Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Daily Kos up in arms over Edwards' affair

Mandos's picture

So apparently this dude named John Edwards has had an affair, and even ran for teh presidential nomination knowing that there was this little skeleton in his closet.

Colour me shocked. Tall, telegenic politician running for national office has a secret affair? How can this be?

All jokulating aside, obviously we all know that cheating on your wife is probably not a good thing, especially when she's recovering from cancer. But we also all know from, um, previous experience, that it's not wise to speculate about the peculiarities of relationships between the rich and famous.

It's also probably not wise to have an affair when running for president.

But I was kind of taken aback by the outpouring of anger and grief from certain quarters.

Colour me shocked again. You guys have made me jaded and paranoid. Dare I say it: I see overcompensation here. Yes, it would have been a serious and probably irresponsible risk for him to have run, especially if he actually won the nomination.

But: he didn't win. So shouldn't this be more of a footnote rather than an outpouring of rage? And even then, didn't we prove in the 90s that popular male politicians will be forgiven by the public if the alternatives are worse? Yes, media, campaign, destroy...

Still.

0
No votes yet

Comments

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

disqualified someone from high office?

Be careful what you wish for.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

Sorry, but the right-before-the-convention thing is just too big a coincidence to accept for me. And it also confirms a lot of Edwards supporters in their choice [of Obama] after Edwards dropped out (and got curiously little for doing so, making me think this has been on the backburner for awhile). And I'm betting the "work something out with Elizabeth Edwards" thing on universal health care will die a quiet death, too. So, call my foily, but the whole thing has a triple-bankshot feel to me.

Meanwhile, some doofus over at Kos says we didn't give Gingrich a pass, so why Edwards? To which the obvious rejoinder is Edwards (a) didn't run on a family values platform or (b) impeach a President over a blowjob. Unlike Gingrich.

Krugman might be right: Stupid works. It's certainly working for Kos.

UPDATE Make that a quadruple bankshot: No AG for Edwards.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Can I say, for the records, that we should not care one bit about the non-criminal (albeit stupid and possibly reprehensible) private behavior of politicians except if they make said behavior their political trademark.

Submitted by lambert on

Wrote in haste....

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

That's funny. Not that this excuses it, but what if he said it didn't...?

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

Is Elizabeth knew this would come out, knew it would doom everything and even if she felt John could be a source for good if elected, knew that would never, ever happen in our hypo-moralizing society - and yet still backed his run for president.
I like EE just fine, although I've never understood why she's achieved near sainthood status. What, if anything, does her decision to allow John to make his run tell us about these two personalities.
It's not enough to say, "Well, she had forgiven him and knew he'd be a powerful president on the side of the working guy."
She's too smart not to know he'd never be elected with this.

...edited to add - I don't care about the affair. I'm much more interested in the dynamics at play. I'm not moralizing about anything, this angle just struck me as interesting.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

whether she knew or not (i'm sure she did), they both advanced vital causes and still are doing so--they had a giant impact (which is unfortunately now dead thanks to Obama).

I'd still proudly vote for either Edwards to be President--forever.

lillianjane's picture
Submitted by lillianjane on

Silly kossacks. We didn't call Newt out for having an affair, we called him out for serving his wife divorce papers whilst she was in the hospital for her cancer treatment. And what lambert said.
If Edwards had to blow off a little steam while his life partner was very ill and he was running for President, I don't blame him. If it weren't for press hounding, Elizabeth wouldn't even have to worry about it. It's over and done.
Can we just assume that politicians are having affairs so we can stop being crushed by it?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I would be furious right now had Edwards won. I mean, is it so much to ask for a candidate to keep his pants on?

On the other hand, I would love to rake certain CEO's over the coals, people like Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, and many others who are well known for their lack of fidelity. Maybe if embarrassing photos of them were floating around the internet all this secret police journalism would come to a halt.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

1. we're human and the expectations we put on our icons to be superhuman will always end in pain.

2. edwards fucked up. let's not excuse it. in the social context we must live and operate within, this was some dumb shit.

