I'm tired of people rewriting history about the Edwardses.

[MonteLukast]

I post this at great risk of being tombstoned.

We humans love to change narratives to fit the latest information, because it reduces the cognitive dissonance and maintains our emotional equilibrium.

Saying that John was always a liar and his marriage was always a sham, for instance, keeps us from entertaining the VERY disturbing possibility that a good and decent person can go quickly, horribly wrong-- yes, even a grown adult with life circumstances you'd think would inoculate them from that-- and it keeps us, most importantly, from learning how to keep that from happening to our loved ones and, just as vital, ourselves.

What is it in Washington that removes our elected officials' will to serve the people? we ask all the time as we're disappointed by what they do after we elect them. We might also ask what in Washington life turns a formerly down-to-earth person into a narcissist-- so that we may see the warning signs before it's too late.

Some of us might run for office someday. Do we want to become like Edwards? Because we are FOOLS if we don't think it could happen to us! Edwards himself didn't believe it could happen to him.

Excoriating Edwards and rewriting the history of his life and marriage does NOTHING to prepare us for this possibility.

I am vastly outnumbered on this issue. My track record of winning out over established narratives is a very poor one.

But what if the narrative is wrong?
Then we will learn the wrong things from it... no matter how widely shared it is.

[Jennicut]

1. I don't think he was always so narcissistic. Far from it.

People can change over time and let their egos get in the way. Having some amount of power handed to you does that to some people. They cannot handle it.

[MonteLukast]

9. Thanks for seeing that.

The older I get, the more I see that the essentialist view of personality is bunk. We are NOT set in childhood-- and there's more and more evidence that we may not be "baked into the cake" at ANY point in our lives.

The biggest engines of personality change, by far, are our relationships. And we are VERY prone to picking our friends based on a narrow idea of how good they make us feel. Which could have disastrous consquences for us.

JRE utterly failed at picking true friends, except for Elizabeth. If he'd picked John Kerry as a friend-- a REAL friend, whose influence could have made him less callow and more truly progressive-- instead of the obsequious Young and his ego-Scooby-snacks, he might have turned out differently.

[marions ghost]

66. The tendency to Narcissism is conditioned when young

and can worsen later, is the current thinking. It's how one handles the challenges of life that indicates the underlying problem & degree of Narcissism, or NPD in the jargon. John Edwards clearly fits the profile but that doesn't mean he had to go down the bad road. Our political system attracts and supports this personality type. He was rewarded and supported...until it all blew up in his face.

Young was never a friend of John's. Narcissists don't really have friends. They have people who do stuff for them and people they do stuff for. There is always a bargain, and they always have to come out on top, or at least tit for tat. Narcissists are notorious for not being able to "read" people, choose friends, empathize with others.

Yes, Young pandered, and John expected that.

[MonteLukast]

76. Being in power or privilege for a long time...

... also reduces your ability to read others and empathize.

Whatever his level of political power, JRE always was socially and culturally privileged. He had THE ideal personality according to American society. The profession of trial lawyer itself is considered "of high emotional intelligence".

Remember, we not only didn't elect John Kerry and Al Gore because they weren't up to this Tony Robbins standard... we questioned their very humanity and empathy for a long time afterwards. We even wondered if Al Gore had Asperger's syndrome. Just as we do with everyone in our everyday lives who does not meet the same, culturally constructed standard.

It's been my impression that the arrogance of the emotionally intelligent is especially pernicious. When you start to think that not only is your life better than everyone else's, but your psyche, your worldview and your character... AND you have the full approval of not only society, but the medical community for being such a paragon of emotional health... how could you NOT become a narcissist?

[Odin2005]

269. Just to nitpick, but I HATE the assertion that those of us with Asperger's have no empathy.

It's disgusting an cruel.

[iris27]

273. The problem lies with society's perception.

Those with Asperger's are quite capable of empathy, but it isn't expressed in ways that are obvious to neurotypicals. My sociopathic sister, on the other hand, literally has no empathy, but is seen by others as very empathetic when she wants to come across that way.

[Odin2005]

275. Yep, us Aspies' issues with socializing us often confused with sociopathic lack of conscience.

There is a lot of bigotry involving descriptions of us as unemotional, uncaring robots, which could not be further from the truth.

[bobbolink]

305. Its sad that all of us who are suffering under stereotypes cannot come together

and use our collective strength to fight this ignorant shit!

[Odin2005]

319. Exactly!

[bobbolink]

303. And, why is that perception there? Because that is what we are told, and we are too damned lazy

to figure it out for ourselves.

Yet, celebrities and rich folk we will cut all kinds of slack.

[bobbolink]

302. That is not a nitpik! Any time people are miscast, for any reason, it is

damaging.

We have become a society that is too bizzzy and too lazy to get to know people, so we throw them into categories and treat them as such.

It is ugly, and hateful.

Keep telling it like it is!

[Odin2005]

320. Thanks.

There are people out there, including a certain anti-vax ex-pornstar who shall remain unnamed, that seriously believe that I "don't have a soul".

[bobbolink]

321. I'm sorry. That must hurt.

The 'Murkin way is to objectify the "other". To dehumanize those who are different in some way, so that we can then dismiss them, and even harm them. We learned that well from the Nazis.

What is so sad is that "progressives" play the "US and THEM" game just as much, but refuse to see themselves clearly enough to admit to it.

Thats why the "left" is no closer to living in peace than the "right".

All the rest of us can do is to see this process, and work hard to try to come together OUTSIDE of that whole "US and THEM" thing and accept and care for each other.

:(

[MajorChode]

92. Narcissism is present in all of us

It's only a question of degree. If politicians weren't overly narcissistic, most of them probably wouldn't be politicians in the first place. I can't say Edwards clearly fits the profile of NPD. Those with NPD have a serious disorder, and encompass a very small segment of the population. If Edwards narcissism rises to the level of NPD, then a very large portion of the population would be so included.

[bobbolink]

111. Very well said. We have a sad "US and THEM" problem in this society.

Ignoring our shadow side has serious consequences, and we are paying for it in our culture.

[marions ghost]

122. having studied it

I think the percentage of seriously afflicted is larger than thought, especially in certain professions like politics, the higher levels of medicine, big business.
Whenever you find people catapulting to the top by ruthless or corrupt means, you can look for NPD. And corruption defines our culture.

Stress triggers the worst manifestations of NPD, and most of us are certainly under stress. I think it's a very pervasive personality disorder, so common it could rise to the level of a personality type. The average person doesn't see it all around them, unless some exposure (like JRE's story represents), occurs. NPD
individuals are often successful in superficial terms.

Edwards has destroyed his life in a sad and preventable way. Some Narcissists like the Bushes get away with exploiting others but could easily have ended up the same as John.

The more people learn to recognize the signs and symptoms the better off we'll all be.

[bobbolink]

133. I think what you are pointing to is how these symptoms are found.

Traditionally, the upper classes and those considered "successful" aren't held to the same standards, and their symptoms aren't looked at.

I think it is time for a good book to be done on the "mental illnesses" of the rich, the things that we just automagically accept. I think it could be a very good expose'.

[MonteLukast]

147. Particularly those with "likeable" and "charismatic" personalities.

They may just be the most privileged, least examined people of all.

[bobbolink]

159. I think we could all start a list of those, right now.

Seriously, I would really like to see a book like this.

It is something I have been thinking a lot about lately.....looking at how poor people are typed and treated, and yet it isn't considered any problem for those who are dumping on poor people, and causing them misery.

Unless..... do you know if there is already such a book, and it has been overlooked?

Seriously, I am very interested in this!

[Odin2005]

272. Poor narcissistic thug = "Gang Leader", Rich Narcissistic thug = "successful businessperson".

[bobbolink]

306. Or Politician.

We need to begin to put these comparisons together.

There is a book here!

[marions ghost]

156. "we automagically accept"

...love the phrase!

Totally agree.

[bobbolink]

195. Unfortunately, I can't claim originality on that phrase. I hope you will start an OP on that topic

I would like to see a good discussion on the "mental health" (lack therof) of those with power over poor folks! I think there could be a lot of good material on that.

[MajorChode]

146. I think to include so many with such a diagnosis minimises what NPD really is

If so many could be included, then NPD ceases to be a disorder, but rather a reflection of society as a whole. Those that truly have NPD have trouble functioning in society, and I don't believe Edwards had any trouble functioning in society. A very large percentage of the population cheat on their significant others and it's not that uncommon for them to engage in deceit to try to cover it up. I don't believe these two things together make a case for NPD and I'm not sure there's much more to go on to make such a determination other than your postulation that those who rise to power have a higher incident rate.

[MonteLukast]

150. You're right.

I think only a small percentage of people have the actual disorder; and yes, it's usually something you have to be born with.

Much more common is socially-induced narcissism. As when you're treated in a privileged manner all your life by people who want to be in your star.

I think Young was nearly as bad for him as RH. I think he should stay away from idolizers for the rest of his life.

[marions ghost]

175. I disgree pretty strongly with the statement that

"those that have NPD have trouble functioning in society."

To the contrary, often these people are considered to be highly successful and admired, until they screw up and the mindset is exposed. Many don't ever get a slapdown like John did. This is one of the features of NPD actually--because when you exploit others without conscience, you can get very far in this society.

I do believe that Narcissism reflects a societal tendency. I think we can see that just in the amount of corruption and fraud at every level of American business and government. But there are other points on that maybe too much to go into in this JRE discussion.

No you don't have to be NPD to cheat on a spouse, but it often helps (ie. the sense of entitlement, the feelings of grandiosity and power, the exploitation of others without contrition, etc)...

But my seeing JRE as NPD is not only about the fact of his cheating. It's how he handled the whole situation, start to finish.

[MajorChode]

178. If they didn't, I think it would be difficult to classify it as a disorder

I also believe that the symptoms of NPD is not just exploiting others without conscience, there are many other symptoms which just don't fit with Edwards. If Edwards truly had NPD, I think it would be very hard for him to achieve the level of success he actually did. It may not be uncommon for those with NPD to have a high level of ambition, but I don't think it's very common for those ambitions to be achieved simply because they typically lack the ability to work well enough with others to do so. Edwards was also married for almost 30 years before he began his affair and there's no evidence to suggest that he wasn't a good husband and father prior to that. Both would be very difficult for someone with NPD. Edwards has also displayed a high degree of empathy in many situations, even when it has not always been politically or personally advantageous for him to do so. That doesn't strike me as someone who has NPD. One can only fake so much, even if they are good at it. I think it's fair to say Edwards had a high level of narcissism. I just don't think it's fair to say he had NPD.

[marions ghost]

184. The entire Bush administration

was a nest of Narcissists--NPD level. Despite the pathology, we would still term them successful by the standards of this society (which means high offices, wealth, friends in high places, etc). I've observed that Narcissists attract Narcissists.

I think Edwards was a good husband and father as long as things were going well. But he was vulnerable when the stresses came. I think that higher levels of NPD can be triggered as a response in a person who previously has coped pretty well on the surface. I think this disorder can hide, in fact, is masked by outward success.
My saying this is based on several actual cases closer than the stories of politicians.

The empathy of the Narcissist is a tricky subject. Faking it is their modus operandi. They can seem very sincere. They often convince everyone around them they love them. This is typical. But the empathy of the Narcissist is a learned expectation. There is no feeling, no heart, behind it. You will often see them get emotional and cry over their "love" for others but while they are feeling true emotion, it is still all about them. Their sense of others is truly distorted.

They believe they love, but they do not feel it.

[MonteLukast]

196. Very interesting and thoughtful post.

It looks as if JRE psychologically NEEDED success. Stop the chain of success and he quite literally loses his mind.

Although that might place ME in the category of narcissist, too-- "stress-induced narcissism". I've undergone emotional decompensation, too, after failures; and especially after a string of repeated failures. Now THIS is something I do believe a majority of Americans are afflicted with.

Malcolm Gladwell proved, in experiments, that being in a hurry seriously impairs compassionate behavior. Similarly, being under stress may decrease empathy and love and increase narcissism. Because in a sense, it is about focusing on yourself almost to the exclusion of everyone else: trying to "conserve your energy" from "drainers", in a sense. And relationships, with their open-endedness and their ineffable interruptibility, are the biggest "drainers" of all to a narcissist.

[marions ghost]

224. yes, exactly what I'm getting at...

"Stop the chain of success and he quite literally loses his mind." This is the vulnerability of the Narcissist--the spin out when the "narcissist supply" (in his case the meteoric political success) seems to be in jeopardy. John Kerry, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton might be political examples of those who have failed at the same level, but did not spin out.

Absolutely there is stress-induced Narcissism, and I don't think you have to be
all that disturbed before the stress to experience it. Degree depends on the intensity and nature of the stress. And like you pointed out, it can compound if there are a string of perceived failures. I agree that Americans are vulnerable to this type of psychic defense in general. It is such a competitive society and we have been pitted against each other--conditioned to be insecure and always to need something (ie. to buy something). So we react to any losses very negatively and protectively. I see NPD as a defensive adaptation.

Re. Gladwell --"being under stress may decrease empathy and increase narcissism." Thanks for bringing that up--I'll look up the reference.

[MonteLukast]

231. Actually, Gladwell's work was only the "being in a hurry" part.

The part about narcissism decreasing empathy is my own conjecture.

The Gladwell hurry experiment is detailed in "The Tipping Point".

[bobbolink]

244. I believe that this also has a lot to do with why people don't care about poverty,

and since some of us have been talking about this and trying to figure it out, this is something I would like to delve further into.

I have read "Empathy Gap", and now would like to add Gladwell to that.

Would you be willing to begin an OP on this at some point?

I reallyy would appreciate it, as this has been so perplexing to me!

Thanks again for all you have brought to light here! :yourock:

[Odin2005]

268. Good post!

[jbnow]

284. The line between "a high level of narcissism" and having NPD

is what?
Per the DSM

in order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

* Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
* Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
* Requires excessive admiration
* Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
* Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
* Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
* Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
* Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

I'm not opining on whether or not Edwards meets this criteria, just saying if someone shows a high level of narcissism they might be narcissistic

We weren't, thank God, in his marriage or on his head so can't know what was really happening or he was really thinking through the years
We know way more than we should but not enough to be sure of anything

[knitter4democracy]

259. I agree with your post. My ex has NPD, and he is fairly highly functioning.

He's a doctor (a good one, by all accounts), but he cannot empathize, he uses our children and everyone around him to feed his narcissism, and he goes from relationship to relationship, using women to meet his needs while doing a darn good job of acting like he really loves them.

Of course, he is taking me to court continually to get custody of our children when everyone has caught on that he's not the father he says he is, and it's costing me thousands to protect us, but I keep hoping one of these days his life will implode to the extent that he leaves us alone.

[marions ghost]

323. thanks for the corroboration

:hug: Your story sounds like the classic case from what I have seen. I was in a close situation with one (not spouse or partner--but close). Everyone thought this person was great. It was hell, very damaging. It helps to realize how the NPD mind works, and how they can cheerfully wreak destruction. Until then, you're just another victim. When you understand it, you can at least anticipate the behavior and find support to exit from their orbit (you cannot change a Narcissist IMO--it's too ingrained). You can finally accept that the Narcissist's behavior is not due to anything you have done. After moving on, it's easy to spot this type a mile away. Not hard to see JRE as having the problem. It's really a sad affliction. Sympathy would be in order, if only they didn't do the kind of damage that makes them dangerous. And I do not use the word dangerous lightly, because you can destroy people without ever harming them physically. The Narcissist has no ethical boundaries, no bothersome conscience. It often takes strategies of self-protection to extricate.

