John Edwards. Surprised? Not Surprised?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Nothing that has come out about John Edwards surprises me.

It is who he always obviously was. Always. (Kerry conceded the day he picked him.)


Were you surprised?

[quinnox]

1. nothing could about this guy

I'm kind of sick about hearing about him. Its like some kind of bad reality show that goes on forever.

Good morning

[midnight]

2. Here is what surprises me. A man can take us into an illegal war, and kill millions,

and he is nowhere near a court room?

[Mira]

21. That's what I would be talking about as well.

John Edwards was an abysmal fool and obviously a basically dishonest person who did not realize that he, too, could not have it all.
I am certain he is suffering for it now, and the rest ought to be silence.

[Maru Kitteh]

58. So now when corrupt politicians w/poor impulse control illegally funnel 1.5M+ to their road nookie

we should all just remain silent because we are "sure they are suffering?"

What a crock.

I'm sure you would feel the same way about a repuke crook and his road princess too.

[Mira]

71. YOu know what, I spaced that. Is it confirmed he did that?

If yes, he'll be suffering even more, won't he.
It's not a crock, my dear whoever you are, it's just my opinion, living happily just beside yours.

[defendandprotect]

53. ... well, "god" told him to do it . . . whereas the rest of the stuff is about S E X -- !!!

Say "SEX" and America goes nuts!!

Say "god" and you're idiolized!!

[old mark]

3. I was not surprised that he was "wrong", but I am still amazed how

wrong he is and how long he got away with it...I am sure this had been going on over much of his career.

mark

[defendandprotect]

54. Have other women come forward . . . or did he suddenly go nuts?

[el_bryanto]

4. I was surprised

I liked Edwards in 2004 - I thought he presented well and hoped that he got the nomination.

Feel kind of foolish now.

Bryant

[PRETZEL]

11. I felt the same way,

his presentation to the people while campaigning offered things that others didn't, that was a sense of the "common man" approach to politics.

That was dealt a serious blow when the Enquirer outed him of his affair.

After reading "The Politician" I have no respect for him (or for that matter any of them) anymore.

[defendandprotect]

57. Obviously, many see a connection between betrayal of wife/family as

a determination that he will betray the public . . .

Granted, if insurance companies are working that angle, you may be right!!


On the other hand, we have politicians who are betraying the public now --

and telling us that they are "family values" guys?

Are they all lies?

Are we all being naive?

I don't know -- I think we need to look at this more closely -- but I think too

much is hidden from the public for us to be able to judge all of this properly???

[LakeSamish706]

42. Exactly my thoughts.... I was originally for Kucinich and then Edwards...

Didn't expect that he was fooling around for sure, cause he seemed honest.

[defendandprotect]

59. Again . .. can we separate sexual "honesty" from political agenda "honesty" . . .

I don't know --

but I think we are presuming too much re monogamy --

especially where politicians reach powerful positions --

and have big egos!

Look at FDR and LBJ . . . how many mistresses?

JFK, as well -- not to the extent that the right wing propagandizes -- he'd have had

to been a sexual Superman -- but certainly he had mistresses.

I'd take a JFK political agenda any time!!!

Same with FDR -- !!



Look at Truman and Bess . . . his boyhood sweetheart --

Dropped atomic weapons on civilians in Japan!!

Interesting precedent for which, I expect, we will one day pay!!

[marions ghost]

67. women tend to equate familial "honesty"

with political honesty. Men may not. Do a poll.

But usually where there is sleeze in one area of a person's life, there is sleeze in another, right? The thing is, this USED to be OK, socially acceptable. It's no longer socially acceptable. The times have changed. Men like Clinton and Edwards & Tiger are slow to catch up. And of course they have the Narcissist tendency to believe they deserve it all. Politicians are celebrities and celebrities can break the "rules." Or so they believe.