3. it makes me feel no worse about john edwards because i know he still believes in the things he claimed to believe in.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

stop talking about edwards. you shouldn't care and i certainly don't, about what he does in his private time.* also: when will we ever fucking learn? this post, which i was going to come write but Mandos beat me to it, should've been titled "Where is Vicki Iselman?"

learn from your betters. when your guy fucked up, turn that into an opportunity to attack, attack, attack! the other guy. in this case, we're blowing (heh) a perfect opportunity. "At least JE didn't dump his wife while she was still on the sickbed once he found a willing partner." or "I'm so glad that the Republican nom had the sense to put his 40 years his junior mistress on ice well before the republican convention" or "So JE is a piker; McCain has had at least three extramarital affairs and proves he's still Virile!" or even, "well, at least he's a red-blooded, healthy, virile, grown up, normal heterosexual, unlike (long list of rethug closet cases and perverts), etc.

lemons into lemonade and all that. also: EE knew about it.

*i can't recall how much JE made of the Blue Dress, but if he did make a great deal of it for his own gain at that time, well, fuck him. but: I still don't care and it doesn't change why i thought he would've been the best of the dem noms this year. for fuck's sake, they all cheat. even the women. it's what politics is all about, at its heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and you're absolutely right--the biggest impact of this now is that there's no administration position for him now (but i never thought they wanted him anywhere near Justice anyway).

If Richardson--who has his own wandering hands--gets something, we'll know it came out to deny Edwards, i guess.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

ops is easy. you need a cellphone cam/video recorder, and someone willing to follow people around as they go in and out of whorehouses/gaybars/centers of perversion. boilerplate: there's nothing wrong with going to any of those places.

but i wonder how members of the SCLM, the "sex policy" and theocrats and Oh So Puritanical types, would like it if suddenly some of their shenannigans turned up in grainy pic/video on some blog, followed by "statements" by their lovers, clients, hookers, and gay friends?

rethugs get to use the resources of DHS, CIA, FBI and goddess know what other taxpayer-funded snooping agencies to ruin their political opponents. when will our side learn to do the same? it's not hard, and more importantly, the other side is arrogant and sloppy. who else bets with me that Cal Thomas, or the Moustache of Understanding, or any long list of public morality police are out there every other night in DC funning it up with hookers, blow, boys and box turtles? i know many of them are. i'm sorry i don't live there anymore to follow some of them around. we're just little people, it's not like they would notice until they came up to you and offered to buy you your first drink at the bar, pathetic sexual hypocrites that the vast majority of them are.

foley et all taught us a lesson: the ones making the most political hay about supposed crime/perversion/deviation...are the ones doing it, thinking about doing it, have done it, or want to do it. it's easy to back that up on film, if only we weren't so "above that sort of thing."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

all DC Dems are only listening to the rest of the Village and really believe the IOKIYAR bs, i think.

It's also why they take impeachment off the table and have no desire to ever punish GOP criminals and psychos, etc.

Submitted by lambert on

I pride myself on innuendo, but I don't think I got the memo on that one...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

-- "It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."

-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation.

-- http://atlblogs.com/moderaterepublican/a...

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

burn him at the stake.

blogosphere, heal thyself. and recognize that it's really childish to obsess about what other people do with their peepees unless they want to become more powerful talking about that (or yours). seriously, i don't think i've seen action/traffic like this on a friday night in the blogosphere ever before. clearly a lot of folk need to, um, get laid.

Submitted by lambert on

The politician caught in adultery....

That parable has a terrific sting in the tail, because it ends, more or less, "... and they all went away, beginning with the eldest." Haw.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

foley et all taught us a lesson: the ones making the most political hay about supposed crime/perversion/deviation…are the ones doing it, thinking about doing it, have done it, or want to do it. it’s easy to back that up on film, if only we weren’t so “above that sort of thing.”

Submitted by lambert on

Voyeurism.

Classic high school stuff.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and that hotel pic was total crap--a bad photoshop special.

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

I don't have the quote at my fingertips but read it earlier today. "Clinton disgraced the office and his wife and daughter..." something like that.
And sorry, if a guy is running for president and boinking someone on the side - catastrophic arrogance. I felt ok about him until the Michigan crap and gang bang on Hillary. And oh, the lie about not supporting a candidate until the convention.

Hillary Clinton, The Man of My Dreams

caseyOR's picture
Submitted by caseyOR on

And just last year, when Katie Couric was conducting those insipid candidate "questions" interviews, Edwards, unlike either Obama or Richardson, took the bait on a question about the importance of marital fidelity in judging a candidate and proclaimed fidelity a very important factor. Hillary also got the question, which I believe was asked only as an attempt to humiliate her.