Congratulations on putting distance between him and you.

[knitter4democracy]

335. This post is spot on. That's exactly what it's like.

The years of mental games, gaslighting, and blaming me for everything wrong in the universe definitely took their toll on me. I'm just fighting to keep the kids safe from him and his current wife (who has to be borderline--she's nuts). It's amazingly draining and ends up being a part-time job in and of itself.

[marions ghost]

342. Another classic situation...

especially when things start falling apart for the functional NPD individual. Often it's after divorce by a healthier partner (or after marriage stress as the Edwards had). The Narcissist becomes more vulnerable, prey for borderlines and sociopaths--especially if he has money and social cachet. The Rielles are waiting to latch on. But then, the Rielles can turn against the host viciously if they don't get everything they want. This is obviously my theory about John Edwards, and explains why he could get suckered by such a vulturous hungry ghost. tells you that he's blind in the way that Narcissists are--they can't really read others, often can't choose partners wisely--they don't see the future. It's an emotional deficiency. They often bring about their own implosion.

Stay the course, knitter. Put up the shields. Leave him to his current wife thing--sounds like she'll give him some tortures. I'm sure by now you know you are not alone in the hell you have experienced. And you obviously know you made the right choice. :thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

271. Edwards is not a member of the Core Elite, and so was allowed to fall.

narcissists in the Core Elite rig the game so they never "fail".

[marions ghost]

339. true

Narcissists who have exploited their way to the top support each other, whether in business or govt.

Right, Edwards was pushed out of the nest...

[Odin2005]

270. Everythying in moderation.

Confidence is the healthy middle between Narcissism and self-hatred.

[tonysam]

69. Being book smart isn't the same as being people smart

John Edwards was no doubt a brilliant attorney and good politician, but his judgment in picking friends (except for Elizabeth) was obviously lacking.

[MonteLukast]

79. And, being able to make others feel good does NOT necessarily mean you're people smart!

We think charisma is equal to social skills, and we confuse an emotion with a quality all the time.

[AngryAmish]

96. I know a lot of trial lawyers

It is my business. About 25% are complete sociopaths. About 50% are just assholes. About 25% are normal human beings.





(BTW, I'm in the asshole part)

[MonteLukast]

101. I don't think JRE is a sociopath. Why?

Because he had demonstrated a conscience and a capacity to love before. It's RH who has demonstrated a long, strong history of a parasitic lifestyle and exploitation of others for her own gain.

He may be an asshole, but:
1. You kind of have to be an asshole in court to win;
2. How you act in the workplace can and does rub off on your personal life;
3. His narcissism was induced and/or enhanced by his relationships with key people, rather than an essential feature of his personality.

[tonysam]

197. If he had been a sociopath, Elizabeth wouldn't have married him in the first place.

People don't just "become" sociopaths; they have this tendency their entire lives.

[MonteLukast]

203. Hanging around like one can make you ACT like one, but it does not TURN YOU INTO one. (nt)

[bobbolink]

162. That can't be a good thing. ^_^ Seriously, maybe I am naive, but I have to believe

that there are many, many torte lawyers who really do care about victims, and who are sensitive enough to want to make their lives better.

I guess I was too affected by the movie Erin Brockovitch, eh? :hi:

All I know is that in our system, we would be totaly screwed without tort lawyers who fight for at least a semblance of justice.

[MonteLukast]

172. And that WAS Edwards, before. Making this even more of a tragedy. (nt)

[AngryAmish]

182. In the end it is just picking sides

Yes I care about my clients but it is the way we are built. We pick a side and stick to it. It is the way our brains are made.

[bobbolink]

183. I hope you pick "people" vs "corporations" every time.

“The price good men pay for indifference to
public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”
Plato --- just found on the website of Erin Brockovich

[goclark]

18. Maybe he is drinking too much since he changed nt

[Oregone]

2. Eh, he was always a scam artist

I saw it from the get-go


But hell, we were supposed to trust him because his dad worked at a mill! Say it again Johnny

[marmar]

3. I've stayed away from the Edwards' threads, mainly because I don't care about people's personal biz.

But there's always been something disingenuous about him to me. As far as his marriage - again, that's between him and Elizabeth.

[cali]

4. The problem with that theory is his history

and his record in the Senate. His blindered ambition was evident to anyone who cared to look.

[stevenleser]

8. We're saying ambition is a bad thing then? Come on Cali, you are smarter than that

Please let's NEVER EVER elect people to positions of power that are not ambitious.

[MonteLukast]

15. Mario Solis-Marich talked about wealth and ambition the other day...

He said that billionaires have become the new rockstars. And bingo, his point was proven: even mild criticism of billionaires and wealth accumulation for its own sake, brought a few dozen responders vociferously defending the rights of billionaires to concentrate wealth.

What do you want to bet that almost all of these defenders were middle-class or lower?

One caller hit it on the head: Americans equate wealth with great accomplishment. We think, we are NOT an aristocracy, every wealthy person in America got their wealth through their own hard work and personal gifts, because America is special... forgetting that 95% of billionaires inherited their wealth. And that even the 5% of self-made billionaires relied heavily on friends, connections, and plain old good luck.

The real tragedy of JRE is that he DID achieve his millions through his own accomplishment. He really DID personify the American Dream. He could have been a great example for us-- indeed, one of the things I always liked most about him, was that he achieved his wealth while doing something he loved.
How many Americans can honestly say they work in a job they love and that stimulates them to more skill?

[bobbolink]

54. And, yet, Mario refuses to actually cover the issue of POVERTY.

:shrug:

[MonteLukast]

58. Understanding poverty by studying its opposite? (nt)

[bobbolink]

61. I guess I shouldn't be shocked at that insensitive comment, but I must admit

that I am.

If that is actually your state of mind on this, then please, come Oct., don't be pushing poor folk to vote, 'K?

[MonteLukast]

63. God, I hate communication sometimes.

The way what you INTEND to say matters diddly-squat... the way how others respond to you means everything. (People who tell you not to worry about what others think of you are wrong.)

The way ONE sentence taken out of context by ONE participant in a discussion, can completely ruin it.

Not that this is going to improve your perception of me one iota, but can we step back and think that snap judgments MAY not always be the best way to understand an issue?

Don't join the crowd that makes communication a miserable business.

[bobbolink]

75. Don't make it all on *my* side. Trying to use as few words as possible often

creates this kind of mess.

I'll tell ya what.... you can walk in my shoes for a while, being ignored totally by the "progressives" and know the hurt and loss of hope that comes from that, then you can tell me how *you* would view that sentence in reply to what I said.

Now... there is communication ..... I am telling you it hurts to be ignored. It also has other bad consequences. Now, you can either reach across and understand that pain or you can.....ignore it.

*That* is the basic part of communication, is it not?

ps.... it would be a travesty if you were tombstoned for what you have written in your OP. It is a great topic, and needs to be discussed, as I said earlier.

[MonteLukast]

82. That is exactly right.

Sorry for making you feel bad.

Most "insensitivity" comes, IMO, from simple inattention and lack of time. Why bother prioritizing? Everything, indeed, seems to be important. Everything does indeed seem to have a blowback that WILL get you someday if you put it on the back burner.

That's what people who are fans of "prioritization" NEVER seem to understand. When it comes to other people's feelings, all of that goes out the window.

[bobbolink]

94. Thank you for understanding. That means more to me than you know!

:yourock:

" Everything does indeed seem to have a blowback that WILL get you someday if you put it on the back burner."

Hear, Hear! I really wish you could get this across to DUers and other "progressives", who want to just vilify me for "being too angry". In the first place, there were years before of trying to talk about poverty "nicely", and it was ignored and brushed aside, just like it is on the national level.

What they are missing is that I am the canary in the mine... by vilifying me and ignoring me, they are making it much more likely that poverty in this country is going to blow sky high, because the rage is just below the surface with ALL poor folk.

Thank you again... I do appreciate it. Maybe one of these days we will all be advanced enough to walk in each others shoes--suppose?

[tonysam]

70. And when you've made it, you become a target for all kinds of unscrupulous types.

I'd rather have money than being in the situation I am in now, but I know there are pitfalls to having a lot of money.

[cali]

40. I was pretty careful about how I phrased that

I didn't simply say ambition. I said blindered ambition. It was completely untempered.

[tonysam]

71. That dog doesn't hunt, Cali. You didn't look at Obama's record when cheerleading him

Too bad he wasn't the progressive you thought he was.

[cali]

149. this is about your hero JE, tony, not Obama

nice deflection. And don't bother with how you don't lionize sleazewad JE. You clearly do.

[jobycom]

5. I don't know that his marriage was a sham, but he was a liar from the beginning.

A lot of us saw that, but when we tried to point it out, we were blasted with ridicule and scorn by his supporters. When it was proven, there was a sense of vindication, and it probably got carried away sometimes.

Edwards flip-flopped on critical issues and slandered fellow Democrats far beyong the usual political mud-slinging. He attacked anti-war opponents, and strongly backed Bush's invasion of Iraq, basically calling us names just short of what the Republicans were calling us. When the poll numbers turned, Edwards became an anti-war advocate, lying about candidates like Clinton and Kerry to position himself to the left of them. The other Democrats disliked him, and even his running mate in 2004 allowed stories to be released that discredited Edwards. According to Kerry's people, Edwards campaigned hard for the VP slot, and during the interview process, tearfully told Kerry he was going to tell him a story he had never told anyone. He told Kerry that he crawled onto the table beside his son's body and cried, then promised his son he would do what he could to promote the ideals he and his son had so cherished, by getting into politics and doing what he could. It was a touching story, but Kerry said Edwards had told him that story the year before, so the claim he had never told anyone was not only a lie, but a callous use of his son's death to push his own goals.

Many of us saw that Edwards from the beginning, because many of us were opposed to the war when it wasn't cool, so we were on the receiving end of Edwards's scorn and attacks. We could hear the disingenuousness in his voice (especially us southerners, who can hear through his accent).

So I agree with a couple of your points--Good people make stupid choices sometimes, and that traps them into making more bad choices sometimes. The climate in politics does discourage people from running. And we really don't know the truth of the Edwards' marriage and whether John was a good or bad husband at first. But a lot of us are basing our opinion of John Edwards on what we've seen all along, not on the recent revelations about his affair.

[MonteLukast]

13. Most people lie because they are afraid of the consequences of others learning the truth.

As JRE was very right to be.

[stevenleser]

16. Proven? In what twisted sense of the word do you think so?

Here is what you say is your evidence.

1. He flip flopped.
Wow, good thing you caught that because other politicians never do that.
Reality check, every politician changes their mind on issues from time to time because that is what people do.

2. You claim he "slandered other Democrats more than others"
Proof? I dont think this is true. The fight between Obama and Clinton for the nomination was pretty nasty in both directions. You have your work cut out for you if you are thinking that you can make Edwards appear nastier than this.

3. The rest of that 2nd paragraph, particularly re: sons death etc.
There simply is no "there" there other than innuendo and subjectivity.

This is what one always sees in these "I always knew Edwards was a liar/charlatan posts"

[jobycom]

38. Oh, just Google or search DU.

The evidence is there. Can't help it if you don't want to accept it. My fingers have better things to do than throw truth pearls before denial swine. So long.

[stevenleser]

43. Oh, I've followed the discussions. They have nothing more than what you posted here

but thanks anyway

[cali]

Sorry, but I always did know there was something really off about that man

His marital crap didn't actually bother me nearly as much as his record in the Senate and his slimy work for Fortress.

[johnlucas]

285. I agree & I live in Georgia

I always felt Edwards was phony (though I tend to feel that way about all politicians anyhow).

It was in his eyes, I think. That eyebrow slightly cocked when he talked. I knew he was fake from the moment I saw him.
I'm originally from Florida but lived most of my life in Georgia (my family has roots here).
You're right about seeing through his accent. I'm Black so I know even more about disingeniousness spoken through Southern accents.

My take on things like these is we don't live there & don't really know what's going on in that household. Everybody makes Elizabeth out to be a saint in this but who really knows how their relationship operated? I think Elizabeth reminds many women of themselves & that's where the identification comes in. People shouldn't be so quick to pick good guy/bad guy when they don't live around the situation.

I don't know how John Edwards started but I do know how he ended. As a phony. Not much different than the rest of the politicking hopefuls.
John Lucas

[stevenleser]

6. I've found the piling on John Edwards disturbing from a number of perspectives

I, and I think the majority of DUers spent 2+ years excoriating Republicans during the Clinton impeachment situation for claiming he should be impeached for a personal indiscretion.

I share the anger from many when we consider that if had been the POTUS or VPOTUS nominee, he could well have given us President McCain. That does not explain the level of anger and vitriol. It also as you point out, is not fair to retroactively condemn everything he has done and claim he is irredeemable. Its usually at this point in a conversation that people come out of the woodwork to proudly (why they are proud about this I don't know) assert that they "always thought he was a charlatan". That's great, but there is still no basis for that. What he did here isn't proof of your assertion.

To claim Edwards' acts were unforgivably reckless, and say Bill's weren't, when he got a blowjob from an intern under the oval office desk (multiple times) and, hate to be graphic but, lets see how I can euphamize this, deposited the evidence on the intern's shirt, is hard to reconcile.

Then there are the folks who say it is particularly horrible because his wife had terminal cancer. OK, on first glance this seems so. The fact is, however, that if you are going to forgive a person for the sin of cheating on a spouse and a family of one or more minor children, if we are making allowances for someone for that kind of lack of marital faith and personal control, the difference between that and doing it to someone who is terminal is not great. Superficially and to outsiders, you can allow yourself that kind of magical thinking where someone who is otherwise willing to cheat will stop themselves because of their spouses health, but someone who is going to cheat on their spouse is going to do it regardless.

[stevenleser]

7. And since I took a long time in writing my response, people have already done what I predicted

"always thought he was a charlatan". With no basis for that whatsoever.

[MonteLukast]

25. And, you can cheat on someone, but still love them.

Magical thinking is something I think JRE always was prone to. He once said that it took his son's death to convince him that he wasn't in control of everything in his life.

[zazen]

31. for one, I think there was a lot of internal Dem jealousy here in NC

I agree--I've always thought the level of rage unleashed at him was strange, particularly given the human destruction GWB has apparently gotten away with.

I won't weigh in on the psychological issues. But I will say Dem activists and pols I know in NC were and are very angry in a way I couldn't understand (since I just think his behavior was so godawfully STUPID), and I think some of it here has to do with his not having come up through the ranks of precinct-level politics. He was a self-made uber wealthy lawyer (and his wife was one tough lawyer herself) who then switched over to a one term senate seat, the VP spot on a national ticket, and then aimed for the presidency. From what I understand, he didn't spend much time courting the state level folks here, even when they did give him money, so he didn't have much of a good ol boy base in NC from which to work, unlike Easley, who was seen as incompetent and anything but charming but managed to be a two-term governor through greasing the wheels (though he's under investigation now).

Just my two cents worth from NC. :-)

[stevenleser]

34. That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thank you for that.

This vitriol has to come from somewhere and this probably explains a fair amount.

[MonteLukast]

52. I want to slap him silly for another reason.

He created a wonderful life, where he was successful on all fronts. And then he squandered that on someone who is not even worth a case of gonorrhea.