Can you imagine being a man who has terminal cancer and his wife runs out on him before he even has a foot in the grave...moving on, essentially? This is done WHILE presenting a picture of the perfect marriage for public approval.

Yes, sleeze at home is an indicator of sleeze elsewhere IMO, in business or in politics. Same cheap thrills. Same brain pathways.

[XemaSab]

76. He channeled money donated to his anti-poverty program

to his mistress.

Sexual morality aside, that's sleazy as hell.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Boy, he really had me fooled.

You really can't judge a book by it's cover, can you?

[zipplewrath]

6. The depth does

It's hard to believe that people will be THAT self destructive. Gary Hart, Clinton, the list of guys that preceded himself down that path to destruction is hard to ignore. Why anyone works as hard as he would have had to work to accomplish this is just amazing.

[quinnox]

7. Thats kind of insulting to Bill Clinton, he is still a major force

on the world stage, and still has a lot of prestige and is well regarded by a lot of Democrats

.I wouldn't consider what Bill Clinton did and what John Edwards did to be even remotely comparable.

[zipplewrath]

13. Gore's loss

Gore's loss was a major setback for him. It is also traceable to the distractions that made it difficult for him to get his terrorism efforts moved forward. History isn't going to be kind to Clinton, especially considering that Obama beat his wife, and has made over turning DADT part of his campaign, not to mention undoing DOMA. He is also trying to pass the healthcare legislation that Clinton turned down. He may be a big fund raiser now, but history isn't going to be as impressed.

[quinnox]

17. huh, so you are blaming Clinton for Gore losing?

Sorry but I think its on Gore. He had a big lead if I recall for a long time. Gore blew the election to be honest. I love Al Gore but he fumbled against Bush.

I disagree with you about history and Clinton, he did great things for the country in terms of economic successes and I think he will be looked on in a favorable light. I'm not saying he will be regarded as one of the best presidents ever, but above average would be my guess.

[zipplewrath]

36. Actually, Gore did

Gore was primarily the one blaming Clinton. Whether Gore "blew a lead" is debatable, but what isn't was the real, measurable phenomenon of "Clinton Fatigue". People were tired of the three ring circus he had become.

As for history, he had successes, but none of them particularly sustained themselves past his presidency. About the only one that did was NAFTA and the historical perspective on that has yet to be determined. History tends to judge presidents by they way they have an affect AFTER their gone. By the end of Obama, it will potentially be that BOTH Bush and Obama ended up undoing much if not all of what Clinton did.

[XemaSab]

77. lulz, I read this all wrong

"Obama beat his wife"

I was like WTF? :P

[blm]

18. Baloney - if Clinton had been caught BEFORE he became president there'd be NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever

But then, Jackson Stephens and Poppy Bush knew exactly why they were letting their boy in Arkansas get into the WH. Let's see....could it have had something to do with the Dec 1992 release of the BCCI report?

And....you are PLEASED with the heavy influence Clinton still has? You like how he urged Blair and the DC Dems to support Bush on Iraq war? How Clinton used his summer2004 book tour to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND Bush's decision to invade Iraq in nearly every public interview, and even as the Dem nominee was attacking the decision to invade?

I wish Clinton DIDN'T have that kind of influence. He was Bush's top salesman on Iraq when it came to selling that war to other world leaders, to Dem party lawmakers and to the American people inclined to believe his assessment.

[quinnox]

22. I'm well aware of your hatred for the Clintons

You have been talking about it for years now god knows.

Clinton was not "the top salesman" for selling the Iraq war. That is utterly ridiculous.

Does Colin Powell ring a bell? He sold the Iraq war to the world and they bought it lock stock and barrel.

[blm]

27. Clinton was Bush's top Dem salesperson and he used his 2004 booktour to defend Bush on Iraq.

And it wasn't Powell urging Blair to stand with Bush, it was Clinton - in fact, recent testimony in England about Iraq decisions proved that Blair was on board with invading Iraq by 2000. Guess you missed that thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4289763

Utterly ridiculous?

