The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Túrin Turambar]

Or, the fundamental question: Why do they do it in the first place? Could any affair be so important, so irresistible, that you'd blow up your career, devastate your wife and kids, mark yourself as dishonorable—for a little sex?

This is totally the wrong way to look at the situation, but I can't help but think that Ms. Reille isn't really that attractive and that makes it even more inexplicable to me. I could understand the Governor who was caught in the bathtub with his state's beauty contest winner a little better, but she hardly seemed worth it...

Um, so, back to your regularly-scheduled arguing over which side wants to destroy America more.

[Teremia]

What always seems so inexplicable to me in these stories is that these are men who have had to delay gratification in many areas of their lives for long periods of time (lots of them went to Law School! ) -- why do they suddenly fall apart and go blindly after something they know they really can't have?

[River]

My family used to live in the DC area and for a variety of reasons my dad knew people who worked on the Hill. He would tell you, Teremia, what his friends told him: everyone's out to see how much they can get away with. Not exactly admirable but there you go.

[halplm]

men are stupid.

'nuff said.

[JewelSong]

Men tend to think with the wrong head sometimes.

[yovargas]

And woman are virtuous little angels.


This sort of thing really bugs me. Not only do I not care that he lied about it to the public, IMO he should lie about it to the public cuz it's none of our damn business. He owes his wife and family apologies (and likely a lot more) but IMO the scumbags who insist on unearthing this kind of stuff for public consumption owe him an apology. And frankly, I feel inclined to include everyone out here in public-land who stands in righteous judgement and accusation of (what should be) a man's entirely private affairs. It's none of our damn business and IMO we should all act as such even when the press insists on shoving it in our faces.

[JewelSong]

Sorry, Yov. That won't wash.

When you run on a platform of "family values" and old fashioned morals and parade your family in front of everyone as an example...when at the same time, you are cheating on your wife then it is our business, because you have made it our business.

It's the hypocrisy of it that gets people's dander up, more than the act itself.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If that is true, Jewel (and I agree that it is), should Elizabeth Edwards share some of the blame in that? After all, she has been a very willing partner in presenting the strong family values, marriage-as-a-team image (indeed, she has in many ways been his best asset). Yet by her own account she knew about the affair in 2006. Obviously, she is not to blame for Edwards deceiving her, but is she an accomplice in his deception of the American people?

[Ellienor]

Good point Voronwë. Edwards has said that Elizabeth "insisted" on his running despite her cancer. But how could they think that this could lie quiet forever? If he was the Democratic presumptive nominee right now, we'd be toast for sure. I'm a die hard Dem and I wouldn't vote for the guy, now. (Although I never warmed to him anyways, I would have voted for him if he was the nominee....before)

I have no admiration for either one of them any more.

[Primula Baggins]

Ellie, if it's any comfort, she probably urged him to run again before she knew about the affair. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2004. But I guess we'll never really know. Maybe she hoped they could slip through without ending his career. Maybe she loves him and wants him to try for his dream. That would be a selfish wish, of course, in the situation.

I am so glad he didn't even come in second.

yov, there are a lot of people here who would probably agree that a private disaster like this should not affect someone's ability to be president. The problem is that there are even more people here and elsewhere who would not agree at all, that this (as pervasive an offense as it seems to be) still speaks to character in a way that's relevant to the presidency.

McCain, too, cheated on his sick first wife. But he hasn't tried to lie about it. For me that doesn't erase the offense; it's still a strong reason why I can't admire the man. But at least it leaves me in less doubt of his political judgment—on that point, anyway.

And that's Edwards' real offense for a lot of people: setting up the party for another defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

[JewelSong]

If that is true, Jewel (and I agree that it is), should Elizabeth Edwards share some of the blame in that? After all, she has been a very willing partner in presenting the strong family values, marriage-as-a-team image (indeed, she has in many ways been his best asset). Yet by her own account she knew about the affair in 2006. Obviously, she is not to blame for Edwards deceiving her, but is she an accomplice in his deception of the American people?

You know, this is a hard one to answer, because it has so many facets. You can't (or shouldn't) blame a woman for "standing by her man" as it were. But I wonder (in my many wondering moments) what would happen to American politics if women STOPPED doing so, especially when it came to this kind of behavior. I am thinking for instance, of Hillary Clinton, who obviously knew of Bill's philandering yet never said a word nor left him.

On the other hand, the Clintons did not run on a smiling, all-American, old-time family-values platform. Eleanor Roosevelt was said to have been devastated by finding out about FDR's cheating, but was convinced not to leave him for the good of the country...and since he was already President at the time, there is something to this. I have read, though, that she never slept with him again. JFK was quite a womanizer, but he apparently stopped (or toned it way down) after he and Jackie lost that little baby - she was another woman who apparently was ready to up and leave. I am sure the pressure for her not to was considerable.

I think Elizabeth Edwards was in an untenable position. When you find out your husband has cheated on you, your emotions are in total turmoil. They had two young children and she was being treated for cancer, besides. Your first instinct is to try to do everything you can to make things "normal" again - to make sure your husband still loves you. Perhaps she didn't really think anyone would ever find out, perhaps Edwards convinced her of this...who knows.

By then the damage was already done. Bottom line is, Edwards and Edwards alone is responsible by not being able to keep his zipper up.

If this affair had happened years ago and was just now being unearthed, I might agree with yov that it was nobody's business anymore. But the timing of it was so incredibly stupid and so potentially disastrous to the Democratic party, that I think it deserves attention.