It's very sexist of him to find a parasitic, obsequious, not-at-all-his-equal woman attractive.

[marions ghost]

87. Like Bill Clinton

the good girl and the bad girl--gotta have one of each.

He likes them both.

[bobbolink]

168. For me, and millions like me, what was so disastrous is that he was the only one speaking for and

fighting for US.

That loss was particularly crushing.

I don't give a damnn about his personal life, although I respect Elizabeth, but he was the ONLY one making poverty an issue, and forced the other two to actually at least give it some lip service.

After he was gone, it was dropped cold.

And here with are... with Obama, who will not only NEVER do anything about poverty, but is actually following in Raygun's footsteps and trying to eradicate us in a way acceptable to "progressives".

It hurts too much to even talk about it........

[cali]

44. long before the affair crap came out, I was a harsh critic of JE's

I believed and still believe that he didn't give a flying fuck about poverty. I thought his hypocrisy was egregious on any number of subjects from the environment to the war. I saw him for what he was back in 2004.

I got endless shit for criticizing him in 2007 and 2008.

I was right.

[alphafemale]

100. He was no Bobby Kennedy

Yeah. JE was a phoney with a capital F from the get-go. He even used his son's death as political fodder by constantly reminding people of it. Total skumbag. So distasteful I'd doubt a shark would bite him.

[marions ghost]

81. The piling on of Edwards is coming from a legitimate sense of

betrayal.

Betrayal in the most gut-wrenching sense. He was not at all what he purported to be. He betrayed his family, and that offends, but the betrayal at the bottom of all the vitriol now is an egregious betrayal of public trust.

[tonysam]

But a lot of the trashing comes from people who didn't support his candidacy in the first place,

all the while they hero-worshipped somebody who was NOT what people wanted to believe he was.

And we are stuck with that guy who can't seem understand that "kumbaya" politics is a recipe for disaster.

[marions ghost]

153. We don't really know any of them.

Most Americans don't have time to carry out research and investigation on every candidate. We go on recommendations and gut feelings and keep our fingers crossed.

Seems you didn't trust the kumbaya guy to begin with either. Or did you hero-worship him and now feel betrayed?

[ChiciB1]

125. Just Going To Make This Comment... I Have Found It To Be Very Strange That

Edwards has been made out to be "evil incarnate" when if one were to just take a quick look around, there are SO VERY MANY men who have fallen prey to BETRAYAL!!

Many worse than Edwards and yet, it's EDWARDS that has gotten all the focus! Clinton ran, AND WON and election as POTUS when it was WELL KNOWN of AFFAIRS he had before AND after his elections as Governor and during the time he was running for President!

And then, even KNOWING that there were those who would be "eye-balling" his behavior in the WH, he CONTINUED on with his same M.O., and still today he's an ADMIRED President!

I don't care what anyone else here thinks or what they may say back to me, but even though what Edwards did was so very wrong... IT WAS NOT MORE WRONG than what Clinton did!!! And there are SO MANY MORE men who have done much more and gotten away with it!

It's always unfortunate to see this kind activity going on, but I have long since felt that far too many politicians fall prey to this activity. Men being men, who are on the road most of the time trying to "get elected" are clearly not home a lot. The enticement of young women or prostitute or "whatever" is always right in front of their nose!

Women who marry men in politics MUST have some idea about this, but maybe not! I truly feel bad that they broke up, and my heart breaks for Elizabeth... but JOHN EDWARDS isn't the WORST OF THE WORST!! And I'll even go further.... given what I've seen out of the Obama Administration so far... I think I would rather have some of John Edwards fighting for the "working people of America" right now! I DO think he wanted to do something AGAINST Big Pharma and Corporations and I DO think he would have fought harder. But it had been said many times while he was running that MANY in D.C. hated him because he wanted to upset the APPLE CART! I CLEARLY recall Chuck Todd telling Christ Matthews that very same thing on one of the Hardball shows before the down fall hit!!

I'm NOT seeing this Administration and so many other Democrats actually out there fighting for "we the people" in many ways!

Say what you will, flame me or scream... I don't care because what I thought we were going to have in a Progressive President was something close to PROGRESSIVE!

What I VOTED for and WORKED hard for, ISN'T WHAT I'm seeing now! So to make Edwards the bastard of all bastards is simply ridiculous to me! I am entitled to my opinion and you don't have to like it. Nor do I care if anyone likes it! It's just how I see things!!

[MonteLukast]

130. *thumbs up*

:thumbsup:

[MissDeeds]

169. +1

Well said! :hi:

[bobbolink]

180. I live not too far from a road named, aptly, Troublesome Gulch.

On Troublesome Gulch lives...



You younger DUers may not recognize him, but he is still very active in local politics, and was prominent during the caucuses in '08. Maybe this photo may jog a memory or two...

[BuelahWitch]

263. Poor Gary Hart was the first one that they "caught," wasn't he?

I liked him, he was my first choice in '84. You'd think that the ones who came after, who had plans for a higher office, would have known better. The little head always seems to win out in these cases, even when the other woman is a dipsydoodle like Ms. Hunter.

[sabrina 1]

193. Good post. I never understood the intense vitriol and even

cruelty, especially towards Elizabeth, from the 'left'.

As you say, Clinton was known to be a risk as far as having affairs go, yet the party backed him.

I wish we could stop this puritanical, judgementalism of people's private lives and stay focused on issues of importance.

Far worse than a politician having an affair, is a politician who supports a war that they know will kill tens of thousands of innocent people many of them children, for political reasons.

THAT was always MY beef with Edwards, with Hillary and anyone else who ran for president but voted for the Iraq War. They just weren't on my list of people to consider.

Having an affair is not illegal! And I don't have any interest in other people's affairs, including public figures.

Starting wars based on lies and killing and torturing people IS illegal.

Edwards' worst crime to me, was his support for the Iraq War. That is something he should have nightmares over knowing the numbers of beautiful, innocent children who have been slaughtered.

It says a lot about a politician who has children of his/her own, who doesn't think what their support for an illegal war will do to other people's children.

As far as narcissism goes, what could be more narcissistic than to think that YOUR children's lives are precious, but the lives of children in other countries are merely 'collateral damage'?

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/bellaciao/momdadshot1.jpe

He helped start this war.

And he had an affair.

Which of those two things should we be the most outraged over?

[MonteLukast]

202. +1000

:thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

209. Well, if you're going to go and be all logical on us....

:applause:

It was hard for me, because I desparately need to see someone in office who is speaking out for poor folk like me.

And, nobody else was, or is.

Sometimes, when it comes down to the line, you pick someone who you know is working for the interests of those on the bottom rungs... whether they measure up on other things or not.

And, NO, I will NOT apologize for that. If all of you were to PUSH and FORCE the issue with the national politicians so that I had more choice, then I would choose differently. But, most of you don't and won't.

[sabrina 1]

249. Edwards definitely did speak about the poor.

As you say, when it comes down to the line, if they are speaking effectively for issues of importance like that, we can overlook some things.

I was hoping he might get the VP spot, but for me, the war in Iraq was a huge issue. Back then, being fairly new to politics, I was terrified immediately after 9/11, that Bush et al would start a war somewhere. In my view back then, I placed all my hopes on Democrats to try to stop him as they were the only ones standing in the way of what any rational person knew would be a slaughter of innocent people, and sanity.

I watched the vote and was shattered as I saw one Democrat after another vote with Republicans for war. So when a few of them decided to run for President, I knew I could not support them. Even though Edwards and Gephardt said they had made a mistake, I couldn't accept that. If ordinary people knew what a mistake it was AT THE TIME, I couldn't have much faith in people who seemed to reacting more to the political climate, than to any principle. And if they could change their minds on something as important as that, I worried that they could do so on other issues when it became expedient to do so.

So, Obama being the only who had opposed the war, although we will never know how he might have voted, was the only I could support.

Then, I hoped that Edwards would be his VP, which would have kept the issues he campaigned on, like poverty, on the table.

Now, I really think the focus should be on Congress. If we want representation on important issues like poverty, war, torture etc. we cannot count on one person in the WH to do what is right. But with a Congress that truly represents the people, a president will have a more difficult time getting his way, if it is the wrong way.

Help for poor people, the disabled, the elderly through social programs is under assault everywhere right now.

We do speak out, and many of us speak to those who are supposed to represent all citizens, but very few are listening.

[bobbolink]

254. I can definitely understand your stance on the war. It is so desparately sad that

the leadership in this country is so corrupt that it is that hard to find people who will "do the right thing" on such critical issues.

Because I have found that people in my party really aren't concerned whether I or the thousands and millions like me live or die, that has to be my main issue. I have never been a one-issue voter, ever since my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, but the lack of concern, or even lack of willingness to be more aware, has MADE me become a one-issue voter.

If people don't like that, then rather than tear me apart, they need to look at their own selves, and think how they would feel if their very existence was threatened, and the people who claim to be the most aware, the most caring, didn't give a rip.

I think if they were honest, they would also say that everything else be damned, it was their very existence that would be the most important.

Unless and until "progressives" can stop vilifying us for speaking out on what is literally a matter of life and death, they can't very well expect us to care about *their* priorities, can they?

Or even to bother to vote.

We aren't here for the pleasure of the party, believe it or not.

[sabrina 1]

265. I think the war issue was more than just about the war for me.

It was the callousness that was demonstrated towards real human beings who would be the victims of the bombs. Only Sen. Byrd that night, actually mentioned the potential of killing innocent Iraqis, mostly the poor there also as they had no means of leaving the city to get out of the way.

I realized that if Democrats could be that callous towards the lives of human beings in Iraq in order to advance their own careers, they could be just as callous towards the poor here.

Because I have found that people in my party really aren't concerned whether I or the thousands and millions like me live or die, that has to be my main issue.

Yes, it has been a very rude awakening to realize that the Democratic Party, not all of them, but more than enough to make a difference, really do not care about their own fellow Americans who are struggling to survive. Just as I thought would be the case once they were willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of people to death based on a lie.

It is all inter-twined. You either care about people or you don't, whether they are in Iraq or here or anywhere else.

So, I have to admit that much as I liked what Edwards was saying about helping the poor, and was often nearly swayed, I could not forget his vote against the poor in Iraq.

I wish we could do something quickly, but when you call a Representative to ask that they not vote for a bill that will take even more away from the poor, eg, or to do something the homeless, like provide funds for affordable housing instead of war, or place a moratorium on fore-closures, they really are not interested. So I don't bother anymore.

I will put my energies into supporting people like Marcy Winograd and other real progressives who have a record that show they are caring people. But the party is working against the true progressive candidates so it's an uphill fight.

I am sorry we could not do more Bobbolink. I have many friends who need help and in any other modern democracy it would be available to them. Something is very wrong with a country with so much money that will not take care of its own citizens.

Nice talking to you always. I sometimes feel hopeless also but then I know that's what they want. They want us to go away.

[bobbolink]

314. I am going to say this because *I* (and thousands of others) are the ones living ( and dying)

with the pain of these decisions.

People always have have rationalizations for why they do what they do. I said I could understand your stance, and rather than you understanding how it affects me, you went on to just minimalize the effect on those of us in these crosshairs.

You and others who chose not to take poverty as a priority keep repeating that "there is nothing we can do". You know that is not true, and saying that is really a slam, isn' it? I and others have posted repeatedly the things that you can do, but they aren't sexy things. It isn't as fun as getting together with your anti-war friends, so you just dismiss it all and repeat that there is nothing you can do. Yet, you then just justify your position, and have no response to how it hurts us... not just the results of living in poverty but the hurt of knowing that we don't matter.

As for your Marcy Winegrad.... I used to be on her list... I don't know how she got my name and email, but she was emailing me like I cared. I repeatedly asked her questions about poverty, but of course, she never answered, so I just unsubbed from her (exclusive) list.

Have YOU questioned her on poverty?

Have YOU questioned her on homelessness?

NO? Why is that? BECAUSE IT ISN'T ON YOUR LIST OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT????

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. You'll certainly have allies

among all the other people who were fooled by that sham artist.

[MonteLukast]

22. Because it wasn't always a sham.

His ideas certainly weren't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Whatever gets you through the night

One born every minute.

[cali]

55. I beg to differ. I believe it was always a sham

he was a centrist/right senator who was all for the war and dumping nuke waste at Yucca. He did nothing on poverty while in the Senate. He shut down his poverty programs when he dropped out of the race in 2008. And his ideas weren't even original. Bernie Sanders has done far more re the issue of poverty than JE ever did.

Phony from his head to his toes.

[jgraz]

11. Those of us who supported Edwards supported the progressive ideals he espoused.

Likewise, those who attack him now are really attacking those progressive ideala -- especially when compared to a president who is anything but progressive.

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. ^5

:thumbsup:

[Horse with no Name]

39. Now HERE is the jpgraz that I always agreed with

:thumbsup:

[jgraz]

281. IS that me (jgraz) or jpgray?

:D

[Horse with no Name]

322. My mistake

I put an extra "p"...but it tis you!:D

[cali]

45. codswallop. Now there's some flawed logic. textbook case.

I knew he was a phony who didn't give a flying fuck about progressive values of any kind.

[jgraz]

279. There's a textbook on flawed logic?

And here I thought you just made it up as you went along. :P

[ChiciB1]

148. Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Trying To Follow The Obama Bouncing Ball Has

become quite tiresome to me! I don't know who this man is from one day to the next!! I realize that actually becoming POTUS requires adjustments and you can't win all the battles you campaigned on. But having said that, I'm more than astounded by how much his ideals are almost exactly like those of "The Idiot!"

I'd love to TRY AGAIN! I just think I would have done things differently.
JMHO!!

[waiting for hope]

152. +1 Zillion

[tonysam]

155. +1,000,000

I am amazed people still are carrying over their beef in the primaries, when the truth about Obama's policies, which aren't terribly liberal or even Democratic, as his hard right stand on public education makes clear, was known all the time if people had bothered to penetrate the 24/7 rock star propaganda.

[ChiciB1]

293. BUT, In The End... We HAD NO CHOICE BUT OBAMA!! Really!!

So we went out and did what we do, and we elected him! I had entertained the idea of sitting it out, but when Palin came on scene I HAD to DO SOMETHING!!

I STILL wish the best to BOTH John & Elizabeth! I DO think (and it's MY opinion) that Rielle COULD have done something about NOT GETTING PREGNANT!! Many times when men think with a different head, that different one really works ONLY ONE WAY!! And YES, that's a crude statement, but I didn't just fall off some truck in the backwoods somewhere!

The OLDEST PROFESSION in the world it still probably one of the MOST PROFITABLE for a "working woman!"

And, I too agree about the WAR, however having seen HOW this President has turned out... I NOW FEEL he would have voted FOR IT if he felt it was expedient! I think the DECISION for him to run was made quite few years BEFORE the "Democratic Machines" got behind him!

Just my gut feeling, and now my GUT feels like it's grown an ulcer!! I kid you not... it's TUMS City for me these days!!

[MissDeeds]

176. Could not agree more

I supported Edwards and still believe in his progressive ideals.

[bobbolink]

185. ABsolutely!

It hurts so much to be so abused by this administration that there aren't even words for it.

Not that I'm surprised.... but I really didn't expect just how far he would go to harm poor people.

[ProSense]

190. Edwards co-wrote the IWR

Obama is withdrawing troops for Iraq.