And....There would be absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between Edwards and Clinton if Clinton had been caught BEFORE he became president. Had Edwards cheated on his wife AFTER he became president, many here would be defending him just as they did Clinton....and at the expense of the rest of Dem lawmakers and Dem issues.

[quinnox]

31. Did the Clintons kill your dog or something?

You have been on a campaign against them for literally years here.

I can't believe you say Edwards and Bill are the same in their acts!!

John Edwards cheated on his DYING WIFE WHO HAS CANCER, and he was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT KNOWING ALL THIS AT THE SAME TIME.

John Edwards HAD A CHILD BORN AS A RESULT OF HIS AFFAIR AND TRIED TO KEEP IT SECRET SO AS NOT TO DAMAGE HIS POLITICAL CHANCES

I'm astonished you can't see the MAJOR DIFFERENCES

[zipplewrath]

37. Politically I don't

I have to say, that politically I don't see alot of difference. Clinton's affairs predate his presidency, he had a child living in the White House when he was with Lewinsky. I'm not sure, politically, what you think the big differences are. If Clinton had be "caught" like Edwards, he'd been in the same trouble politically.

[blm]

46. And if Edwards had become president BEFORE he was caught, he'd be no different than Clinton.

And vice-versa.

Did Clinton BUY you a dog or something that you'd excuse how he sided with BOTH Bushes?

[quinnox]

48. I remember now, you are a John Kerry loyalist

So I guess you think all your Clinton bashing makes Kerry look good or some other bizarre reason that I don't want to know.

You also buy into every right wing conspiracy out there regarding the Clintons too.

WHATEVER

[blm]

49. You have no honest answer so you claim RW conspiracy? Care to back that up?

You'd be hard put to find anyone on Free Republic complaining that Clinton sided too much with the secrecy and privileges of BushInc throughout the 90s or were bothered that Clinton defended Bush's leadership on Iraq war too vigorously during his summer2004 booktour.

But...you're welcome to try, of course.

[quinnox]

55. I'm done talking about this

I don't know why you are so obsessed with the Clintons, and why you hate them so much.

And I don't really care either. You have been saying the same spiel for years, and never seem to get tired of it. I recommend getting outside, go and enjoy the great outdoors, it would maybe give you some fresh perspectives and something else to focus on. There are other things in life than Bill and Hillary Clinton and their
(according to you) alleged crimes against humanity. Bill and Hillary Clinton are spawn of the devil apparently or a member of the Illuminati, I get it. Or whatever you really think about them. :eyes:

[blm]

63. heheh...YOU claimed Edwards and Clinton were not comparable and I differed

and I also took a different view from your fawning over Clinton's lasting influence. I used FACTS. You had no refutation for the simple truth, so.... you grasped for insults. That's exactly what happened here.

[XemaSab]

78. Not the mention the CRIME:

Edwards took donated money and used it to pay off his mistress.

[elocs]

25. What both Edwards and Clinton did was wrong and stupid

and neither apparently considered the consequences of their actions. Neither learned much from Nixon and Watergate that lying and trying to cover up your screwups gets you into more trouble than simply admitting the truth and that you made a mistake.

[defendandprotect]

60. How deeply connected is the sexual ego and political ego?

Gary Hart showing off?

Clinton, sexually over the line?
That excludes Lewinski which I think was entrapment.

What I'm trying to say is these men aren't aberrations!!!

We have to learn something from this about men . . .

And women haven't yet hit the world stage yet re power . . . !!

Well, excluding Golda and Thatcher . . . what's HRC doing?

If we're shocked about these male sexual adventures, how naive will

be about women?

[FSogol]

8. Other: Still upset over the stupidity of Gary Hart. n/t

[Bryn]

45. Me, too!

I couldn't believe it when Gary Hart blew his chance. x(

[hlthe2b]

9. What surprises me is only that he has taken 100% of the denunciation

I hear nothing aimed towards his mistress, as though she were a victim. Yet, Elisabeth has been slimed in the media--almost as if it were all her fault. THAT is what surprises (and dismays) me.