Additionally, while none of the candidates will just come right out and support same-sex marriage, Edwards was only leading Democratic to insist that his religion just wouldn't let him go there. Apparently, his religion doesn't cover infidelity.

So, CD, you are right. This crap shouldn't matter. And I am all for seeing it disappear from our political discourse. But John Edwards is a huge fucking hypocrite, and right now I just do not feel very sorry for him.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

his view was not set in stone and he wasn't sure--Obama tho, said even if his beliefs were wrong, he'd stick by them against marriage and totally refuses to fight for it or even think it's proper-- http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package...

Edwards left it open always-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohre...

"...EDWARDS: Single hardest social issue for me, personally -- and there are lots of them -- but most of the others, I don't have a lot of personal struggle with. I have a lot of personal struggle with this one.... Because the issue is, from my perspective, I think it is right and fair and just in America that men and women who want to live with their partner should be treated with dignity and respect and should have civil rights, as you refer to them. And the question becomes, 'Can you accomplish that through civil unions or partnership recognition and support of partnership benefits? Does that provide the level of dignity and respect that gay Americans are entitled to? Or do you have to cross the bridge into the issue of gay marriage?' I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer. Wish I did. ..."

DeanOR's picture
Submitted by DeanOR on

letting go of the idealizing/disillusioned cycle. I think it's around age 16 for most people.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

Why do you defend JE so strongly? What has he ever done to deserve your effort?
He punked out in the debates vs Cheney in 04 and he punked out again by dumping Marcotte at the first hint of a *tangential* issue at best. Donahue screamed for her head and Edwards fucking gave it to him.
Again - can anyone say why JE is an online fav?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--he spent most of his life defending regular people hurt by corporate misdeeds/crimes/dangers.

--he was the only one talking about poverty and class isssues in the primaries.

--he knows how to fight.

--Southern White guys are our only presidential winners in my lifetime.

--he gave off empathy and understanding and that "i care" impression when talking to regular people and about our problems, which is sadly lacking in Obama, and is vital.

--Elizabeth rocks, and pushes him to more liberal positions on all sorts of issues like healthcare and rights, etc, kinda like i think Hillary did with Bill.

--Populism and the issues that affect the majority of us are what always count most for me, and he was the only contender who understood that early on--it wasn't about "I bring change/unity/etc" or about "my experience", etc--it was about us, and that he understood that it is a job where he will fight to serve us and our needs--and that he'd done it for decades already too.

--he cared about Unions.

also---he was a serious threat to the status quo: http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/14/magazine... -- "Democrats' war on corporate greed: Mostly bluster -
The leading presidential candidates likes to excoriate big business, but with one exception, none of the them would govern with frothing animosity toward corporate America. "

(the exception was Edwards)

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

As if that somehow makes it better?! Are you serious?

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

Yeah, I'm not going to go the self-righteous Pharisee route, but let's call this what it is, and stop the apologizing and sugar-coating.

I also kind of sickened by his response that was more a defense than an admission, with the whole "99% truthful" and insisting that "I didn't love her," as if that has anything to do with anything. By sloshing around all of that crap he only made this non-issue an issue.

The only thing more silly than our hyper-moral confines are those that willfully choose to live in them, champion them, and then want out when they don't work out for them.

You want to gladly accept playing the game in the confines of hyper-morality? Ok, but you should probably be willing to finish it, no?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Lieberman and all those who supported Impeachment hearings, etc... that one speech is nothing. Gore picked Lieberman in part because he was seen as moral and clean and unClinton.

He wasn't even a national figure at the time, nor holding office. He was just a local/state figure back then, and had failed at running for Congress the first time in 98 (or was it 96?).

I presume they're all cheating--all politicians.

The problem is that you can't get ahead in politics without seeming to be a "family guy".

1/2 of all husbands/wives cheat anyway, no?

snow-moon's picture
Submitted by snow-moon on

Again - can anyone say why JE is an online fav?

It's the message-- not the man.

I, for one, did not support "John Edwards." I chose him over all the others when it became clear that he was the only one talking about issues that mattered to me-- poverty, class, corporate corruption and health care.

Which, incidentally, is why Obama is problematic for me-- I don't care much for his message (or lack of a message).

Even so, I could care even less who Obama is having sex with-- before, during or after the campaign. Marital fidelity is not high on my radar, so forgive me for not caring how couples deal with their personal lives.