He voted for the bankruptcy bill, which makes him as progressive as Joe Biden.

How is Edwards' poverty initiative going?

Edwards is a phony.

[jgraz]

276. Another post sans point

You do realize there's this thing called "time", where events happen at different points in the life of the universe, don't you? There are several good books on the concept you may wish to pick up.

[geek tragedy]

289. So, we should believe that a smarmy hypocrite who lied about

his marriage, lied about his own child, lied about his child's mother, lied to his supporters, lied to his wife, lied to the American public, who sold himself to a hedge fund, who never did an hour of pro bono work,

We're supposed to believe that guy was authentic in changing from Joe Lieberman Jr. to Dennis Kucinich>

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

247. Our household leans heavily toward the most-left-leaning candidates

in primaries in the Democratic spectrum, but leans even farther toward candidates with a deliberate and impressive alignment with working people and labor issues.

Edwards' labor position was absolutely defendable on a variety of levels and something working people and pro-union Democrats could get excited about.

I was very moved by his command of that issue in and of itself.

[saracat]

277. Very true jgraz!

[saracat]

278. Dupe

[jgraz]

282. That's ok, you can say it twice.

;)

[geek tragedy]

288. No, we're attacking a FAKE progressive who had no principles

and only ran to the left because of political expediency.

Edwards was a fraud, a phony, a snake oil salesman. Started as a hardcore DLCer, then ran as Kucinich-Lite.

Not our fault you got suckered.

[jgraz]

298. Your problem, both with Edwards and Obama, is you can't separate the politics from the man.

It's a fundamentally immature attitude which you should have grown past by now.

[geek tragedy]

324. Co-sponsor of the IWR, endorsed "right to work" laws,

bashed Dean from the right on health care in 2004, hired a Republican general named Hugh Shelton to slime Wes Clark in 2004, sold himself to a hedge fund, never did 6 minutes of pro bono legal work in his entire career.

I'm judging him by his record, not his pretty campaign speeches that suckered so many people.

Your blind faith in a card-carrying member of the DLC is rather touching.

[jgraz]

326. Seriously, did you intend to completely and unequivocally prove my point?

Go ahead, show this to someone else. They'll explain where you went wrong. :rofl:

[geek tragedy]

327. I know. Mentioning Edwards's actual record and actions

is off-limits to his diehard fanbase. It's his speeches and rhetoric that count.

Perfect example: he funded a center on poverty to further his own career, and then cut off the funds when he no longer had anything to gain from it politically.

Edwards the candidate adopted a great many progressive policy positions out of political necessity--there was no running to Hillary's right in the primary, so he went left.

Too bad Edward the man is a sleazy fraud on multiple levels.

[jgraz]

328. Are you trying out for the Olympic Not Getting It Team?

Just wondering...

[geek tragedy]

329. I was correcting this patent falsehood:

ikewise, those who attack him now are really attacking those progressive ideala -- especially when compared to a president who is anything but progressive.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

People are attacking Edwards because he was a liar and a phony, not because they consider him to be too progressive or liberal. It's because he didn't care about the Two Americas, or the sons of millworkers, etc etc. He cared about John Edwards, John Edwards, and John Edwards.

Your smear of Edwards critics was what I was objecting to.

And, if you really think the Edwards bashing is about his political stances, then you are the one who doesn't get it.

[jgraz]

333. No, the bashing of Edwards isn't rooted in his political stances. It's rooted in Obama's.

The further this president drifts from the man he campaigned as, the more important it is to attack his critics in any way possible. There's no reason we should be discussing Edwards -- his political career is dead.

Unless, of course, you have other issues you desperately need to distract from.

[geek tragedy]

337. Textbook case of projection.

No one else here is talking about Obama but you. John Edwards would be a sleazeball no matter what. I would have voted for Hillary over him ten times.

You are the one demonstrating the obsession with Obama.

[jgraz]

338. Your inability to understand simple logic is making this conversation difficult

1) you need to look up "projection". You're using it wrong.

2) The fact that "no one is talking about Obama" is, once again, exactly proving my point. Edwards is being used as a distraction from the disappointment of Obama's presidency.

3) The only one obsessed with anything is you. What is your point of repeating what a sleazeball Edwards is? In the context of our discussion, what point are you trying to make?

4) Mentioning the President of the United States on a political discussion board is hardly obsession. Raving about a washed-up politician's sex life is another matter...

[geek tragedy]

341. You are assuming without evidence that people

have bad faith motives.

In other words, you are just making shit up.

Have a nice day. Rational, fact-based conversation with you is simply impossible. You live in your own reality.

[ChiciB1]

292. +1000!!! "jgraz" I Just Had to Support You On This One!! A Late Reply, But

I just haven't been blogging much lately! I just feel so out of touch and am "floundering" more an more!

Maybe someday I'll get back in the grove like I once was, but I just don't know. Probably won't go away completely, but I'm so very disappointed and upset so therefore my comments will most likely be met with derision!

:hug:

[racaulk]

295. Yes!!!

:thumbsup:

[G_j]

12. before the invasion of Iraq

he refused to speak with any, and all peace activists here in NC. Very simply, Edwards sucks.

[tonysam]

157. And I see Obama has gotten us out of Iraq

:rofl:

[MonteLukast]

173. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, jumped on the pro-war bandwagon then...

... who had any ambitions for higher office AND who stood any real chance of winning.

Sorry, Kucinich and Feingold and Leahy. You deserve far more power than you've gotten.

[LibDemAlways]

14. No one knows what went on inside that marriage

except the people involved. Together they went through the loss of a son, the process of having two more children later in life, and Elizabeth's cancer diagnosis. How all of that affected the dynamics of their relationship can only be guessed at and is really no one's business.

I think his political ambition is another issue. How he thought he could get away with an extra-marital relationship that produced a child is beyond me. That was just stupid and reckless.

[MonteLukast]

20. He never intended for it to produce a child.

She had apparently told him she couldn't get pregnant, and he believed her. And rumor has it that she might have taken fertility drugs.

She always wanted him, and was going to do whatever it took to bind him to her.

[LibDemAlways]

27. Granted. I think the fact that they had a child together, though,

made his thinking he could get away with it all the more stupid.

[MonteLukast]

32. I'm afraid for that child.

With a celebrity-and-appearance-obsessed mother such as she has, she's not going to grow up smart and strong like Cate and Emma Claire. She, at the very least, might develop an eating disorder; and worst-case-scenario, she might become another sexual grifter.

JRE has shown himself in the past to be a good parent. He needs to find a way to have her in his life WITHOUT her mother being in his life. This is difficult, but not impossible; and easier for someone as wealthy as him. OurFamilyWizard offers a possibility for even ordinary-income parents to pull this off.

Oh, if only RH could be declared an unfit mother!-- then JRE could adopt her and raise her right, without interference from the reality-show wannabe.

Is it possible he started thinking being a professional celebrity was a good idea?-- Because when you choose a life partner, you choose their lifestyle too; and you don't start thinking a person like RH makes a good life partner unless you become really, REALLY attracted to celebrity for its own sake.

[stevenleser]

33. Do we really need to go through what Bill thought he could get away with?

I've touched on it in this thread but there is a lot more.

[Frank Cannon]

37. "B-B-but, I CAN'T get pregnant."

I thought only stupid redneck high school boys fell for that.

The guy made a sex tape with her, for crying out loud. He's either possessed of extremely poor judgment, or he's simply one of the dumbest guys who ever lived. Either way, thank God he never got the nomination.

[MonteLukast]

51. I will never understand why he kept on believing her.

That is perhaps the dumbest thing he did-- even more than the tape. Not checking her background, choosing to stay even after what he found, ignoring the warnings of his friends and loved ones.
It takes more than just having a load of sexual chemistry for someone to stay that long with someone they know is bad for them-- there has to be something emotional going on too.

Being in a relationship with her did something to his emotions and his judgment. It's as if her effect on him was cultish. It's almost as if JRE had joined the Church of Scientology.

[MonteLukast]

57. About the tape...

We still don't know if he willingly made it with her, or if she taped them in secret. No one has gotten their details right on it-- it must have been made in 2007 but Young still slipped up and said 2006. And how can you see HIS face in it but not hers? And what possessed Young to take a destroyed tape and put it back together?

And most of all, why did RH wait until the end of January 2010 to lay claim to it? I first learned about it in the first sneak preview of "The Politician" back in JUNE in the New York Times online. If *I* knew Young had taken possession of it back then, why the hell didn't she, who MADE the damn thing?
And, I knew there was no stopping the book as of last September. You'd have thought the tape would have become important to her at least by then. Even if the book had not turned out to be a best-seller, knowing that even a small number of people was going to read it, ought to have woken her up.

Either RH doesn't read much of anything-- not the NYT or even blogs-- or something is VERY fishy here.

[WinkyDink]

187. His face, because SHE IS FILMING. "Johnny" knew all about it.

[tonysam]

72. I will tell you this, just think if Bill Clinton had actually consummated

his "relationship" with Monica Lewinsky how badly that would have turned out.

I shudder to think of it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

181. Someone dumb enough to fall for "I can't get pregnant" shouldn't be President

[MonteLukast]

200. Why the HELL did he believe a word she said? EVER?

I'd like to know when he found out she was Lisa Jo Druck. And that she used to date McInerney. And that she's been a sexual grifter all her adult life.

And then, I'd like to know WHY he still thought she was OK, when just by being an acquaintance of his would've been risky, given her propensity to milk ever chance for all she got...

[tonysam]

223. Or that her dad was an insurance con man who had her horse killed

for the money?

[rhett o rick]

17. It doesnt matter one way or the other. We need desparately to fix this nation and he cant help. nm

[MonteLukast]

26. He could put his ideas in writing and pass them along to a trustworthy figure. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

41. His ideas arent unique to him. He was willing to act on them where others arent.

I always thought of him as a great man, and admit I dont have the complete story. But we need someone we can elect.

[cali]

47. He never acted on them.

[rhett o rick]

253. Yeah right. nm

[cali]

296. Let me suggest you check his record.

the guy was a fraud, pure and simple.

[MadBadger]

19. I dont know why you could be tombstoned for that.

[MonteLukast]

23. Because sometimes all takes is pissing off the wrong person.

Just one person.

Just like on YouTube and its climate of DMCA-by-personal-tiff.

[frazzled]

21. He never did anything to commend before "going bad"

Look, I was a John Edwards skeptic from the beginning. That is, since he got elected to the Senate and became the darling of the "he's so handsome he could be president" crowd. First of all, I never thought he was handsome (just not my type at all). And even if he were, it has nothing to do with political prowess or governing ability, so I was unimpressed. He founded the Senate arm of the DLC, which didn't endear him to me, needless to say. He was the sole Democratic senator to sponsor the Iraq War Resolution. He helped author the Patriot act. So far, not so good.

During the 2004 primary campaign I was less impressed. His Two Americas speech struck me as phony. The "son of a mill worker" thing started to make me puke. The 8,000 square foot house with the press barn was nouveau-barf. His legal career, from which he made mega-millions, was not a credential I respected. He had devoted none of his life prior to his Senate run to public service. He spoke about the poor but never did anything about it. His "foundation" never did anything. (Years later we found it funded his mistress.)

I don't care that he cheated on his wife. What bugged me was that this multi-millionnaire who went around preaching about the poor couldn't even pay for his indiscretions out of his own pocket. He stole campaign money and foundation money, apparently.

Look, why do you even think about this guy. And don't condemn those of us who warned about Edwards many many years ago. It was never about the sex, so don't say it is. What did he EVER accomplsih besides empty talk?

[ecstatic]

24. Except... my opinion of him didn't shift after the affair came out

I formed my (negative) opinion after the 2004 (s)election.

[Bumblebee]

28. Give it up. I was an Edwards person too, and thrilled when Kerry chose him --

and now I am deeply ashamed of having been so stupid. It's not about his personal life -- it's about being capable of risking it all when so many people depended on him. Becoming aware that he -- and Elizabeth -- were willing to go on with the campaign, knowing what they knew, made me realize they were not -- or ever had been -- people I thought they were.

[stevenleser]

30. I share some of that. But how can you reconcile that with your Support of Bill Clinton during

impeachment? Bumblebee, multiple blowjobs under the oval office desk and then, I've decided this is how I am going to say this, depositing the evidence on the 20-something intern's shirt? Talk about "risking it all when so many people depend on you".

And YES, some of this was going on during the 1996 re-election campaign. We all came to Bill's defense.

It is simply not consistent that we are still wildly supportive of Bill and hate JRE.

[Bumblebee]

46. Believe it or not, but that was different because Clinton was already pres.

What Edwards risked was being nominated and then losing to McCain when it all came out.

[Radical Activist]

35. Edwards was leader of the Senate corproate DLC wing when he was in office.

He later refashioned himself as a liberal champion. He was always a pandering fake.

I don't think it's a matter of what being in office does to a person, although it does affect people. It's more a question of what type of person is likely to WANT to run for President.

And Democrats have to pay more attention to the details of a candidate's record and platform instead of being easily impressed by a few pandering speeches given during the primary. That's the only way the left is going to stop being taken in by fakes like Edwards and Dean.

[WeDidIt]

36. The guy is no different from 75-95% of all politicians

Lying scum for the most part.

[progressoid]

48. Since I'm practically perfect in every way, I can pass judgment.

oh, wait.


Never mind.

[customerserviceguy]

49. He's a trial lawyer

to them, truth is always an obstacle on the way to the result.

Your narrative has him as being this faithful family man who just goes wrong one day when the right diversion comes his way. My narrative has him as an opportunist who would do anything he can to win, until someday he just goes completely stupid and takes all kinds of dangerous risks with someone who can only bring him down.

An affair, I can understand (I didn't say condone, I said understand) but to take up with such an incredible crackpot of a woman, have unprotected sex with her, and a videocamera going at the same time you're running for President is just the largest feat of self-destruction I've ever witnessed in my life from a public figure.

This whole story is about way more than mere infidelity.

[MonteLukast]

65. Opportunism is morally neutral.

Opportunism and ambition can be forces for great good, IF they are done ethically and to positive ends.

Why DID he decide taking such risks was a good idea, anyway? That's such a 180-degree turn from what he used to be, that I completely agree with you: this is way more than mere infidelity.

That's my beef with "The Politician": there's no psychological insight of JRE, which is the only good reason to read such a thing.

[tonysam]

107. Remember, John Kerry was as horrified as the rest of us over this mess

His campaign had done a thorough background check of JRE during the 2004 election, and there was NOTHING negative there. NOTHING. Zip.

It's like Edwards turned into a pod or something. That's what being taken in by a world-class con artist does.

[MonteLukast]

112. If he and Kerry had made/stayed friends, he would've turned out better.

"like he turned into a pod"-- GREAT description.

[customerserviceguy]

119. Are you saying that if Kerry had won

and Edwards would have become the VP, he might not have done this? I doubt it.

Often, the losing VP on a ticket gets attention as a potential front-runner for the next election, and I think Edwards was well aware of that at the time of the loss. Certainly, he figured he'd have a better shot of winning the Presidency on his own in 2008, when the country was more likely to be sick of Bush, and the field was wide open. If Kerry/Edwards had won, he'd be in the position of having to wait until 2012 at least, and possibly as an incumbent taking whatever blame might have been heaped on an eight-year Kerry administration by that point.