[JewelSong]

If that is true, Jewel (and I agree that it is), should Elizabeth Edwards share some of the blame in that? After all, she has been a very willing partner in presenting the strong family values, marriage-as-a-team image (indeed, she has in many ways been his best asset). Yet by her own account she knew about the affair in 2006. Obviously, she is not to blame for Edwards deceiving her, but is she an accomplice in his deception of the American people?

You know, this is a hard one to answer, because it has so many facets. You can't (or shouldn't) blame a woman for "standing by her man" as it were. But I wonder (in my many wondering moments) what would happen to American politics if women STOPPED doing so, especially when it came to this kind of behavior. I am thinking for instance, of Hillary Clinton, who obviously knew of Bill's philandering yet never said a word nor left him.

On the other hand, the Clintons did not run on a smiling, all-American, old-time family-values platform. Eleanor Roosevelt was said to have been devastated by finding out about FDR's cheating, but was convinced not to leave him for the good of the country...and since he was already President at the time, there is something to this. I have read, though, that she never slept with him again. JFK was quite a womanizer, but he apparently stopped (or toned it way down) after he and Jackie lost that little baby - she was another woman who apparently was ready to up and leave. I am sure the pressure for her not to was considerable.

I think Elizabeth Edwards was in an untenable position. When you find out your husband has cheated on you, your emotions are in total turmoil. They had two young children and she was being treated for cancer, besides. Your first instinct is to try to do everything you can to make things "normal" again - to make sure your husband still loves you. Perhaps she didn't really think anyone would ever find out, perhaps Edwards convinced her of this...who knows.

By then the damage was already done. Bottom line is, Edwards and Edwards alone is responsible by not being able to keep his zipper up.

If this affair had happened years ago and was just now being unearthed, I might agree with yov that it was nobody's business anymore. But the timing of it was so incredibly stupid and so potentially disastrous to the Democratic party, that I think it deserves attention.

[Ellienor]

And that's Edwards' real offense for a lot of people: setting up the party for another defeat snatched from the jaws of victory

Well, echoing another in this thread, I'm not surprised. He did always strike me as a Ken doll, with little substance behind his posing. And I am astonished at the astounding arrogance that he showed by running for the presidency knowing he had this big and recent skeleton in his closet.

Now I would be shocked and surprised if Obama turned out to have had an affair. I'm asking TPTB that something like this doesn't turn up for him.

[Primula Baggins]

I really don't think it will (as I've probably said before). Even if he had the same weak principles as Edwards (and I've seen no reason to think so), Obama's got too much focus and discipline to risk everything he's been working toward for something so fleeting and unimportant.

Given the wild reaching we've seen in some of the attacks on him by the McCain campaign and others, I suspect there just isn't anything solid they can use against him.

[sauronsfinger]

With Obama you do not need any evidence of an affair to destroy him. It will be a great deal easier than that. In the last two weeks of the campaign, simply construct a 60 second commercial taken from Obama campaign footage. Run a series of very quick clips showing Barack Obama hugging and kissing every white woman - preferably blonde haired women - that you can find footage on. For example, he both hugged and kissed Hillary on stage when they did their Unity NH speech. By mid October there should be hundreds of shots like that.

That should do it. No affair necessary.

[Ellienor]

They may try, SF, but I don't think that stuff will stick, except for people that wouldn't vote for him anyways.

[solicitr]

The key point in this is not Edward's private morality, but his very public lying. "Credibility gaps" doom presidencies- ask Nixon and GW Bush, and even Clinton, who was fortunate in that the GOP overplayed its hand with the impeachment nonsense.


And is it significant? According to the die-hard Clinton supporters, the fact that the MSM ignored the story when the Enquirer first broke it cost their woman the nomination; their arithmetic being that had Edwards been toast before Iowa, HRC would have beaten Obama there handily and gone on to win (Clinton and Edwards did seem to split the same demographics).

[Ellienor]

And is it significant? According to the die-hard Clinton supporters, the fact that the MSM ignored the story when the Enquirer first broke it cost their woman the nomination; their arithmetic being that had Edwards been toast before Iowa, HRC would have beaten Obama there handily and gone on to win (Clinton and Edwards did seem to split the same demographics).

I guess that makes some sense and if I were Hilary I would be pretty steamed. I guess the Clintons and the Edwards aren't going to be attending the same dinner parties for a while.

But I am glad that the breaks worked out this way. Obama (so far) does seem to have the chips falling his way during this campaign.

[yovargas]

The key point in this is not Edward's private morality, but his very public lying.

I'll shut up about it after this - lying about something that is none of our business, has no relevance to his goal of Presidency, and has no reason to be discussed to the public in the first place. If somebody insisted I talk about my sex life on some public forum, I'm pretty sure I'd lie too. As would most people, I'm pretty sure.

[Primula Baggins]

That would be entirely correct if everyone in the country subscribed to the same idea, yov. But they don't. Lots of people do censoriously disapprove of other people's private behavior, even in this free country; in fact, that used to be the national standard (see blue laws, anti-sodomy laws, etc.). Lots of political operatives are happy to use anything, no matter how marginal, to hurt the other guy and help their own. By staying in the race, Edwards was handing free ammo to those operatives. If he'd been nominated, that ammo could have been used to hurt him with enough Democrats and independents to cost him the election.

In other words, he was asking Democrats to give him their support, while concealing the fact that he was vulnerable and probably could not win. Winning the nomination himself was more important to him than Democrats winning the White House.

edited to clarify