[karynnj]

23. That doesn't surprise me.

It was the Edwardses who people had put their faith in and were let down - primarily by JRE. Hunter was a bit player, who from the beginning was considered to be trash. No one considered her a victim. In what way was she ever victimized.

[hlthe2b]

35. I have seen nothing "trashing" her nor suggesting she was

anything less than a victim. What media have you been reading? I think she owns her share of this debacle--which does not in any way let John Edwards off the hook. He has proven himself to be a despicable narcissistic opportunist, but I consider that a "given."

All this media attention that seems to give Hunter a sense of "celebrity"--very much the same way Tiger Wood's porn star dalliances are "rewarded" with celebrity, rather than derision. Hell one of them even has Gloria Allred representing her and her "victim-hood". Yes, I see some of the same with Hunter.

[karynnj]

47. What are you speaking of?

Nothing in any MSM account makes her victim. But, she had no high place to fall from - from when she was first spoken of, she was a sleazy, kooky person who came on to married man. Sure her (fake) name is now known, but though she and Tiger Woods' women, get their pictures and names out, I would use the word "infamy", not "celebrity".

Is she partly to blame - of course, but it was JRE that we expected more of. The story is that a person, highly regarded and praised incessantly for a few years, was shown to be a sleaze - that was a story. Had Rielle had the same relationship with an unknown CEO of some company, there would have been little national coverage.

[hlthe2b]

65. Infamy and celebrity have become one and the same in our bizarre

culture... I don't know how to make it any clearer to you.. Perhaps Fsogol (post 56) can do so better.

[karynnj]

72. They are not the same, what they have in common is that they will both be covered by the media.

It is not a lack of clarity, it is that I have a basic disagreement with your POV on this.

[hlthe2b]

73. and you inexplicably

seem to need to defend Hunter?

[karynnj]

75. NOOOOOO I never defended her -ever.

Find me one positive thing I ever wrote about her. Disagreeing with your assessment that her media is positive does not mean I am defending her. That is completely illogical. No one is. I think it completely normal that the one who people are saying they are disappointed in is Edwards. They never invested their hopes in Rielle.

[FSogol]

56. She's being treated like a celebrity with photo spreads, newspaper coverage, etc.

She is partly to blame.

[hlthe2b]

64. Exactly..

[2Design]

10. disappointed - I thought he was better than this n/t

[onehandle]

12. Considering a plurality of DUers supported him during the primaries I would think most would say yes

If they were honest.

[Kahuna]

38. Really? I don't recall a "plurality" supporting him. Many (including myself)

had his number as far back as 2004. The only thing to be honest about is whether we just thought he was a slick, shyster, or a scumbag too. I admit, I only thought he was a slick shyster. For the record, I never trusted Elizabeth either. I always thought that she wanted it more than he did.

[onehandle]

66. Polls at DU consistently had Edwards as our top choice.

Even for a few weeks after he dropped out.

[dawg]

14. I was really surprised.

I thought he was a good man ... the kind of man I try to be. I knew he was a little vain, what with the hair and all, but I never thought he would so something so hurtful to the people he was supposed to cherish and protect.

In a way, I'm ashamed of John Edwards, and ashamed that I could be fooled so easily.

(Edited for spelling, I recently lost 25IQ points and am too lazy to do spell check every time - sorry, I'll try to do better)

[marions ghost]

26. Don't be ashamed. Many are fooled.

Read up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD):

Why Some Leaders Feel Above the Law
Though Americans try to elect officials who will represent their interests and do the best for their constituency repeatedly those choices put people in office who have significantly questionable morals and ethics.
The news seems to always be reporting on some politician who has committed a crime, had a sexploit, or done something else to take advantage of the voters' trust. You have to wonder why they continue to do this despite the fact that they see the consequences others face in those situations. Once caught, they are sorry and express remorse. They want to be forgiven. But there seems to be a constellation of symptoms and behaviors similar in each case.