Normally cautious people don't suddenly turn reckless without some sort of major reason, such as a mental incapacitation or a realization that they've only got a short time left to live. A man who was clearly positioned for bigger and better things doesn't just go off and screw up his life for the hell of it on a whim. My theory is that he's always taken some dangerous risks, and has simply not had them catch up with him. The adrenalin rush of it all might have been his addiction.

[MonteLukast]

127. Exactly why I think something went wrong with him...

Normally cautious people don't suddenly turn reckless without some sort of major reason, such as a mental incapacitation or a realization that they've only got a short time left to live. A man who was clearly positioned for bigger and better things doesn't just go off and screw up his life for the hell of it on a whim. My theory is that he's always taken some dangerous risks, and has simply not had them catch up with him. The adrenalin rush of it all might have been his addiction.

Probably a combination of that, and some strange emotional effect RH somehow had on him. If she was indeed his "personal development guru", that can definitely lead you to take risks you wouldn't otherwise.

And people into personal development tend to be winners, NOT losers.

[customerserviceguy]

136. That would be a strange emotional effect, indeed!

She doesn't seemed to have charmed anybody in the general public. Even teacher Mary Kay Letourneau had her defenders when I was in Washington State, when she got herself pregnant twice by the same student that she was 'dating' behind her husband's back when he was a minor.

Nope, I have to discount that, as well. Being both a trial lawyer and a politician, John Edwards must have had a lot of practice dealing with the mind games and trips that people would try to lay on him. If anything, pretending to buy into that guru crap would have been the way he would have landed her in the sack. I'd bet he could pull more Jedi mind tricks on her than she could put over on anyone else!

I'm still of the opinion that he lived pretty far on the edge most all of the time, and always survived his risk taking, spectacularly. The very fact that the mainstream press was ignoring the story during the entirety of his 2007-08 campaign probably fed into his "I walk on water" image of his own invincibility. Being even more brash in the way he conducted the affair was probably his way of getting a thrill rush out of getting away with it even more.

Thank goodness that man never got his finger anywhere near the nuclear button.

[MonteLukast]

154. She isn't charming anybody anymore.

Not after the entire world has seen what a whackadoodle she was on Oprah.

But when you first meet someone, you show only the best side of yourself and hide the worst.

If anything, pretending to buy into that guru crap would have been the way he would have landed her in the sack. I'd bet he could pull more Jedi mind tricks on her than she could put over on anyone else!

The question I want answered is not why he would have had the affair, but why did he keep it up? Starting in early 2007, when he had already tried to make at least one break-off attempt with her... that is where I she think she would start to leak out the mind games of her own, bit by bit.

"If you have sex with me, you'll be healthy; and if you stay with your wife, her cancer will attract cancer to you" sounds likely.

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the affair took place when "The Secret" was at the height of its popularity.

[customerserviceguy]

164. I agree with the first half of what you've said

Clearly, the Oprah interview showed her to be goofy, but it also showed us just how risky John Edwards was. For the people who backed him, believed in him, it must have been horrifying to watch. Yes, we all put forth our best sides upon meeting and all that, but John Edwards is not stupid, he's reckless.

As to the second half of what you've said, I attribute one of two things to his continuance of the affair. The first, and most likely, is the rush that I think he got from being able to keep it going and just not get caught. Anyone willing to run for high political office has to have a mindset that setbacks don't matter, and that they don't really even exist unless you let them into your mind. Being able to keep this up with her and not have anyone more important than the National Enquirer care about it must have given him a feeling of tremendous power.

Also, it is possible that he realized that he was riding the back of a tiger, if he got off, the tiger would surely eat him. He would have had to have concocted all kinds of stories and lies to keep her silent, as well as financial bribes.

I'm not buying the "you'll get cancer from your wife" thing as being influential, like I said, he's vain and reckless, not stupid. As a trial lawyer, it was his job to figure out exactly what a doctor would say on a stand, and whether that testimony could be impeached on the stand, or be doubted by a jury. He simply was too intelligent to believe anything like that, but he might have sold RH on the idea that he did as a way of keeping her quiet.

[MonteLukast]

167. His big flaw was failing to realize there was NO keeping her quiet.

It also shows me that everything he did concerning her-- including the dubious and unlikely marriage proposals-- was for keeping her quiet.

He did not love RH. He never intended her to be a life partner. She is delusional if she thinks he did.

[customerserviceguy]

174. She's like so many women

who are attracted by the aphrodesiac of a powerful man. Even women who aren't as looney tunes as RH was can come under that spell. I think Monica Lewinski was also one such woman.

I do have one other insight on the marriage proposals: Right now, there is a Federal investigation into his campaign paying her bucketloads of money for her questionable filmmaking services. If she were indeed his spouse, she might not be compelled to testify. Once he either divorced Elizabeth, or she died from her cancer, he could make that happen.

He knows he's completely washed up in politics; even in a country that has a seemingly endless ability to forgive its celebrity transgressors, he knows that using his wife's cancer to run for office while soiling their marriage vows at the same time, then denying the child that resulted from the affair would be essentially unforgivable for anything higher than next season's "Apprentice" show. At this point, what is focusing his mind is staying out of prison. He'd do anything to bungee back from the bottom of that pit.

[marions ghost]

287. right

staying out of prison is foremost...kinda takes your mind off the national & world poverty situation. :shrug:

[LaydeeBug]

219. I think this had more to do with Elizabeth's impending mortality...

"Normally cautious people don't suddenly turn reckless without some sort of major reason, such as a mental incapacitation or a realization that they've only got a short time left to live. A man who was clearly positioned for bigger and better things doesn't just go off and screw up his life for the hell of it on a whim. My theory is that he's always taken some dangerous risks, and has simply not had them catch up with him. The adrenalin rush of it all might have been his addiction."

"...or a realization they have only a short time to live" Or maybe their spouse?

I have ALWAYS thought it was reckless and crazy because he was dealing with 'living on' after her. Like her mortality only reminded him more of his own mortality.

This is no free pass, but I have long thought there was a reason behind there only being Lisa Druck.

[MonteLukast]

233. With breast cancer in particular...

... we really moralize what choices we made that led up to it. Did I eat too much red meat and fat? Was I not positive enough? Did I fail to wear enough pink? (OK, that last one was a joke) More than any other disease except lung cancer (from smoking), we tend to believe that whoever gets breast cancer, it was their fault in some way.

Martina Navratilova gives the lie to this, from her own breast cancer diagnosis:

The day I was told I had breast cancer was my own personal 9/11. I was completely shocked... This just goes to show no matter how much you watch what you eat or exercise, you never know.

[customerserviceguy]

262. Yes, clearly her possible impending death

probably had some psychological impact on John Edwards, but as long as he seemed to be channeling it into running for the Presidency, that was a normal, possibly healthy expression of dealing with that sense of his own mortality.

As far as Lisa Druck, or Rielle Hunter is concerned, I'm not absolutely dead certain that she was the only one, how can you be sure? Maybe in the past, his recklessness confined itself to women who were simply grateful for the experience, and kept their mouth shut, without becoming pregnant in the process.

Knowing what we know now, it becomes impossible to think that any part of what we thought we knew about John Edwards was the full truth.

[karynnj]

300. I think th epyschological affect was also that with the loss of the election

and the cancer diagnosis, it was time that Elizabeth Edwards had to be the true focus of their marriage. For the celebrity lawyer, then handsome Senator winning in a tough place (like Scott Brown), then nominee for the Presidency after about 3 years as Senator, not being the center of attention was likely pretty earth shaking.

Now, he still thought he would win in 2008 and the media in 2005 and 2006 gave him reason to think so - but he was actually in a worse place than 2004. With Elizabeth sick, the whole effort of campaigning, new in 2004, had to be old in 2006 and it had to take a toll. In 2008, Kerry, kindly dismissing strange comments by Hillary and Obama, spoke of the how grueling a campaign is. He said that though he was always an athlete, it was the single hardest physical thing he ever did.

[karynnj]

299. Kerry is clearly horrified and to his credit, he is the only politician I have

heard say he is still in contact with Elizabeth.

While it is true that the vetting turned up nothing, Kerry's own gut instinct was to not trust Edwards. He needed to be persuaded by the party and many leaders, who had had more contact with Edwards. Edwards's meglomamia started well before he met Rielle. It is clear from the small number of things that have been said of the internal dynamics of the general election campaign, that Edwards refused to be a team player following what Kerry wanted done - and then he lied about it -during the campaign and afterward.

It might be that a rather weak sense of integrity and moral strength coupled with good looks, eloquence and charisma is a dangerous combination. The latter blessing made him a success and wealthy as a trial lawyer. The same skills got him elected to the Senate and made him an immediate favorite with a "celebrity" media. It seems to have given him a huge sense of entitlement and a very over blown ego. But, eloquence, good looks and charisma are what our society most values - or at least what the media values. It takes ego to think you are best qualified to be President for anyone, but few were as arrogant even when they lost to make it clear they still thought they were better than a candidate who had beaten him soundly.

Now, from all accounts, his marriage was sound then. It could well have been that, as a self centered person, he had trouble dealing with both the lost of the election and the change in the dynamic of their marriage when Elizabeth had to focus on herself, rather than having everything revolve around him. (That could have been part of Rielle's attraction to him -she saw him as a special leader.)

[marions ghost]

93. Yep

"This whole story is about way more than mere infidelity."

[bobbolink]

50. You are absolutely right, and I appreciate you very much for saying this.

I saw this so clearly during Columbine. Parents everywhere condeming the parents of the shooters, to protect themselves from thinking of the possibility that it could ever be *them* in a situation like that.

It is too bad that one phrase that used to be in common useage is hardly ever heard anymore...

There, but for the grace of God, go I.

[MonteLukast]

67. Thank you for this reply.

I'm sorry for rubbing you the wrong way in that earlier response. Please understand I intended NOTHING of the sort-- even as I know that my intentions mean diddly squat and your perception means everything, a part of me still rebels at that, hopes that feature of communications nature would change, and wishes no further hard feelings.

[bobbolink]

108. Your intentions *do* mean a lot.... I recognize more now about the Class Divide.

It is very real, and is a definite problem. I hope we can talk more about that at some point.

You were willing to cross that divide and see the world through my eyes, and that means everything. I can see that you have a heart, and that goes a long way toward creating understanding....and that is all that I wanted...understanding. What a concept, eh?

On the other hand, I'm not sure I am understanding your rebellion about "perception".

From my vantage point, I don't see it that way. I see it as being able to grasp the other person's pain level. In other words, often it is a right-brained thing, rather than a left-brained thing, and heart rather than intellect, so I am not understanding the need to rebel against that. But, I am definitely open to hearing it.

At any rate, all is now copasetic... except that I can't spell it. :)

I thank you for your good will! :yourock:

[Demoiselle]

53. I like your attitude, MonteLUCAST.

I wish our first reaction to stories like John Edwards' could be great sadness...sadness at the waste, the loss for all of us, the disappointment. There's always plenty of energy around for condemnation and retribution, and in this case the condemnation seems well deserved....but very few people start out in this life (even in politics) to do harm. We need to understand why and how things go so wrong when they do. It isn't enough simply to label someone like Edwards evil from birth. Except in the rare case of an outright psychopath..that really doesn't enlighten as much as we need to be enlightened,
(And yes, I'm willing to apply this notion to Right Wing creeps as well.)

[MonteLukast]

62. I've had another reaction to this story.

Happiness for its own sake can be VERY injurious if we don't keep in mind HOW we get there.

RH appeared on Oprah and expressed NO regrets. She saw the affair as maximizing JRE's potential. That's how I believe she really hooked him: she fed him promises of instant and intense happiness-- which, as the medical literature has been telling us for the past 20 years, is absolutely vital to your health; no mention of side effects, trade-offs, or consequences. In fact, once "The Secret" and the "law of attraction" became in vogue, the message started to seep out that thinking of consequences was actively negative thinking, and was to be avoided.

Promises of lasting, intense emotional well-being-- emotional wealth, if you will-- are a far more powerful binding agent than sex.

It's prosperity-gospel thinking for your psyche, something I think JRE was always prone to:

The real prosperity gospel isn’t the overt appeal to wealth. It is the more subtle appeal to God guaranteeing that we are going to be happy, and the accompanying pressure to be happy in ways that are acceptable and recognizable to the community of Christians we belong to.

[Demoiselle]

226. That makes sense. Thanks.

[Orsino]

56. You offer mere reason and realism...

...versus our chance to say, "I always knew he was too slick"?

"Get used to disappointment." x(

[MonteLukast]

86. Reason and realism are vital to progressive change.

Emotion-driven decisions are righties' and authoritarians' best friends.

[marions ghost]

104. OK but I don't think you can prevent people from "going on their gut"

because REALLY we don't know ANYBODY. It's all a guessing game.

When you invest in politicians as much as Americans do, it becomes very emotional. Many liberals vote on how they "feel" about a candidate (unlike Sheeple they usually consider the facts as well).

John Edwards presented himself as someone with "heart," not afraid of emotions, not afraid of plugging into our bleeding heart liberal sensibilities. The problem is that he wasn't authentic. It was a strategy. When that became apparent to supporters, it felt like a betrayal of our deepest values.

[lynne]

59. How can we rewrite what we don't know?

- We have no idea as to the true history of John Edwards or his marriage. We only know what is public record, what the Edward's have chosen to let us know and the unfortunate portion of his history that escaped his control. Obviously, he would not have chosen for us to have known about this affair as he proved when he refused to acknowledge his own child until forced to do so.

To deny a child requires a serious character flaw that doesn't appear overnight.

What I find far more worrisome is how many people blindly followed him, blindly refused to see that his crown was slipping and continued to blindly defend him.

[tonysam]

74. Who the fuck is "blindly" following him? Nobody, but a hell of a lot of people make excuses

for Obama's neoliberalism, which is far more destructive than somebody messing up in their personal life.

Hero worship is bad, no matter what.

[MonteLukast]

90. I think this mess is teaching ME not to hero-worship. (nt)

[tonysam]

134. I have NEVER hero worshipped politicians. But a lot of people here have

and they feel "betrayed" when their heroes are not gods.

[lynne]

118. I don't appreciate your language -

- and I certainly didn't state that YOU were now or had ever blindly followed him, did I? I see no reason for your foul mouth in responding to my post.

If you don't think that some weren't blindly following him to the point when they could no longer deny the situation, then you need to buff up on your observation and reading comprehension skills.

On this I will agree - Hero worship is bad, no matter what.

[tonysam]

220. I don't care what you think. I am sick of trashing that has gone on.

If you don't like it, there's the ignore button.

[tonysam]

222. Oh, and some people--MANY people--have blindly followed Obama

I think you are engaging in projection.

[MonteLukast]

89. How can you embrace a child...

... that you KNOW can bring down your ambitions and your life?

More than that, how can you embrace a child whose very REASON for being born was to trap you?

[lynne]

124. So, you're SURE this child was born to trap him?

And, even if she was, the child certainly had no hand in it. You cannot blame the child for the sins of the mother. IF that was her intent. We have no evidence that it was her intent anymore than we have any evidence that the Edward's ever had a good marriage or that this was his one and only affair. That's all part of the unknown.

For him to not embrace the child because it could bring down his ambitions goes right back to that character flaw business.

[MonteLukast]

135. I don't blame the child for the sins of the mother...

I blame the mother for deliberately getting pregnant and bearing the child to ensure a meal ticket and notoriety for herself. Whatever her intentions were, that's clearly how she has used the child since she was born-- Enquirer stories and photo shoots for GQ are quite lucrative.

