"Here's the thing: other than serving one term in the Senate (much of which was spent running for the White House) and two unsuccessful presidential campaigns, what has Edwards really done to warrant a national platform? I mean, even put aside the whole adultery thing; Edwards hasn't exactly accomplished all that much to warrant the prominent place in national life he clearly desires."

Here's the thing, Jason, you don't need to  accomplished all that much to  to warrant the prominent place in national life  as Obama has  demonstrated.

Just a note:

I am a student at IU.  Edwards is not being paid 35 thousand dollars.  They reduced the payment when the story of his affair broke.  It is more like half of that now, I believe.

Gee Jason why don't you tell us how you really feel about Edwards. I just can't tell. Maybe if you added some disdain I would be able to figure it out.

jacobt,

John Edwards: 6 years in US Senate, 2 unsuccessful presidential campaigns

Barack Obama: 6 years in US Senate, 7 years in Illinois State Legislature, and 1 SUCCESSFUL presidential campaign.

Big difference.

No, you don't need to accomplish many things to warrant a prominent place in national life, but if your game is politics, you do need to accomplish one thing: you need to win.

I'm a little embarrassed about Edwards.  I backed him both in '04 and '07, backed him over Obama until it became apparent he was out of the running.  I gave him a little money, even.  Worse, I defended him to friends and family who said they felt he was too slick and not for real.  He let me down, and from the sound of what you're reporting here, he means to keep right on letting me down.

Edwards is done.

He can't.

Given the absurd amount of attention he knows is devoted to any sexual misconduct by politicians, Edward's affair during this last campaign was treacherously irresponsible towards every single democrat in this country.  Had he won the primary, his affair would have assuredly lost democrats the presidency this cycle.

If he wants to help poor people, he  shouldn't need a $35,000 dollar inducement to open his mouth about the problem of poverty.

Sigh. What a bummer. He's done, and it's his own damn fault. Me and you are in the same boat, aeromonas, and it sucks. Regrettable.

How can Edwards rehabilitate himself?  He's not too bright, a cornpone speaker, a lame politician, and he's an effeminate dweeb.  

What do you want him back for?

My embarrassment and anger maybe even exceed aeromonas'.  In 2003-4 I froze my ass up in New Hampshire knocking on doors for Edwards in the primary and contributed big (for me) bucks to his doomed campaign.  In 2007 I once again made contributions until November when I began to appreciate Obama's potential.  I feel betrayed to the max and would gladly join a class action law suit to get back my contributions if such existed.  I won't say he will never be rehabilitated, but it will be a long, lonesome road.  Hart was in the wilderness for a very long time, and his wife was not a cancer patient, nor was he suspected of fathering a child out of wedlock and paying off both the mother and an aide to take the fatherhood rap.  Hart was foolish; Edwards was, and presumably still is, the same callow, cynical dude he has always been.  Silly me.

jacob:

If memory serves, Dubya, the unsat driller (ANG days), the alcoholic until he turned forty, wasn't all that accomplished. Where would he be without Daddy? Nowhere.

Governor of Texas? A weak governor state that, though the second largest in population (not to mention area), legislature meets every two years.

Co-owner of a baseball team? A sweetheart deal set up by Poppy friends that didn't require any of the Shrub's cash. In addition, Bush's role was that of a figurehead. We didn't expect them to let Dubya run it into a ditch like Arbusto.

Channy:

Edwards metrosexuality seems to bother you. However, epicene qualities don't really give one the full measure of a man. You seem to like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Rush Limbaugh, John Woo, John Bolton,  and Sean Hannity. They are all tough TALKERS but where is the beef?  (Do your eye roll, but I love to repeat myself. . .) Cheney, Wolfie and Feith, Lieberman are all DRAFT DODGERS. In addition to being cowards, they lack an ounce of integrity, and don't get me talking about immorality. Pro-war as long as they don't have to go. Wow!  

What of the fire-breather John Bolton who "had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy," so wangled a National Guard slot?

Why don't their actions bother you? The fact that you don't find such behavior even a bit morally reprehensible is shocking and perplexing. Cut from the same cloth, eh?

tec619, the current president-elect never went anywhere near the military.  And he is a graduate of an institution that has banned the military from its campus fro 30+ years.

Meanwhile, our two greatest wartime presidents had zero to extremely minor military experience:  FDR & Lincoln.  

Your argument is oft repeated here, but it doesn't have much traction.

tec619 writes, "...Why don't their actions bother you? The fact that you don't find such behavior even a bit morally reprehensible is shocking and perplexing. Cut from the same cloth, eh?"