More at:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1961710/politicians_and_narcissistic_personality.html?cat=72

[cali]

34. I had him pegged in 2004 and I tried warning folks here about him in 2008

I got reviled for it.

[tritsofme]

15. Nope, saw this one coming a mile away.

Since he walked on the national stage I've pegged him as a complete phony.

[seabeckind]

16. Forgot the "Don't care" option. n/t

[nevergiveup]

19. I tried really hard to like this guy but was never able to pull it off.

There was something about him that was always creepy to me.

[karynnj]

20. Surprised that he did not have the discipline needed to stay true to Elizabeth

I never liked him, but I thought that he did see, having condemned Clinton's behavior, that his long time marriage to the better liked Elizabeth was central to the positive image some had of him.

I think Kerry chose Edwards, over his own negative gut feeling, because it was clear that the media would have bashed any other choice and his vetting came up clean, giving Kerry nothing objective to point to in rejecting him. The media already had stories that Edwards was the best choice and spoke of his charisma and energy giving the ticket the lift it needed. The first interviews are hard to watch now with Kerry being asked if he thought Edwards' charisma and energy would rub off on him - ignoring that Kerry very soundly beat Edwards almost everywhere in the primaries. Still, I think it likely that when Kerry spoke of mistakes made that he would not speak of -- Edwards was likely number 1.

The sad thing is that he gotten the engaged Edwards of the primary and had Edwards even tried to be a team player, Kerry would have won. Having a prima donna VP, more concerned about his own prospects and thinking he knew better than Kerry and other far more experienced people was one more burden Kerry faced in 2004.

[HughMoran]

24. He was so handsome and popular

Elizabeth was smart and grounded (and good-looking) - yet I always felt as if there was a mis-match there - I genuinely wondered how he could not stray. Sadly, my intuition was correct.

[Cirque du So-What]

28. I admit being surprised

and I fucking well don't like surprises of that sort. If anything, the Edwards debacle has opened my eyes to just how effective sociopaths can be in pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, and I'm unapologetically calling John Edwards a sociopath. Not only did he show callous disregard for his wife & family, but if this had come to light after actually getting elected, the effects would have been devastating for the Democratic party, for the progressive movement in general, and for the nation at large.

[deaniac21]

29. Today, under George W. Bush, there are two

Jonn Edwards, not one: One Jonh Edwards that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One John Edwards that pays the taxes, another John Edwards that gets the tax breaks. One John Edwards - middle-class John Edwards - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another John Edwards - narrow-interest John Edwards - whose every wish is Washington's command. One John Edwards that is struggling to get by, another John Edwards that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a president.

[deutsey]

44. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Kahuna]

30. Although I had long considered him a shyster, I AM surprised that he

turned out scumbag of the lowest order too.

[Ian David]

32. And all this time, the right-wing media was implying he was gay.

Guess he proved them wrong?

[Berry Cool]

39. Ah, would that he had been gay, and an honest man aside from his marital deception

rather than what he is.

"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."

[defendandprotect]

61. They were? Hadn't heard that before . . . !!! Wow!

[NJmaverick]

33. My gut told me there was something wrong with this guy

even when nothing had been discovered. There was something about the way he carried himself that just didn't sit right with me.

[MicaelS]

40. Nope, not a bit.....

I thought he was a nothing but a "pretty" facade from the very beginning. A man who was so obsessed with his hair as this man was immediately threw up alarm bells. I immediately said "narcissist."

[Robeson]

41. Nothing generates posts...

...like a John Edwards OP on DU...

:popcorn:

[deutsey]

43. I always liked his "two Americas" rhetoric but I was also put off by him as a person

[defendandprotect]

50. Mildly and humorously surprised at the sexual antics . . .

however, I took the word of people who had followed Edwards and had respect

for him so I did expect more. PLUS I think anyone who will speak for a liberal/

progress/populist program is valuable in fighting the right. It's not easy!!