It's my hope that she gets blatant enough about it that she loses custody, so JRE can raise her in peace.

[lynne]

177. She's a piece of work, no doubt about it -

- However, Edwards is as responsible as she for the conception of that child. He had the option of #1: Not having an affair. #2: Getting a vasectomy if he wanted to fool around - or - #3: Using a condom with her using a spermicide. He made the conscious decision to have sex yet he obviously failed to take appropriate actions to prevent pregnancy. If a man wants to make 100% sure that there will be no pregnancy then he must account for the whereabouts of each and every swimming sperm. A man can only be trapped if he allows it.

No matter how you cut this, Edwards made this bed for himself. Had he not had an affair - remember that Edwards alone broke vows - none of this would have occurred. He alone is responsible for the destruction of his ambitions and career.

They say that "birds of a feather flock together". I feel that maybe John Edwards has finally found his soul mate.

[karynnj]

308. Not to mention, Elizabeth was undergoing radiation and chemotherapy

His unprotected sex created a risk for her.

[karynnj]

307. It was his child and that child was completely innocent

The fact is that his chance for national elected office was likely over when he lost Iowa. There was no good reason to make him VP. What did he bring to the ticket. Obama had more charisma and had a record in Chicago of really working with the poor. Edwards had less experience than Obama and no real foreign policy experience. Not to mention, many Obama insiders had been there in 2004. There is a clue to how he did in 2004 that not one of the Kerry strategists or fund raisers went to Edwards. (Supposedly Kerry's advise was to pick someone he wanted to govern with.)

Because Edwards moved so to the left in 2008, it was highly unlikely that he would ever have again won a Senate seat or the governor's office in NC. Now it's true that Obama might have appointed him to something, but there was nothing where he personally had huge experience. I know people here said AG, but he never ran a prosector's office and his specially was emotionally winning cases. On other issues, the expertise belonged to the think tank backing him.

By August, his career was completely over and it was insanity to think the Democrats would let him speak or give him anything. When he confessed in August 2008, it should have been the full story - including admitting the baby was his. The point is half that baby's genes were his. By doing what he did, he caused Elizabeth greater pain and again led her to either lying for him or repeating what later would be seen to be lies. There was not one positive part of what he did here - it was ignoble, senseless and showed he still thought he could spin it.

[undeterred]

60. So he ate some rotten tomatoes, and he "turned" into a schmuck?

[MonteLukast]

64. The biggest engine of personality change...

... is our relationships.

Picking the wrong people as friends CAN turn us into schmucks.
Hanging around too much with a sociopath (like I suspect RH is) can make you act like one yourself.

For all JRE's outward emotional warmth, he committed utter FAIL at picking close friends. Except for Elizabeth.

[tonysam]

73. He didn't have the street smarts to pick the right people. n/t

[undeterred]

158. He didn't pick up the good influence of John Kerry and his wife,

who are examples of really good people.

[tonysam]

68. +1,000

I am sick of the trashing, too. Edwards screwed up in his personal life, but there is no excuse at all for the constant trashing. And this making excuses for Lisa Jo Druck's sociopathic tendencies makes me equally sick.

People had better instead be focused on our president and ask why he has sold Democrats down the river on a variety of issues.

With Edwards it was always about the message, not the man anyway.

[karynnj]

310. Ihave not seen a single post ever that argues that Rielle Hunter is a good person

or even has a single positive aspect. (not that I intend to look for one.)

The reason the focus is on Edwards was that people expected better of him. He was given the vice Presidential nomination and many gave him money to support his run for the Presidency. He sold himself, vouched for by Elizabeth, as a faithful, supportive husband - remember Elizabeth speaking of him offering to shave his hair when she lost hers - and a wonderful father. Can you imagine the pain and confusion the two younger ones have faced with everyone they meet knowing the story. What of Kate, in her mid twenties, seeing the father she seemed proud of exposed this way. Not to mention, if Elizabeth's health falters and JRE goes to jail (a possibility), where do you think the burden of raising the still young kids will fall?

I disliked the Edwards for their unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on the Kerrys, especially Teresa. There was no one who was treated worse in 2004 than the gracious, soft spoken, brilliant, caring Teresa. None of her accomplishments were given any publicity and Elizabeth Edwards played every stereotype against her - I think out of jealousy.

Still, it is sad to see anyone self destruct as thoroughly as Edwards has - and to think of the pain the rest of that family has likely been through.

[Texasgal]

77. why would you get tombstoned over this post?

:shrug:

[tritsofme]

78. Lots of us recognized him as a lying phony years before all this came to light.

I heard about this and thought, oh, this makes sense.

Sorry you were scammed by him for so long, but this is all par for the course for hedge fund Johnny.

[asjr]

80. Well, I don't dwell on it but in my

estimation JE became just another damn fool when he strayed. He is not the first and will not be the last. He had made a lot of money being an attorney and came to think he was invincible. My thoughts are with the children, even the last one. Some animals mate for life but humans are too darn fickle. There are too many stories out there just like his. I am very happy he didn't get to be our president.

[MonteLukast]

97. Not just about his money IMO.

His personality was probably also something he got arrogant about. I'll bet he was THE example a lot of personal-development coaches and leadership seminars pointed to, when talking about communication skills and rapport building. People who are highly socially adept enjoy great privilege in America, while being considered socially awkward can make you unemployable.

And think about what it DID take for him to break his vows... a confluence of life circumstances, and a sociopath actively charm-offensing him to develop his pride in his personality even further. A pretty strong cocktail.

[etherealtruth]

83. I was a big supporter of Edwards

I am really committed to the populist ideas and agenda he promoted.

I am truly saddened by his political self destruction ... it is irrelevant whether I care about how he conducts his personal life (I don't) ....but I am very aware that the majority of the voting public does care ... along those lines he certainly self destructed.

[earth mom]

84. I believed in Edwards and I'm pissed that I believed in him and thought he was one of the good ones.

I'm pretty cynical about politicians for the most part but thought that Edwards was different and humbled because he'd lost a child, plus all that he and Elizabeth have gone through including her cancer.

I could excuse John for his cheating but not for up and leaving a wife that is sick and dying with cancer for a pig like Rielle.

Sorry, but that he chose that conniving self centered beeyotch over Elizabeth and their long marriage puts John in the bastard category for me.

That said, I highly doubt anything that Young has to say about Edwards in his book. Sensationalism sells and that is exactly what Young is hawking.

The entire situation reads like a really bad soap opera and my sympathies lie with Elizabeth and her children who didn't deserve any of it.

[MonteLukast]

85. I think he ended up picking her because she is a sociopath.

It can be VERY tough to tear yourself away from a sociopath.

It looks as if all the bad stuff happened on days he intended to be his last day with her-- the conception of the child, the tape, the "please help me John" that led to the Enquirer finding out about all this. What the hell kind of hold did she have on him anyway? It's a lot more than just sex.

[tonysam]

91. Sociopaths are very adept in getting what they want

Not all of them are murderers or other criminals; sociopaths are everywhere in this society.

What they are good at is compartmentalizing and being chameleons with different people at different times in different situations.

I had a principal who I believe is a sociopath. Many people thought he was such a "nice guy," but he let down his guard with me and with a few others, who saw just how manipulative, even evil, he was.

[marions ghost]

141. Agreed --Rielle is a sociopathic stalker

her control over John (a Narcissist, but not a sociopath) is evident. Their mutual narcissism fed the attraction, and then she went in for the kill.

[MonteLukast]

161. In March 2007...

When they made the announcement that EE's cancer had come back. That is when Young's book said she screamed at him for not dropping this conference to be with HER. Because it was her BIRTHDAY, and that was fucking more important than matters with an ACTUAL effect on lives or the country.

The baby had not been conceived yet (she would've in May or early June 2007). JRE still had time to break away. If anything, he was getting a first glimpse (a first neon-bright glimpse) into how selfish and self-centered she really was. This was his time.

Why didn't he break away?

What exactly had she been saying to him that compelled him to stay?

[marions ghost]

179. my theory...

Being a Narcissist, he can't read others as "selfish and self-centered."

She was just cooing, "it's all OK, love conquers all" in that unconditional way that speaks to the child in all of us. That's all she really had to do.

And of course that sexual "you are it for me" is hard for men to resist.

[earth mom]

98. Did you see Rielle's Oprah interview? She had absolutely NO conscience about anything she'd done.

The interview was downright creepy and chilling.

Yep, I think Rielle's a sociopath too and has some kind of weird hold on John. :yoiks:

[MonteLukast]

109. "Why have a conscience? That's NEGATIVITY, sweetie!"

I have gone on for a LONG time about this. About dubious "gurus" peddling happiness and personal growth, which of course we will all lap up because we ALL want to be happy and healthy.

Personal development done wrong CAN make you a narcissist. It's built right in: a focus on yourself and your needs, more than on others' needs.

I have never seen a better example of the danger of bad self-help regimens in my life.

[CatWoman]

103. may I echo your sentiments?

I feel so betrayed by him.........

[tammywammy]

88. I thought when he took the hedge fund job pretty much showed Edwards for who he was n/t

[tritsofme]

95. But he only took it to learn about poverty!

Give the guy a break!

[tammywammy]

99. Exactly

;)

[MonteLukast]

102. Actually, I think he took it to learn about microfinancing.

Wasn't that Fortress' main function other than mortgages?

[cali]

115. he took it to get big bucks fast- and he had a large amount of his fortune in sleazy hedge funds.

[tonysam]

120. And Obama's sleazy Chicago connections make him a saint, right?

I hate hypocrisy, especially among Democrats.

[cali]

143. uh, gee, where did I say that?

Grab a fucking clue, tonysam. I said nothing of the sort. I loath dishonest crap like putting words in someone's mouth that they never said. it's just outright disgusting.

[tammywammy]

117. He said it was to learn about financial markets and poverty

Doesn't make much sense, I've never worked at a hedge fund and I've learned plenty over the years on how financial markets, class, poverty work together.

He also shut down his college tuition program in 2008 and left the anti-poverty center he was working with. :shrug: Once he wasn't going to be president it seemed being a champion against poverty wasn't that big of a deal to him.

[MonteLukast]

121. That was a pilot program...

... and he probably shut it down as much because of the affair (he'd been processing it a while before anyone else found out) as not winning the Presidency.

I don't think anyone would trust any program he sets up, not now. They'd say it was a way to funnel money to the affair or his legal fees, and that would kill any program before it started.

I wonder if he got the hedge fund gig through a friend in NYC?

[tammywammy]

126. Well I can't seem to find anything his center did.

The articles pulling up seem to point that most of the money went into paying him and his staff and doesn't cover anything they actually did that was anti-poverty. :shrug:

[MonteLukast]

144. It focused on one high school...

... and when I talked to them, they did sound pleased with his contribution; but they did seem to consider it small and were disappointed at its short life.

Did he simply think poverty in America was less "glamorous" than poverty overseas? Because a TON of celebrities take up the cause of overseas poverty. They're a dime-a-dozen.

And I do wonder if he started thinking being just another rich celebrity was peachy-keen as a life. How boring. How inffective.

[Cleita]

105. If he hadn't this blight on him, I believe he would still be a decent

and progressive politician. I know many jackasses who are good at their jobs and do their jackassing off hours. Many medical doctors are such people.

[tonysam]

114. Yes, he would. The stands he took were genuine.

Unfortunately, those stands made him unelectable because they generated some real enemies like the US Chamber of Commerce, which declared "war" on his candidacy.

Then think of the politicians who have done far, far, far worse and still get elected.

[cali]

160. lol. let me put it this way: JE was never a Bernie Sanders

he used issues like poverty to further his political career. He had 6 fucking years in the Senate and he did NOT focus on poverty.

[marions ghost]

151. Question

which I have pondered.

Can a "jackass" who has little integrity or sense of morality (by the liberal definition) actually be a good doctor--or a good politician, for that matter.

Does it really NOT matter? What happens which the doctor is faced with hiding something medically, or say, engages in fraud or corruption re. financial gain?

I have a friend who was a good doctor, but went astray in financial dealings and had his license revoked.

Is that a doctor you should trust with your care, and your life? I am skeptical now, after what I have seen.

[MonteLukast]

163. How do we know which immoralities "cross over"...

... and which ones don't?

Is this kind of thinking, after all, that leads employers to think credit checks are a valid assessment of our honesty and reliability.

[Cleita]

166. I think sometimes we attribute to morality what is nothing more than

social mores. In another society, a powerful man like a Senator or a Presidential candidate would be expected to have other women besides his wife. Some very good doctors do it only for the money, not to serve humanity, but it doesn't make them any less a good doctor. Now if a doctor is cheating insurance and Medicare on his billing, yes then this is an ethical issue to be dealt with and so should we deal with those ethical issues in politics, but frankly we don't. Just about every conservative member in Congress is on the take. We have seen what was obviously a big handover of tax payers money to the military budget and all the profiteers like Halliburton and Xe that have made billions on trumped up charges of terrorism. We saw it in the health reform bills that for all intents and purposes were written by lobbyists for their bought and paid for senators on both sides of the aisle. This is the real issue of corruption. I don't think Edwards would have been bought so easily myself.

[marions ghost]

188. My question is

for example, "A doctor has been found to cheat on his billing practices --so CAN that doctor be considered a "good doctor?" (Let's say he is reinstated after being found guilty). Would you still go to that doctor without worry? Would you trust him to tell you the truth?

This is not a society that expects a man to have other women besides his wife (though you WOULD think that was true by the numbers that do it). Isn't the fact that you don't say "men and women" having others while married implying a bias towards a male perspective?

So the message to men is, "do it, but don't get caught." That promotes a deviousness in relationships--is that healthy? Are people who do that honorable and to be trusted in other spheres? Should we just relax our standards of "morality" in general, especially relating to marriage? I'm asking without judgment here--I don't have a definite opinion. I'm interested in societal viewpoints, not necessarily mine.

You refer to the profiteers in government. Is the fact that we accept this degree of corruption indicative of our lack of knowing where the ethical line is?

[Cleita]

216. You have ethics mixed up with morality.

As far as the profiteers in government, it isn't us who don't know where the ethical line is. It's them. Most of us don't accept the corruption. We are powerless to stop it when it's being rammed down our throats. The whole Bush administration should be in jail for criminal activities both in war and outside of it. But no one who has the authority will step up to the plate, arrest them and press charges.

I worked for a very good doctor who did it for the money. No, he didn't cheat, but he would yell at us anytime we let a Medical patient slip in. He made little money on them so he didn't want to treat them. No one without the ability to pay were seen by him. He had no time for those who didn't have the means of paying for his services. Yet, he's one of the developers of a cutting edge type of surgery back then that is routine today and worked closely with the UCLA medical center on this. Did it make him a bad doctor because he had no concern for non-paying patients? No. It didn't. He was still a brilliant and competent doctor. I personally didn't have much respect for him as person because of his lack of concern, which I considered immoral, however, everything he did was ethical, within the parameters of whom he treated, and legal.

[marions ghost]

248. "We don't accept the corruption."

Yes I think we do. Or rather we give in to the idea that we are powerless and we go along to get along. Your example of the medical office illustrates this perfectly. Not criticizing you, just using the example.