One thing that continues to bother me is the lie and calumny that G. Bush's flying fighter-interceptor aircraft in the TX National Guard constitutes draft dodging.  

You as a military man ought to know that flying 60s vintage fighters was  particularly hazardous duty.  And that in that era, National Guard pilots and grunts alike were called up frequently-- Berlin Crisis, Cuba Missile Crisis, and many for Viet Nam.

So can the crap about the National Guard.  You may be serving or have served honorably.  But you're writing lies and hypocrisy.

Much as I like you.

Channy:

I don't hold Obama to the same standards as jingoistic conservatives, because--Obama, and, generally speaking, Liberals are anti-war wussies. At least they are according to the same fire-breathing conservatives. It is strange that you don't subscribe to that sterotype when one attacks the mangina-hawks.

As for Bush, he isn't a draft dodger, but, like Bolton, Forbes and Quayle, to name a few, he is a combat avoider. With the a war raging in Vietnam, why didn't bush sighn up for active air force duty. Poppy didn't sign up for reserve duty during WWII. Though, because of the scale of the conflict, it (reserve duty) wouldn't have done much to protect him.

I guess you are going to claim enlistment in the guard or reserves during the period of the Korean conflict and Vietnam wasn't a method of avoiding active duty. Spare me.

In addition, how the hell did Bush get into a unit that was 150 percent oversubscribed? Second, why and how did he get to refuse to a flight physical without reprimand? Oh yes, his "personal" physician was in Houston. Well, Ii'd Iike someone to show me where in DoD (and by that I'm referring to any of the services) regulations a member is allowed to refuse  a routine medical examination and when is it permissible for an aircrew member to have his/her physical performed by a doctor who isn't a flight surgeon. I'm an aircrew member and unless my situation is dire, a flight surgeon must treat me.

Bush didn't have to worry about being called up. He refused 9Amazing!!)to fly (in violation of his contact) and got out early.

Bush fucking lied and Daddy's connections got him a pass. For god's sake, he didn't even perform the required number of drills (during wartime), must of lapsed on all his flight quals and requested to separate early. I don't see coker/drinker as a serious patriot, but rather a spoiled rich kid who didn't appreciate the opportunties he was given. But I forgot--Divine Right of Kings.

Btw, what's your defense for Cheney, Wolfie, Fieth, Kristol and the rest of the jingoistic assholes. One would think that people who seem to be so obsessed with national security (sometines ours, sometimes not) would want to get a little hand on experience. Shit, the U.S. military, by design has a high turnover rate. The notion that the elites couldn't get an active duty, guard or reserve stint is implausible. They don't serve becaise they are FUCKING COWARDS.

Tec619 writes, "... Edwards metrosexuality seems to bother you. "

Yes, because dandyism and foppery reflect narcissism, self-regard, and overweaning vanity.  None of which is particularly desirable in a public official.

Channy:

I agree with you entirely, but are most (at least the best) politicians narcissistic? I wouldn't hang out with any of them. Sure, Edwards is a bit of a dandy. Does Wolfie's spitting on his comb before running it through his hair strike you as manly?

And why doesn't the yawing chasm between the tough talk and physical cowardice of the neocon yahoos trouble you? You don't detect any character flaws worthy of your contempt, eh? Again, surprising.

Look Channy, I understand, and to a certain extent, share your contempt far left Lefties. (I don't listen to Pacifica Radio.) There intellectual approach I find immature (i.e., the anti-Americansim; maybe because I was born a cynic, I always have low expectation and never forget ours, like every other, is a government of infallible men)I, though I don't find their complaints and conclusions completely without merit.

I find far Righties philosophies just as immature and deluded. Conservatives belief that the market can solve every problem and government is bad, at all times and everywhere, is just as stupid as Lefties belief in government always being the answer

A Unified Field Theory for Human Existence is preposterous, no matter who his the proponent.

Apparently I stupidly think principled, intellectually HONEST, are important. I've said before that I think pacifists are hopelessly idealistic. However, I respect their position, if only because there is nothing wrong with opposing war.  The human inclination to kill each other over disputes--real and "imagined"--is a frailty.  

But what exactly is principled in people who support war as a means, are jingoistic by any measure, yet are physical cowards? I don't see it. And anyone that fucking ethically and morally slippery, I have trouble getting behind.

War isn't the same as a dispute over entitlements or some other public policy issue. It is a dangerous venture that requires much in lives and treasure. The lives, mostly young, can't be replaced. I guess for the neo-Malthusians bloody, armed conflict is a salutary matter.