But for the Obama fans/worshipers/followers-- call them what you want; there is a scary subset out there-- let's hope there are no scandalous revelations about their hero. Like it or not, there is a cult of personality; and that's the risk we're taking with an Obama nomination.

Oh- and I am really ready to turn the tables on the television pundits. Expose them all-- every sordid detail of their lives until they shut up (or leave the airwaves).

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

Seperate the message from the messenger? This sounds an awful lot like the issue of "truthiness" that's been beat up at the MCB recently.

Imelda Blahnik's picture
Submitted by Imelda Blahnik on

He's up there with Joe Lieberman, in my book.

If Edwards had to blow off a little steam while his life partner was very ill and he was running for President, I don’t blame him.

I fucking DO blame him. What an arrogant asshole. Think about it. If he were, somehow, at this present moment, our nominee....up shit creek no paddle in sight. Fucked over. The Democratic Party that is. And, consequently, the Republic.

The guy has some nerve. First, sanctimonious, pious drivel on marriage re: Monica, followed by this. Yeah, all politicians are on ego trips, but this one pretty much takes the cake. To put the future of your country at stake like that, which is precisely what he was doing. And no, I don't believe Elizabeth Edwards was okay with it, as you suggest.

Those of you blathering on about how this is a private matter and people's marriages are their own business, blah blah, well, that's a nice idea and true perhaps for private citizens, but not so much for politicians who (like Gingrich, like Bob Livingstone, like Henry Hyde, like Edwards) run on family values or the image of such. Their sexual peccadillos are very relevant to their public lives.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Let me start by saying that I don't think this is really much of an issue. It's good for the church ladies of the land, and those that consume tacky tabloid fodder with an appetite.

But, I'm not going to accept on the particular issue of the impeachment the "2% Less Sucky" cop-out. Nor, do I subscribe to the belief that we are robots, and thus we can seperate our public and private lives from one another, completely. Those two things do not exist within seperate vacuums, and it's a bit naive and dismissive to try and have it that way. I'm of the general belief that we are largely a hyper-moral nation, and that a person's problem in his or her personal life doesn't usually equate to quite as high an effect on his or her public life as so many believe.

That said, I'm also not so naive to dismiss these kinds of things entirely as speaking to nothing other than private failings. And, moreso, I have absolutely no pitty for those that willfully, and sometimes joyfully, play the game within the confines of our social constraints, even going so far as to lord over others, and then wanting out of the game or complain about how unfair it was when you can't play by the rules you chose to play by.

I ultimately agree with most, here. This personal foible doesn't give me any reason to believe that he believes less in universal healthcare or poverty. But, to start splitting hairs about what he said about Bill Clinton is simply ridiculous, as is the idea that infidelity (or any other personal foible) is somehow mutually exclusive from one's public life.

Yes, there is a group of people that exist between the self-righteous, judgemental American Pharisee, and the perpetual denial apologists.

These kind of things in no way disqualify someone from being president, but neither does it mean that they don't mean anything, at all.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...the point for me is that regardless of what you think about Edwards and his infidelity, it can't be that important at this point.

snow-moon's picture
Submitted by snow-moon on

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about George Bush Senior's decades-long relationship with his Washington mistress? (Poor Barbara.)

Or the sham of a marriage that is "The Doles."

Or all the Republican good old boys who share townhouses (and Dupont Circle boys) in Georgetown-- while their very photogenic families live back in Podunk USA- alone.

And I've always been more than a little suspicious about the Bush/Gannon connection in the current White House. What's little Georgie into, you think? Imagine the dark sexual mind of that guy.

Sex is only a scandal that really matters when it's a Democrat.

The Repubs don't seem overly concerned that their guy (McCain) and his multiple fidelity issues will "put the country at stake."

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

"Sex is only a scandal that really matters when it’s a Democrat."

I have meandered all around the internet today and this is precisely the opposite of what the righties are saying. To them, no one takes this seriously unless it's a GOPer caught with his proverbial and literal pants down. There's an awful lot of "whose ox is the one being gored" about this.

I agree with the other posters who articulate how JE has undercut any political power and moral authority he had. I also agree that it is a terrible distraction from important substantive issues. I guess I'm a little too old to get flustered about this. Heck, back in the day I was a bright-eyed little volunteer for Gary Hart (and we all know how well that turned out).