So this doctor refused to take Medicaid patients, and you call him "a brilliant and competent doctor." You can split hairs about whether morality is the same as ethics--that is really only a semantic argument. Don't we both know that we are talking about basic human decency? The problem is, it didn't trouble this doctor at all--to decide who was WORTHY of being treated, only on the basis of ability to pay. Obviously he has never been poor, but also he has no compassion. Most doctors struggle with this same issue, but come to some compromises which allow them to cut it both ways. Because they have a sense of morality that doesn't allow them to simply say, "I treat only patients who can afford me." The question is, is a Doctor who has no compassion a good doctor? Or are they a medical technician?

But my original question was--let's say a doctor HAS done something LEGALLY wrong, to do with ill-gotten gains, a serious offense for which most people would do some jail time. Should he still be allowed to practice, and would you feel good about being seen by such a doctor?

[bobbolink]

255. Thank you. Giving doctors like this a pass literally means that people suffer and die.

Sure sounds like corruption to me.

But, of course, what would I know.... I'm just an angry poor person. :nuke:

thank you for saying what needs to be said, and should be said a whole hell of a lot more.

[Cleita]

267. Oh, wonderful. Then I guess I should have dragged this employer,

the doctor, to the court of law that would have convicted him of lack of human decency. When you get your head out of the clouds and do a little reality thinking, then check back with me. I'm done now with you.

Also, something about legal. Remember everything Hitler and his cronies did was legal. They kept changing the laws to make them legal. This is another split hairs moment between moral, ethical and now legal. Go figure it out. You are confused about these concepts.

As far as being seen by the same doctor, I was his patient for ten years after I worked for him. I knew he knew his stuff.

[marions ghost]

286. you didn't answer my hypothetical question again...

Would you go to a doc who had done something LEGALLY wrong? Been convicted.

Is this where you draw the line? A doctor is still a good doctor as long as he does nothing LEGALLY wrong? Even though you disagree with him on moral grounds?

I said nothing to imply that you could have done anything about your situation (since it was legal). I'm only interested in the way people think about this question. The only choice you had was not to see this doctor, and you made the choice to see him. Not saying that's wrong, just trying to understand the reasoning behind it.

So would you also go to a doc who had done something legally wrong? (people do that also)

[bobbolink]

309. Very good questions. It shows how morally confused we are in this society.

We know that someone is morally and ethically wrong, but as long as that person is good for *us*, then it is excused.

So goes corruption.......

[Cleita]

312. Nobody is excusing anyone.

You know better. There is a difference between morals, ethics and competence. To equate one to the other is a basic error in logic. Once we stop doing that, then maybe this country can move forward to being one that we might like to live in. Then we might have leaders who govern from their intellect and not their pocket books. Many good Democrats were dumped by the wayside because some moralist caught them with a woman outside of marriage and used it to their advantage to get the likes of a Bush elected. Of course their side's peccadillos are never mentioned. Look at the present Governor of California, and immoral man by many standards but yet no one criticizes him because he's a Republican. And quite honestly, he could be a painted saint, but that wouldn't make up for his incompetence. It's time that we grew up as a nation and started electing our leaders for their competence and intellectual stands on issues not the morality standards of a tight-assed segment of Calvinists.

[bobbolink]

313. I meant what I said, so don't patronize me.

I wasn't writing that to you, and for very good reason: The only time you respond to me is to criticise and attack.

Yup, *THAT* is moral and ethical. To quote yourself, YOU know better.

Bye.. go argue with the one who questioned you with logic, which you refuse to answer.

bye now...

[Cleita]

315. ...

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

316. back atcha, sweetheart. You have shown your true self, "progressive"

[Cleita]

311. Please look over your posts and when you spot your errors in logic

reframe your questions with premises grounded in reality and fact. Of course you really don't want me to answer your questions, nor am I your trained seal that you can demand it, because what you really want me to do is agree with you. I can't do that because it would be dishonest of me and I can't go down the primrose path of faulty logic with you.

[marions ghost]

317. I don't need to have you agree with me

I'm trying to understand your perspective. That is all.

You seem to argue that if a person is "immoral" in one aspect of their lives, they can be moral --or would you say "ethical" in another. My question is about how people view what is legal (ethical?) vs. what they consider a moral standard. I tried to steer the question away from Edwards' infidelity since people have such different views on that--some say immoral, some say not. The doctor example is more clear-cut I think. If a doctor is a good technician, then serious indiscretions such as financial crimes should be overlooked? Does this encourage people to commit or cover-up similar crimes?

If you are on the doc's side --the guy who chose to refuse Medicaid patients, do you think that more attempts should be made to provide active support for doctors who DO take Medicaid patients? This is something that we as a society might want to do if the Hippocratic oath is no longer taken seriously.

Y'know it's hard for people to spot their own errors in logic. I know I need help with it. Hence the attempt at dialogue. :)

[supernova]

106. My 2 cents from Orange County

I live in Orange County, NC. Perhaps 15 miles as the crow files from the Edwardses compound. Out here, that still qualifies you as neighbors.

I haven't been real excited about Edwards the person in well, ever. Like zazen said upthread, to us he seemed to come out of nowhere. The amount of time he spent with Orange County Dems, what should have been his natural base, could fit on the head of pin. No luncheons, no precinct meetings, no townhalls, no campaign organizing. We're much more passionate about David Price our US House Rep.

Was I excited that someone from the local level seemed to be doing well on the national stage? Yes, of course. There's a lot that is good and beautiful that someone from this area could share with the rest of the nation.

Despite my being lukewarm to any "charisma" Edwards may have showed, I did like his rhetoric. He spoke about things that mattered, IMO. There are indeed "Two Americas." I argue that there are more than two, but that's a start. If you can't see that, you don't belong on DU. As a country, we need to have a real, honest to god debate about that. What are we prepared to do about it? We know the answer from the Reaganites is "So what? If you're poor, it's your fault. You're lazy." What is the Democratic answer? We have yet to hear it. But we hear plenty of "OMG! He's scum! Get him out of here!"

Look, I don't know if JRE was a good man initially and fell apart in the glare of the limelight or if he was always looking for a way to just simply become famous. If he simply wanted to be famous, he could have kept on taking high-profile cases and become like F. Lee Bailey or, god help me, Gloria Allred. x( I think he really did have some vague idea of service but got sidetracked by the trappings of fame. That was clearly stupid. Many movie/music artists do. Past a certain point, they become famous, not for their work, but for being famous and spectacular hotel binges.

Another thing. Just because a soldier falls is no reason to give up the fight they took on. It makes no difference if JRE's motives were pure as the driven snow to start with. What matters is that he started that conversation.

Going forward, these things need to happen:

1) The Edwardses need to process and heal in private and in their own time. I wish only the best for each of them. Like another poster upthread, I hope possibly he can raise his daughter away from that harpy RH. I hope Elizabeth, clearly the smarter of the two, can find some peace. BTW, what's with the nasty names about Elizabeth being a tough lawyer? She's very good at being a lawyer, so she's a ball-buster, ergo that's bad? So what? Will we ever stop giving women on politics the Hillary treatment?

2)Our dislike of the man and his failings need to become decoupled from the ideals he spoke about.

3) It's up to us to decide what JRE's time will mean. Oddly, if we play it right, we can make the brief time JRE spent at the national level hail a return to a more progressive Dem party. Yes, yes, yes, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Weiner, etc... They are good men, and they are great progressives and workhorses. But they are not inspirers to the masses. They are only inspirers to us who enjoy politics.

[MonteLukast]

110. I think the Southern Poverty Law Center would be great for him (nt)

[supernova]

128. That's a good idea

I hope, when he's ready, he follows up on it or something similar.

He's too young and energetic to simply retire. Perhaps he should look up Gary Hart.

[supernova]

129. DU burp

Well, I posted thought I lost it, then posted again.

:banghead:

[Cleita]

113. Thanks.

This post is the most sensible one on the Edwards that I have read up to date. People need to take his message and go on with it, even if the man has fallen from grace. I believe history will judge him a little more fairly in the future.

[supernova]

132. The people who are feeling

hurt and betrayed, I feel for you. It's very tough to put your trust in someone then be let down.

And I agree with you, we need to take the message and move on at some point.

[tonysam]

116. It was NEVER about the "man" when I supported him through two elections.

It was about the MESSAGE.

I fucking HATE hero worship of politicians because they ALWAYS let people down.

[supernova]

137. That's something worth

exploring at the national level.

Politicians are people we hire to do a job. Do we really have to say that they are "heroes" for them to be effective?

[MonteLukast]

170. That's coming from the same line of thought...

... that says charisma and inspirational qualities are requirements in our politicians, instead of just very nice icing on the cake.

The same mindset that kept us from electing Al Gore and John Kerry. To our never-ending loss.

(The irony is, if you looked more closely at Kerry, you'd see that he possessed a very understated, old-movie-idol kind of charisma that we had forgotten about, because we came to believe there was only ONE true type of charisma.)

[unc70]

229. Well stated, and thanks also to OP and others

I remain angry at John for becoming involved with Hunter. I discussed this in the other current thread on a related topic.

Few of us expected Edwards to be elected, but we strongly supported his positions on many domestic issues, while seeing relatively few difference in foreign policies among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (with some specific exceptions).

I thank the OP for your being able to avoid being attacked and threatend with a pizza.

supernova, you explained how those of us in NC and Orange County have felt better than anyone else I have seen. Thanks for everyone who helps to confirm our position.

This leads to the obvious question. What must we do to compensate for the loss of the voices of John and Elizabeth? What now?

[zazen]

301. clarifying my point about Elizabeth being a tough lawyer

Oh, I esp. agree with your point #2.

Don't know what others said about E. E. being a tough lawyer, but in my case, what I meant (and expressed badly) was that her toughness, combined with her husband's meteoric rise to wealth and fame, contributed to others' jealousy of them, precisely because she wasn't traditional and people, esp. men, are sometimes still threatened by smart, unapologetic women.

O/T: See you at Tylers soon, I hope!

[NoodleyAppendage]

123. Sociopaths are born, not made. Nice try. Edwards was scum from the get-go.

You're just bemoaning the fact that you were duped...like a majority of Americans.

J

[tonysam]

131. No, he wasn't. But nice try. At least I researched the guy's politics,

unlike people here who are now betrayed by Obama because he wasn't the great liberal people thought he was.

Of course I blame the media for that.

[cali]

140. Obama pretty much ran as a centrist

Edwards ran as a progressive because he had to run to the right of Hillary. He had NO progressive creds whatsoever. He was, during his six years in the Senate a right leaning centrist.

[unc70]

225. Obama was to right of Clinton, not Edwards

Almost no issue where Edwards was to the right of Obama, though many where Edwards was to the right of the perceived Obama. When compared with the reality of Obama, Edwards had become more specific in terms of withdrawing from Iraq, etc. The perception of Obama as the anti-war candidate was almost entirely based un a single speech in 2002, unnoticed at the time, and barely self-documented weeks later after the debates and Senate votes.

Obama's votes in the Senate were the same as Clinton. Candidate Obama had the weakest healthcare plan among the three, though most voters only heard the sound bites of how it should be.

Like many others at DU, close to a majority at one point, I supported Edwards because he and Elizabeth were articulate advocates for needs and concerns of many people, uniting them on issues that most-often were used by others to divide them into competing groups. It was the issues, the growing problems that would otherwise have been ignored, that motivated me to support him. Most DUers probably would have preferred Elizabeth over John as the candidate.

I never really expected Edwards to win, but wanted John and Elizabeth to become powerful voices in the future, possibly with a significant role in a new Dem admin. I am really angry that his affair cost us not just his credibility on issues, but greatly diminished Elizabeth's. Even worse, whenever the issue of health care is starting back towards center stage, the Edwards affair reappears, sometimes without any other reason.

[tonysam]

228. +1,000 n/t

[MonteLukast]

165. Edwards is not a sociopath.

He once was a decent man, and that is the whole point of this thread.

Sociopaths have shallow emotions, an inability to love, and a lack of conscience. That's not JRE. At least, it wasn't until he met RH. SHE is the sociopath, and has demonstrated a history of that nearly all her life.

Getting too close to a sociopath can make you act like one yourself. But it doesn't turn you into one. As you said, they are born, not made.

[NoodleyAppendage]

189. How do you know he was a decent man? From his autobiography? n/t

J

[MonteLukast]

198. From Elizabeth. And from WATCHING him and comparing how he is now to how he was then. (nt)

[tonysam]

194. They aren't that common, either. But it is scary when you come across one.

People have this idea sociopaths are murderers or other criminals, when in fact not all murderers or other criminals are sociopaths or vice versa.

I have come across maybe one or two in my entire life, one of them was a boss of mine. The guy was evil, pure evil, yet he could project the "nice guy" image to people he liked.

Often sociopaths are married with kids. The trappings of family don't mean these people aren't sociopaths.

[NoodleyAppendage]

212. Exactly. All we have is evidence of sociopathy, so unless there's a brain tumor...

...we have to assume that present behavior is a continuation of past behavior.

J

[Liberal_in_LA]

138. I don't think this thread would get you tombstoned. Too bad people feel

it's risky to express an opinion contrary to the majority opinion

[unc70]

232. It "should" not, but it could. Often would draw attacks

I have been surprised that neither Edwards-related thread has been met by a swarm of attacks. There are some posts by DUers who have always supported another candidate and have often been critical of Edwards. What is missing are those posts which attack the motives of the poster, the name calling, the "get over it", etc. Nice for a change.

[MonteLukast]

240. Thanks! (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

139. President McCain could easily have been in office right now

just because Edwards could not keep his penis inside his pants. That's what really disturbs most DUers. Not the sex, not the infidelity, not even the love child. But the fact that he was perfectly willing to risk throwing the election to McCain.

[tonysam]

142. This isn't about McCain. The USCC made sure Edwards wouldn't get the nod.

Obama was hardly the best we could have picked, but we are stuck with him and I fear we are going to be trounced in November and in 2012 because of this guy's tendency to want to "reach across the aisle" with people who have NO intention of compromising.

[cali]

145. lol. cute little fairy tale you've created.

:rofl:

[MonteLukast]

171. In that way, he suffers from the same magical thinking Edwards did.

"My sooper-dooper extra-special fantabulous personality and communication skillz will change Washington! and America! and human nature!"

Change is possible in those arenas, but not by ONE person... no matter how heroic they are.

[JI7]

186. Edwards tried to rewrite history about Kerry

the lies about how edwards was the one that wanted to fight but Kerry wouldn't let him. why let kerry stop him ? yet he bragged about how he continued to use "hope is on the way" against what Kerry wanted to use with "help is on the way".

if he was willing to go against kerry over something like that why didn't he go against kerry on something more important like fighting for the election .

and so many other things.

seeing rielle i can see why they would be a perfect match for each other

[MonteLukast]

192. I was crushed when both he and EE turned away from Kerry

Because JK could have been a real steadying influence on him. I fell in love with their partnership during '04-- not unlike the "bromance" going on between David Cameron and Nick Clegg now-- and now I see, Kerry would never have allowed him to fall for the siren song of cheap celebrity.

And it turned my stomach to see them attack the Kerrys' humanity on petty things... but what can I say? Our society does the exact same thing, suspect someone's empathy and humanity, suspect them of having a disorder just because they're less glowing than Tony Robbins.

I remember in 2003, there was even a story about Thomas Jefferson possibly having Asperger's. Thomas Jefferson?! :wow:

And I have felt like a failure for many years because *I* am not Tony Robbins-like. No matter that I don't want to be; really, until the recession, we all believed that that was the only type of personality really good at connecting with people.