I think America has to get over the sexual stuff --

As for his wanting to be president so badly to help the public that he would LIE

to keep going while betraying his wife . . . don't buy that!

That's the part that went bust!!

[marions ghost]

68. "the sexual stuff"

...you mean sexual betrayal.

If you are for real sexual freedom, then let it be OK for men who want a lot of partners to NOT feel that they have to be married at the same time, and torture some unsuspecting wife who thought it was forever (and whatever children they might have).

I have some friends in their 40's (male) who are not married because they want the sexual freedom. This is more honest to me. When they're ready to settle down at about age 60 or so, they can go on e-harmony and pick up a committed partner.

The problem comes with people who want to have the wife and the mistress, when this is not OK with the wife. It is betrayal of trust.

[Fumesucker]

51. Wealthy, boyishly attractive, smooth talking , vain man screws around on wife..

I gotta say, I never saw that one coming.










:sarcasm:

Edited for speling.

[defendandprotect]

52. Think Elliot Specter has in some ways made an interesting little "comback" . . .

and I'm wondering if America is learning to get over the "sexual stuff" ????

I do consider it betrayal of his wife -- that's not something I think that should

be overlooked in getting a full picture of him. What I'm saying is when it's SEX

the nation gets a little nutty. And, hope that may be changing?


Politically, I'm not saying that I completely trust either Spitzer any longer --

or Edwards. But that in the case of both these men, I once did have political trust

in them. Not something I usually have for any politician!!

[Arugula Latte]

62. I am surprised by the depths of his depravity, yes.

This secret fund -- Wow. I didn't think he'd be that frickin' STOOOPID.

[slipslidingaway]

69. Not surprised, never thought he was trustworthy, he said one thing yet

voted another way.

This was all evident before news of the affair was made public.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/55

Who said this on 9/12/02???

Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Aug 13th 2007, 05:16 PM

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

"First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses."

[DefenseLawyer]

70. What possible basis do you have for saying JE cost the election in 04?

Exit polling? Anything? It's fine to say you never liked the guy, but I'd like to know some real basis for blaming him for 2004.

[karynnj]

74. Te lection was so close that almost anything can be seen as the reason

The SBVT can claim they were the difference - and given that you are speaking of 59,000, they are likely correct. More because they made it harder for Kerry to use his genuine heroism and the values he showed then to validate himself.

The media bias - could be blamed

The lack of support from Democratic media people, like Carville and Begala, who only attacked Bush and whined that Kerry was not like Bill Clinton. Imagine they bothered to speak of Kerry's accomplishments.

As to Edwards, with a VP, the question is whether he did any harm as much as whether he did good. Here, there were no major campaign crises caused by him. There was a minor one with his over the top comment on Christopher Reed. I do know many people who were not happy with the selection, because they were not impressed, but they were for Kerry or in some cases would have voted for any Democrat. The biggest negative was that he was a source of tension in the campaign because he refused to do many things he was asked - or, worse, said he would and didn't - which is pretty passive/aggressive.

The second question would be did he help as much as a good VP. He did not, like Gore did, add strength to areas where the top of the ticket was weaker. He also did not echo the strengths Kerry had, as someone with greater experience would have. He was chosen because he was a party and media favorite, but most of the enthusiasm he showed in the primaries was gone. (The Young book is infuriating in how much he considered the slot an entitlement and how little respect he showed Senator Kerry, who out classes him on every dimension I can think of.)

A good VP, as Durbin, Gephardt, or Clark would have been, would have had Kerry's back - rather than combing their hair, smiling, and speaking of how the campaign valued him too much to ask him to do this - when in fact the campaign had asked him to do so. They also would have realized that it is more important to have a consistent slogan, than whether it was the one they wanted.