to imagine that he wouldn't have been able to cite each one of their sins to each one of them, and the time and date hey did it. Otherwise, liars that they mostly were, they would have denied it.

Nor was this the only instance in which Jesus acts on the assumption that the word of God had become so corrupted by vile traditions of men, the Synagogue leadersip, that many of the heavy sanctions of the Mosaic Law, appropriate to their day, were no longer appropriate. It wasn't that they didn't apply in principle, that they had ceased to be sinful, but that the people had become "like sheep without a shepherd." Having bad, worldly leaders (however piously they posed) punishing people who, as the poor, were by nature, more spiritual, wasn't a good idea. Nor is it today in US politics.

Perhaps, most noteworthy in this regard are Christ's words, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU." The time for that will be Judgment Day, and God alone will be worthy and authorised to do so.

To some extent, speaking to a person's condition - assuming appropriate circumstances, definitely not the case here - requires a degree of judgement in the sense of assessment, but that should be private. Political legislation is public and affects the public, legal, private, personal conduct, however offensive to God and our circle of family and friends, is no business of others to warrant publicly defaming the person. If you think otherwise, your own soul is in great danger.

If, on the other hand, a Government is thoroughly wicked, by normal, indifferent Government standards, and a high official notoriously tried to force his wife to have sex with strangers in a sex club, or wote a book on the subject of bestiality, then it would be a dereliction on your part not to note it, and have severe reservations regarding their fitness for office; arguably, even, speaking to others about it. Only God can make an eschatological judgement, but when a person's behaviour in his private reaches a rare depth of moral turpitude, then their suitability in any capacity should exercise an employer's (in these cases, the public) concern.

I would rather betray God directly than betray my wife, because I know that he knows, and worse, that he knows that I know, that his own shoulders are broad, where any committed spouse's cannot be in that regard. But we are all serious enough sinners, for sure, if not in that regard, at least in other regards just as serious.

That's very common.

Jesus never said not to judge. He said be sure your heart is right before you do.

I am happy to have a chance to explain that for you.

more time endeavouring to set you straight and possibly save your soul.

You claim, "Jesus condemned adultery, and he would condemn John Edwards for this."

You are either literally blind or spiritually blind or both, or you would have noticed that I put Christ's express words, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU" in capitals. He did NOT condemn the woman. The fact that it is a serious sin was understood by all. Condemnation of Edwards, which is what you have been engaged in, is one step further in setting yourself up as another man's judge. Or do you question the binding authority of Scripture?

James 4:11
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law,: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"

And I would advise you not to answer, "One who believes that wealth is a sign of God's blessing". That is outright blasphemy. Remember, Jesus compared the rich man very unfavourably with the dumb beasts, in the parable of Lazarus, when he said that even the street dogs licked Lazarus' sores. Warm-blooded mammals evidently wouldn't have a problem with universal health care - even cross species - if they could bring it about. In their hapless, stumbling way, they evidently have to show their compassion as best they can.

Returning to the main theme, however, in order to condemn, you have to form a judgement, and Christ was all too well aware that passing from a personal judgement to a public condemnation was second nature to us. By implying that we should not condemn, he was reinforcing the words of the Apostle James concerning setting ourselves up as judges, not setting them aside.

He doesn't hold public office right now, so who really cares?

ad revenue from google spikes, new people join up, page rank increases.

this isn't about john edwards.

so why cry over spilled milk?