John Edwards Admits to Affair

JE is a scumbag!! Hopefully we will know that about St. Barack Obama too

The problem with Barack is about his lack of specifics; he promises a change, but try to pin him down to details and watch him squirm.

most marriages of political big shots are 'political marriages'. they are probably over many years ago when an incidence of cheating becomes public.

bill clinton shtupped many young employees in his office before the lewinsky affair even surfaced. who knows that hillary was probably well aware of her husbands antics. these people stick together just because to the average american redneck the christian church going faithful family man appeals a lot and is the only one reliable enuff to run the country (or any high rank office).

money, power, fame ruins marriages. look at hollywood people how long do they stick together. the same goes for political bigwigs in USA but the only problem is that their marriage is no longer a personal affair. they are forced to keep their marriages intact so that the public sees they are the perfect american family.

I personally hold all the candidates to the same standard as I do myself. I keep my word. Wedding vows, monetary debit, or pledge of allegiance...doesn't matter. It is about keeping faith with one's self.

I think many folks will rationalize that fidelity and leadership are opposing concepts; one having nothing to do with the other. But at the foundation of each is trust.

If a man (any man) can't keep his word to himself or his wife, then why should I assume he will be honest with me; a complete stranger.

Ciao, Guido

many people voted for george because he:

1. supposedly had higher moral values

2. he was a guy you could imagine having beer with.

guido

the wives of politicians are usually aware. and even if he is cheating whether with his secretary or with a whore he is ONLY answerable to his wife and no one else.

the person i feel for is edward's wife and all the assinine media spotlight

anand

Your insightful knowledge concerning the mental processes of the political spouse is enlightening.

Be that as it may, I respectfully disagree with your comment: "...and even if he is cheating whether with his secretary or with a whore he is ONLY answerable to his wife and no one else."

We are all first accountable to ourselves. I honor my vows because they are mine. I must answer to myself before anyone...even my wife. If I cannot be true to my word, how can I be faithful to my constringency?

I say again, if a man can't keep his word to himself, then why should I trust him.

Ciao, Guido

And if the man and his wife have agreed that they will stay together (or cannot stand each other, but do not want to get a divorce because of political reasons, then what ?)

anand, you have got to be kidding me. a politician is answerable to the constituents that he represents. if he is not truthful, as Edwards was (as he repeatedly denied the affair) then the politician will lose his seat.

we're not talking about someone in private life here. the man has thrust himself into this position.

SS,

Is this in the rule books in the US? (a sincere question, not a bait or a wise-crack :). Or is it simply that the politician will fail to win the election the next time around if he lies about an affair etc. If the former, this is surely not the case in most countries or perhaps any country.

The problem with Edwards: he had not just lied repeatedly when the story break, but had made campaign videos precisely about these issues, in a very self-righteous manner. And he had criticized Clinton re: Monika, in a very self-righteous manner, years ago.

However, regardless of what views one has on this issue, not sure if it is a good thing the personal lives of politicians, rather than their competencies are put under the media/tabloid microscopes in such a prurient, titillitating manner.

smalsquirrel

"as he repeatedly denied the affair)"

but why in a liberal country, that is not infested with redneck conservative hypocrites, should a public figure has to defend himself for something that is a matter of personal morals.

so basically it was the lying part that is wrong (for a politician) the cheating part is only wrong for a husband.

eliot spitzer was wrong (as a politician) not because he had sex with a whore. but bcos he had opposed prostitution in the past and now he became a part of it himself. that made him a hypocrite and thus ineligible.

anand

Your point on hypocrisy and falsehood is taken. However the fact of the matter is that personal morality of those in the public sphere does seem to matter inordinately for the Americans. The Puritan influence on American history could be one reason. It is even debatable if the US of A is, to quote you, "..a liberal country, that is not infested with redneck conservative hypocrites..". A lot of critics position the USA as a whole as a bit "right-of centre".

At a practical level, it would be interesting to examine the immense preoccupation with presidential spouses. From Eleanor Roosevelt to Hillary Clinton, the phenomenon can be called an obsession. Compare in relative terms, the European countries(It is almost impossible to visualise an American President following a Sarkozy path ala Carla Bruni) do not even come close.