Moreover, the neocons, et al avoidance of military service is class warfare. Where is the nobless oblige. I guess there answer would be shove it up your ass.

You repeatedly bring up some Liberal or Democrats lack of military service as if purposely missing the point. Why should you expect traitorous, pinko, liberals to serve?  Where is the curiosity regarding the inconsistency between the muscular foreign policy, no treaties, bomb ba ba bomb, "National Greatness," national security obsessives?

For every right-winger pussies I name, I can name two or three lefties and wonder, why did these guys fulfill their obligations, but the "true" patriots assiduously avoided service."

Tale a look:

1)  uber conservative: John Wayne- Liberals:George McGovern, Jimmy Stewart, Henry "I don't want to be in a fake war in a studio" Fonda, Eddie Albert, Brain Keith, Jack Lemmon, Mel Brooks and on and on.

2) Military and Foreign policy non-expert: BIll Kristol-Liberals: Hedrik Hertzberg, Victor Navasky, Ralph Nader.

If I compare GOP pols to Dems , disinterested observers should wonder where conservatives get the nerve.

Any response to the "my personal physician" was in Houston, LIE used to defend "refusing" to submit to a flight physical, the choice of an over subscribed national guard unit when active USAF slots abounded (remember, LBJ was personally drawing up suicidal bombing targets)?

Ask any current or former military or naval pilot if refusal to submit to a physical, let alone a flight physical, would pass without comment or sanction.  (Refusal would place the aviator in a "down" status, which require explanation and documentation. I don't think  "I don't fucking want to fly" should go over well with one's command.)

tec619, the Viet Nam war was to a great extent fought by a combination of professional soldiers and draftees without the money or influence to find a legal way out.

There was also a core of patriots drafted or volunteered, who believed the Viet Nam war was just and put their bodies where their beliefs were.

Some avoided military service out of fear of being sent to Viet Nam.  Others were simply preoccupied with the normal course of their lives plus the widely available sex, drugs, and rock n roll.

Are Wolfie, Cheney, and the rest of us less honorable for not having served?  Yes.  Were some cowards for not?  Yes.  Were some just heedless, selfish kids?  Yes.  

Did the middle and upper middle class avoid service or avoid Viet Nam through legal if not ethical means?  Yes.  Was that honorable?  No.

In the days of WW2, universal belief in the unambiguous justness of the cause made service a given.  Few tried to avoid it.  Most embraced it.

Twenty plus years later, a much more ambiguous war, in an age utterly transformed by media, music, and a vast population of unprecedentedly prosperous and spoiled Boomers created an utterly different atmosphere and utterly different popular opinion.

And with Uncle Walter and his friends saying or implying strongly that the war was wrong or futile, the sentiment of the times was not such as to drive 19 year old kids down to their nearest Army recruiter.

Does this make them less honorable and patriotic than their fathers' generation.  Yes, to a point.  But their father's were following the popular trend of their time.  The Boomers, less impressively, were following theirs.

All that said, analyzed, and loosely agreed on, does ones behavior at 19 in regard to military service deprive you of the right to an opinion thirty or forty years later on the conduct of geo political and military policy?

No.

tec619 writes, "...I find far Righties philosophies just as immature and deluded. Conservatives belief that the market can solve every problem and government is bad, at all times and everywhere, is just as stupid as Lefties belief in government always being the answer."

I don't believe that the free market can always solve everything.  I do believe there ought to be a market that is as free as possible but that it needs to be refereed by government to prevent monopolies, and control manipulative activity or dangerous activity that could destroy the market itself.

We've just seen examples of that and seen the market laid low by it.  The events of recent months were utterly predictable and it's been obvious for years that there were distortions and dangers in real estate and derivatives.

Too much laissez faire from the Right and the imposition of undisciplined mortgages by the Left (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank being most visible) was the unholy alliance that brought on the recent disaster.

At the same time, what is most egregious about the imposition of new government programs and bureaucracies, no matter how well intended is that like cancer and herpes, they are difficult or impossible to get rid of.

A department once created is rarely decommissioned.  A program like Medicare and the rest of the entitlements, once imposed, is impossible to dismantle, even if it is a disaster.

The income tax that began as 1/2% on the incomes of the super rich, eventually trickles down to 35% on a wide swath o millions of people.  And it brings with in a vast library of incomprehensible regulation and rulings, along with an outrageously intrusive inquiry every year on how each citizen earned his money and how he spent it.  Something a government has no business asking.

Well meaning programs like affirmative action have the governent asking outrageous questions about your "race" and are enormously difficult to disband even when those being pushed to the head of the line are not actually economically disadvantaged but only have their skin color as the reason for government intervention.