[bobbolink]

191. On "Power" being seductive to men, and why he did what he did....

Upthread, there were thoughts expressed that Edwards, and many men before him, have been seduced by attaining power, and that resulting in their sexual peccadilloes.

In the case of Edwards (and who knows... maybe Clinton and others, too), maybe there is another force at work. Not that we will ever know, and maybe Edwards himself will never know what possessed him.

Men in this society are taught from a very young age not to feel, let alone express, emotions. Men are supposed to be "tough", and to always maintain that image of strength, no matter what.

For anyone with any degree of sensitivity, working on law suits involving people who have been victimized is, and must bring up tremendous emotions sometimes. Then to lose a son in a tragedy, then the stress of fertility treatments, then the tragedy of a terminal disease with his wife... the man *had* to have been experiencing tremendous emotions. If he was not able to actually process them inside himself, and find expression for them, then he would be vulnerable to an affair that would serve as an escape.

None of us on DU will ever know what was at work internally with Edwards, but I think this process is at least plausable... for him and for many men.

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable."
James A. Garfield

[BrklynLiberal]

201. +100

[bobbolink]

204. ^_^ Your thoughts, please?

I'd like to know what you think. This is what interests me most.

[BrklynLiberal]

325. The story of John Edwards has all the makings of a Greek tragedy.

Ambition, love, greed, hubris, sex, unrealized potential for great good, tragedy, a fall from great heights.

Everything is there. It makes me very sad to think about what might have been....and how far from that the
entire Edwards family has traveled.

I feel kind of an exhausted sadness.

[MonteLukast]

205. Especially an affair with someone promising instant happiness and "authenticity".

I don't think most people realize just how vulnerable Americans are to promises of emotional health if we do X.

[bobbolink]

206. When we are steeped in the demand that we be "positive" 24/7, I believe it

weakens us and makes us more vulnerable to what you have mentioned, and other traps.

I think we are all susceptable to this, but men even more so because of the harmful expectation of being "tough" and "strong" at all times.

Maybe some tears would have helped him more than an affair.

[MonteLukast]

208. The funny thing is, when you look closely, there's something very fatalistic about that "positivity"

There's a definite note of "Abandon all hope ye enter here"-- "you can't change the world, you can only change yourself; but by Dawg, you can magically change the world BY changing your own sweet self, because YOU are special!"

Not only fatalistic (which I always thought was, well negative)... but very narcissism-inducing!

[bobbolink]

213. Well, damn! You really tore it up with that one!

:applause: :rofl:

I can hear the collective gasp of "positive thinkers" everywhere!

You've just put words to something that I have sensed for a long time, but wasn't even trying to verbalize it.

What I know is that some of the most critical people I know are "positive thinkers"!! They are always judging and criticising others.

"very narcissism-inducing!"

May I quote you on this? This is really great.... you have a book in you! :hi:

[tonysam]

217. Edwards should have read Barbara Ehrenreich's book

about "positive thinking."

[MonteLukast]

236. I'd like Elizabeth to WRITE a new book...

... about how to tell real positivty from fake.

[BrklynLiberal]

199. An excellent and insightful post.

I feel so much more pity for both the Edwards' than anything else.

It is such a sad case of "what might have been"..... :-(

[MonteLukast]

207. You might not want to read CTYankee's thread about the Young book, then.

There is one way I can see JRE coming back-- if he acknowledges that he fell for a sociopath, that NO ONE is immune no matter how smart or capable or even how life-experienced you are, and that he's an object lesson in their effect on people.

Then he should go work for the SPLC or something and go back to a life of ACTUALLY doing good (instead of becoming yet another vapid reality-show-type celebrity who jet-sets and merely THINKS they're doing good).

[tonysam]

218. Where is that thread? n/t

[MonteLukast]

237. take your Pepto Bismol first...

it's out in DU:GD.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonteLukast]

211. Nahh, this isn't Obama's fault.

Boy, did it crush me to read that thread from Seneca though...

[Uzybone]

214. Although I added to it, your thread quickly became Obama vs Edwards

with Edwards supporters attacking the President instead of backing up your well thought out OP. Pretty sure that wasn't your intent, but DU is fast becoming allObamasfault online.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

221. I don't see how any of us can really know

and personally I find it rather difficult to care one way or another.

[dorkulon]

227. He always struck me as insincere.

Sorry, but that's always the feeling I got from him. Big phony from the beginning.

[tonysam]

230. That's your opinion. That isn't what I got having met him on a number of occasions. n/t

[dorkulon]

234. Well, used car salesmen do sell some cars.

Of course it's my opinion; that's why I said it.

[MonteLukast]

235. We don't trust people with Edwards' personality...

... because in our customer-service-oriented jobs, we're in constant competition to be the most likeable and nonthreatening, and the one oozing charisma and friendliness may just take our job... or at the very least, our promotion. AND our bosses will very likely start questioning our empathy and our ability to connect with people.

You know... just like half the country did to both John Kerry and Al Gore.

[dorkulon]

238. That's an interesting theory, I guess.

But there's a difference between oozing charisma and oozing insincerity. It didn't matter what policies Edwards espoused; I just didn't believe the guy. Not that I took Obama at his word either, or Hillary. There was just something especially cloying about Edwards. Again, that's just my opinion, as has been observed.

[tonysam]

239. You have to be a salesman to be a good lawyer.

That's just the way it is.

[MonteLukast]

242. The problem is that EVERY job in America has become a sales job

What do you think firing people for complaining about their job on Facebook on their own time is about? It's about failing to properly sell the company brand! It's all about corporations demanding you be their spokesperson/salesman 24/7/365... demanding an unbelievable degree of loyalty and agreement, and calling that "relating to people"!

People hire for "fit" above all anymore, which could literally mean anything. Did I fail to get the job because I'm a Democrat and the boss is a Republican? Or because there just happened to be another applicant who belonged to the same college sorority? Or was it because he loves to climb mountains and I don't know how to... what a scandal, she lives in Colorado and she doesn't know how to mountain-climb???-- how can she relate to me, or to her co-workers?

And what really distresses me is how many of us just shut up and put up with this encroachment on this micromanaging of our personal lives and preferences. There's no better way to get an American to do your bidding, than to make their livelihood contingent on it. There's no more effective form of emotional blackmail.

[geek tragedy]

331. We don't trust people with Edwards's personality

because Edwards is a serial liar and phony.

It's not like Barack Obama doesn't ooze friendliness and charisma. He still has a few supporters here and there . . .

[unc70]

290. Once you can fake sincerity, ...

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made. — Jean Giraudoux

Nothing is so easy to fake as the inner vision. — Robertson Davies

[SoCalDem]

241. The "narrative" is rather moot, in any scenario

The scandal ruined any further political life he may have planned.

The hubris and miscalculation of his political prowess brought a lot of public grief into his personal family. In reality , he was a one term democratic senator from a southern state, and would probably have been returned to private life when his term expired. His vice presidential opportunity led him to believe that he had a real shot at the top of the ticket "next time", but history always intervenes in long-term planning, and he could not have beaten Obama or Clinton.

We know more about his personal life because he (they) chose to use it to bolster the family-man image he wanted us all to see...They gave us all a front row seat in their lives.

Every family has "drama" from time to time, and when you have made your family public, the dramas become public too.

The people I feel sorriest for, are the children who were dragged into this arena. They will always be tagged with the scandal & public angst of what their father did. They also may later on wonder why their mother did not "pull the plug" on the whole political thing when she was diagnosed with cancer..and surely when it recurred in an incurable form.

You can never reclaim lost time, and it's sad that so much of their childhoods were used up trying to please a fickle public and promote the flailing political career of their father, instead of spending family time with their mother.

Unfortunately, we all know way too much about this family, and I wish them all well..and privacy as they retreat back to private lives..
I think the media will soon tire of the drama.

[MonteLukast]

245. I was so happy these past few weeks, going to the store...

No Enquirer covers with anything Edwards on them for the past two weeks. Whew!

[saltpoint]

243. I'm sorry that the Edwards family is under emotional strain, whether

the part imposed by John's adultery or by virtue of their difficulties playing out on a public stage.

I wouldn't wish pain of those kinds on anybody.

I want to think that the older daughter has kept her love for her parents despite her parents' public difficulties and that the strain she must feel is mitigated by her parents' telling her, together or separately, that the relationship they have with her still matters and will always matter.

Same for the two younguns.

If What's-His-Name could side with the adulterous woman in the pit about to be stoned to death by villagers it does seem that we can be non-judgmental about John Edwards, and that we can wish him and his family the same satisfactions in the world we hope for ourselves and each other.

[tonysam]

246. +1,000

I couldn't have said it better.

[Zywiec]

250. Edwardses

:rofl:

[slipslidingaway]

252. Great post :) n/t

[Zywiec]

256. 'cause people here are so much smarter

:crazy:

:rofl:

[tonysam]

258. What's your point? "Edwardses" is correct.

It's not my fault you can't spell. Edwards ends in "s," and the family would be called the "Edwardses."

Think of "Jones," and "keeping up with the Joneses."

[slipslidingaway]

261. Oh my, think you totally missed the point ...

some people saw the disconnect between his actions and his deeds and never trusted the guy.

[tonysam]

332. And there is a shitload of disconnect between the reality of Obama and the propaganda

It's true of all politicians.

[slipslidingaway]

334. This has nothing to do with Obama, still missing the point of the original ...

post, several people saw the disconnect early on, others did not, hence the sign in the post I responded to.

[slipslidingaway]

260. Of course :) and they would never be taken in by some pretty words! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

251. Several people were tired of John Edwards rewriting his own history

in the Senate. Never, ever trusted him and this was well before his affair became public.

[struggle4progress]

257. It's an old story: small town boy hits the big time and loses his head

Too bad. He's been out of public life a while now, so maybe this old tale deserves a rest: his marriage is none of my damn business.


Elizabeth Edwards's Sister Speaks out on Sex Tape
By Sandra Sobieraj Westfall
Wednesday March 10, 2010 01:20 PM EST
... Elizabeth Edwards's sister, Nancy Anania, sounded a note of vindication when she told PEOPLE that a contempt-of-court finding against Young was "inevitable." "People who have read his book know he was willing to lie for years before the book was written," says Anania ... http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20350127,00.html

[AuntPatsy]

264. I read this thread and what I think I see is that though some are being the judgmental lovely

people they normally are, some are just simply upset that they gave money, more than likely money some could ill afford to spare to an obvious lost cause because as far as this all plays out, Edwards knowingly put himself out in his bid for presidency knowing full well he would eventually be found out and it would have obviously lessened his ability to get anything accomplished as it did President Clinton in that last year by having to fight all the innuendo's and charges of what some call indecency, he still excepted funds when he should have just packed in all in and bailed as soon as he took that first step into another area of his personal life..

I agree with you that I could care less what he does in his personal life, it is between him and his wife period but simply because you and I and a few others could care less does not make it seem less of a liability for the party to so many others in this society, your talking about americans half of whom have a stick so far up their buts that they are constantly in pain and need outlets to vent that frustration from their painful existences and would not have sat silently and as excepting as they did during the Kennedy years..

If President Clinton's problems with the repug way of being hypocritical nosy as in being so loud and obnoxious toward any and all things even slightly toward the left of themselves did not make Edwards hesitate in continuing the race for his presidency bid than I would have to say that a hungriness for power overtook his common sense...he is by far not a stupid man so that makes me believe he allowed his hunger override any good intentions he might have once had for the american people...

Your right that no one is perfect and frankly in this day and age when one can so easily make up an entire affair, drug someone, take pics and throw them on the internet and viola, a scandal is born, even start unfounded rumors and have the media help spread them even further one would take steps to be a bit more careful in ensuring such did not happen to them..

But edwards..hmmmm, honestly, I feel like the guy was the biggest idiot that ever was, frankly my pick was dean from the beginning, I always thought edwards nothing more than a pretty boy, and frankly pretty boys are nothing but trouble..I was not wrong....vanity has a way of making one lose all sense of reasoning and its more than obvious that in the end, Edwards did not care enough about this country or those that supported his bid to ensure he kept all on the up and up so we did not have another lost pr repug heaven sent moment which left Dem's scrambling to get heard over the din of OMG, did you hear...not did you hear more soldiers died, more innocent lives lost in an ill conceived war etc but hey..did you hear, edwards screwed the pooch, literally if you look at that woman but thats a whole nother kettle of worms, in the end...he knew, and we knew, and they knew, scandals take front and center, cares about humanity and issues that would help enhance it would for months become unworthy of discussion

[defendandprotect]

266. When the issue is "sex" . . . the human brain is trained to go nuts . . .

because it has long been controlled by organized patriarchal religion which demands

control over the libido by punishing it, shaming it --

Organized patriarchal religion is the underpinning for patriarchy --

Think your narrative is correct --

I'm not convinced the Edwards has always been or is now an evil person --

and look at the difference between the treatment of the right wing Newt Gingrich who

actually ABANDONED his wife when she had cancer -- vs Edwards!!


Hard to make sense of . . . but it's tied up with SEX.

[FrenchieCat]

274. John Edwards was willing to exploit his wife's cancer

in order to gain sympathy from the public, meanwhile he was cheating on his wife.

I don't know what that is called, but it couldn't be good. :shrug:

[saracat]

283. Elizabeth wanted him to run. And it wasn't to gain sympathy.

Unless of course you think she is faking her illness.

[saracat]

280. Great post Monte. I may not like the actions Edwards has taken but

none of us can claim to "KNOW" everything about the man and his intentions. The message was the best of them all no matter what the messenger. And the piling on of Edwards is in itself almost as shameful as his actions. And the defense of those who enabled him while condemning Edwards is hypocrtical. And the abuse of Elizabeth is intolerable.

[bobbolink]

318. The post was about more than John. It was about how ALL of us are subject

to forces we chose not to acknowledge.

The vitriol from some just convinces me it truly is a denial...the "US and THEM" factor.

[Romulox]

291. What about the phoney-baloney "two americas" crap? THAT's why I don't like Edwards.

I couldn't care less about his personal life.

[Beacool]

294. I don't stand in judgment of their marriage, but it's the HYPOCRISY which grates.

I remember how John condemned Bill Clinton for his peccadilloes. I remember the smug interview Elizabeth gave to a magazine in 2007 where she stated that her life choices had made her more joyful than Hillary's (although she did call her later on to apologize for her remarks).

Whatever else can be said of the Clintons, they have never stood in judgment of anyone else's marriage, nor acted as if they were morally superior to others. I think that humans are flawed and make mistakes. It is the hypocrisy what is offensive, more so than the sins committed.

:(

[geek tragedy]

330. Remember this interview? It's a HOOT!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/19/eveningnews/main3632462.shtml

Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with ... it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them.

Couric: Do you think ... what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... when it comes to infidelity ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: I guess is what I'm getting at.

Edwards: Yes.

Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

[Name removed]

304. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

336. Yes.

:thumbsup:

[Time for change]

340. I agree with you for the most part

I believe that most people are a lot more susceptable to what he succumbed to than they would like to admit. It could happen to most of us under the right circumstances.

Something similar happened to FDR and JFK, and they were two of our three best presidents (along with Lincoln). I voted for him anyhow, even though he had withdrawn by that time. And I would most certainly do it again.