Longs story short,the dominance of the hypocricy aspect is just a smokescreen to hint at personal immorality since a lot of the media"(especially the liberal wing) would shudder to use personal morality as an argument.

Cheers
thedailypheesh

like it or not, right or not... these things matter in the US. Unlike countries in Europe or other places, we do not really tolerate infidelity in politicians. even if they admit it before the story breaks...

and what the people hate even more is when politics cry long and loud about someone else's morals and then go and do something shady themselves.

I think the real issue stems from the fact that morality has been dragged into the limelight by many of these politicians. they go for the throat with other candidates when their own moral record is less than clean. especially when you have these far-right wing nuts who preach fire and brimstone then get caught trying to pick up men in public restrooms. anyway, morality is on the table in the US for a number of reasons, and I do not see it going away any time soon.

anand, I do not even get your attempt at humor or sarcasm or whatever it is. what is your point?

and if you have a country that says they think fidelity in a spouse is a factor for them in choosing lawmakers, then that is the reality of the situation. all of your postulating and theorizing doesn't really matter.

if it does matter because it has been a convention then fine. all im saying is that it SHOULDNT matter when the common citizen is free to do what he/she pleases in their bedroom.

"I think the real issue stems from the fact that morality has been dragged into the limelight by many of these politicians. they go for the throat with other candidates when their own moral record is less than clean"

that is true bcos one would wonder why do the extra marital affairs of these men surface in the public anyways. its bcos the women they have affairs with are encouraged by their opponents to make things public. Linda tripp (a republican) did this in lewinsky case and encouraged her to make a case of molestation when infact lewinsky was very much willing and had no other reason to make it public.

if it does matter because it has been a convention then fine. all im saying is that it SHOULDNT matter (in principle) when the common citizen is free to do what he/she pleases in their bedroom.

"I think the real issue stems from the fact that morality has been dragged into the limelight by many of these politicians. they go for the throat with other candidates when their own moral record is less than clean"

that is true bcos one would wonder why do the extra marital affairs of these men surface in the public so often anyways. its bcos the women they have affairs with are encouraged by their opponents to make things public. Linda tripp (a republican) did this in lewinsky case and encouraged her to make a case of molestation when infact lewinsky was very much WILLING.

I have to admire Karunanidhi, our honorable chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He has 2 wives and all his progeny from both wives are "settled" into the political arena in successful careers. The daughter is a Union Minister, the sons have their own "regions" of Tamil Nadu. I think, to use ss's words, the Tamils are very "progressive". We are also very good at "eliminating" prospective candidates from running by simply "staging" an accident.

Deepti,

Quite an interesting piece.

If a Presidential candidate in France is caught with his mistress he would be called a hot rabbit and voted to power.In USA he is subjected to media inquisition.

If I remember correctly Chirac was called a hot rabbit and he won his elections. President Sarkozy is quite a rabbit himself.

European public opinion is less severe on politicians who sleep on the wrong side of the bed.

My 2=2=4!

A lot of it has to do with the fact that most politicians do not want any real issues to be discussed, so they attack each other on personal and so called "moral issues". If lying to a spouse were such an acid test of the lack of moral fiber and integrity, then Nixon's watergate would never have happened and Bush Senior would not be associated with the famous lines "Read my lips! No new taxes". And of course George and Dick would be the best, most trustworthy prez and veep in the history of the nation.

Much of the tabloid driven politics is aimed at driving everything to the Lowest Common Denominator. Same with the recent annointment of Saint Obama etc. etc. When will the anchors ask the tough questions about specifics? But then again, I am asking silly questions that have been addressed by Neil Postman's _Amusing Ourselves to Death_

blokes... um, I never called Tamils progressive!!!! Please do NOT twist my words and overgeneralize them.

I said it was nice that YOUR family appeared to be in the one area you mentioned on another thread.

I would hardly call a state that has gender separation rules at school that rival most Islamic countries as progressive.