On the snarky side of it all, I wonder if Michelle Obama will take the opportuntity to attack Elizabeth Edwards and how she runs her house.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Cheese and rice, people, do you all have any idea how much YOU SOUND LIKE THE GOP HEADHUNTERS IMPEACHING CLINTON?????

Get the hell over yourselves already.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

is that I realized months ago that the fainting couch industry was booming and yet did nothing about it. Here's another great marketing opportunity down the tubes, as it were.

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

I had invested in the fainting couch industry! That, and the pearl industry (what, with all the clutching at the pearls they probably need frequent replacing).

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Fainting couches
Smelling salts
Pearls (with clutching device which acts anti-stress balls if needed)
Newly designed keyboards where the "!" is a separate key to avoid these pesky "1" to be interspersed in your outraged "!!!!!!!!" and the caplock is the default option

and everything for your faux outrage needs!

(Hillary nutcracker free for all orders over $100!)

What else can we sell, guys?

Submitted by lambert on

I've always wanted to give Barbara Bush a string of pearls, for example. I'm sure that would work out very well for her.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Sounds like an Olympic sport, of sorts.

How about...

* instant-release corsets
* vapor-chasing fans
* ever-increasing-sized fonts

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

They would be so beautiful, like her mind.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

the convinced I am that the "outrage" at Daily Kos is being orchestrated by Obama's online team.

Submitted by lambert on

Not that such a thing would ever happen. Haw.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Imelda Blahnik's picture
Submitted by Imelda Blahnik on

I'm pissed not because he had an affair (though that sure makes him a jerk). I'm pissed because he put his party and his supporters at risk by doing something really really politically stupid. So no, my 'drama' is not identical to that of GOP hypocrites, who would attack him for betraying family values while schtupping their own mistresses (and misters).

By all means, let's talk about Republican moral hypocrisy, George H.W. Bush included.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I've never been an Edwards fan, but as he is a Democrat his public flogging doesn't please me. The questions are why, why now, and who wins? We know who loses, that is easy, John and Elizabeth (she knew about it, did we tell you she knew about it?) lose, Hillary Clinton loses (she's like Elizabeth, she was married to Bill Clinton, he was a lying adulterer, she knew about it. Did we tell you she was married to Bill Clinton and knew he was a lying adulterer?), Democrats lose (Edwards is a Democrat, Democrats are lying adulterers, Bill Clinton was a Democrat too), the idea of any successful, leading politician fighting against poverty, classism, and for universal health care loses (The Edwards and the Clintons are for those things, so were Democrats), their supporters lose (why didn't you support the Unity Pony? See how stupid you were? Wait until you see those Clinton internal campaign emails! You won't be able to run fast enough to give the Pony its money!).

So who wins most?

Republicans? People who want the Dem party to be the Republican lite party?

Don't worry, one of three cackling witches (MoDo, Gail Collins, or Peggy Noonan) will let us know what to think.

I can't wait.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

(snort)

He's got friends that scare me to death. But have the Edwards at the convention now? Impossible.

Submitted by hipparchia on

extramarital sex is earth-shattering and career-ending, but consorting with the likes of rezko, axelrod, and excelon isn't.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

gotta disagree about Spitzer, he really is a member of the laws are for other people school of thought. It is one thing to succumb to the temptation of groupies, it is another to patronize prostitutes.

also it turned out that he was using the state police to spy on political rivals. very bad scene.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

If anything, that makes it worse. It's like driving a car you know has bad breaks. More importantly and for the worse, John and Elizabeth (if this is even true that he told her when he did) weren't the only ones in that figurative car.

Again, all of the salacious details are irrelevant, as is most of the morality debate. Politically, though, this was a very risky and stupid place to put your campaign team in. His supporters, in particular, have every reason to be pissed if they'd like.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I'm not sure you keep up with this pathological rationalization and comparison with other candidates. Let this be what it is, and move on.

Whether he or you liked it or not, a very big part of John's campaign narrative was the "John & Elizabeth Love Story" aspect, an aspect that he obviously didn't mind and played up. You keep trying to make it out as if John wasn't a "family values" candidate, which is only true to a point and is splitting hairs. He can't pull a Clinton, Guiliani, or McCain, all of whom were no where near as positively defined by their marriage as Edwards, if at all.

Edwards is the same person he always was, and should be taken as one would take any else, flaws and all.