There are legitimate reasons for government intervention, for government to right wrongs that can't other wise be reversed.  And if we were in the habit to attach sunset laws to most of them, there might be less to fear.

But I've now lived a reasonable number of years and with the exception of Bill Clinton finally rolling back welfare, I have never seen a government program get smaller or an unneeded cabinet level department eliminated.

Vast central control ought to frighten everyone.  And the impulse to trade ones freedom for the promise of "security" from the government ought to at least be viewed skeptically.  But many are not so frightened and do not take that view.

Meanwhile, tec619, that people like Wolfson or Cheney whom you consider dishonorable supported the war in Iraq, doesn't make them wrong nor the war beyond the pale.

Plenty of people beyond reproach, like Gen Petraeus believe the war was correct but the means faulty.  i.e. too few troops to occupy the country and poor policy and tactics after the occupation.

That is my belief.  I didn't serve in Viet Nam.  But whether I did or did not would neither ratify nor discredit the belief.

Did Petraes tell you he believed in the war? Stop being (conveniently) guileless.

Your response reminds me of when Bushco claimed commanders didn't want more troops. The proof? They didn't ask. Why would they? The SecDef made it clear, subtlety, and not so subtlety, that they weren't going to get additional troops. Then, all of a sudden: the Surge.

Every commander is just doing his job, Partly because of his/her adherence do his oath (you know those mepty words Dubya couldn't give a shit about), a sense of patriotism, professionalism and, career preservation.  I went to Iraq and I didn't beleive a word Dubya, Cheney, Perele or the other idiots said. And guess what? I was completely right. (Spare me the in 20-30 years Iraq will be a democracy. I don't recall any Bushco member claiming that in the run-up to the invasion. I didn't buy any of the woof tickets. Though I have to say, when one mortality the price, it's easy to write checks.)

Btw, Cheney, Woflowitz, Bolton and Kristol were all wrong. No WMD, Shite, Sunni, Kurd, internecine violence. Shouldn't the legitimacy bar be set a teeny bit higher when unpatriotic COWARDS advocate war? Guess not.

PPS, tec619, I qualified for Naval Flight training in every regard but my eyesight which was not 20/20 without correction.  

I came within an inch of signing up for the ROC naval officers program anyway, but then shined it on because I wouldn't be able to fly, at least not as a pilot.

This was simply the dumb decision of an 18 year old who wanted to fly or nothing.  (I went on to achieve commercial pilot credentials on my own nickel.)

If I had signed up for ROC, I would have become a naval officer.  It's possible I would have pulled John Kerry type duty on a river gunship.  More likely, like all the young naval officers I cam to know in Hawaii in that period, I'd be serving either shipboard or at a desk.

But, if I had done that, I would have had a complete Gardall shield against all your attacks, without coming anywhere near a punjee stick or Cong.

In Viet Nam, as in most wars, except perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan, most in the military aren't on the front lines, as you well know.  

If you fly for the Navy or the Air Force over Afghanistan or Iraq today, you are facing the normal hazards of military aviation.  But, it is rare in the extreme for fighter-bombers, or even transports to be shot down.

They're service is 100% honorable.  But they are not sharing the dangers of Marines, of Army ground troop, or Army chopper pilots.  So where do those AF and Navy aviators stand in your pantheon?  Cowards?

I should also say that I went to a public high school in a very wealthy town.  Most of my classmates went on to college, including many to the Ivies.  But one joined the Navy and was a medic.  Another went to Cornell and became a Marine aviator.  Another was a Marine officer.  Another an Army draftee.

The corpsman was KIA.  The draftee died of heat-stroke.  The Marine officer was killed on his second, voluntary tour.  A very bright, good looking guy and a star athlete.  His father, a beloved teacher of mine, died of heartbreak within a few years.

The Marine aviator served two tours.  The second as an officer on the ground advising ROK (So. Korean) troops.  The scariest guys on our side over there.  That Marines is one of my oldest and best friends and he is alive and well, and still flying.  He also thinks we ought to be in Iraq.

My point with all this detail is, war and history and the lives of individuals play out in every sort of way.  People do brave things out of bravery sometimes, or just out of circumstance.  But your all caps attack of COWARDS!! are just as cartoonish as any strong opinion I put forward that puts you off.

People with incontrovertible Viet Nam credentials-- starting with McCain-- don't hold your view.

By way of correction, obviously the Marine officers referenced above also went off to college or they wouldn't have qualified to become officers.

My point was, in my privileged upper middle class high school virtually all the 2000 students had the means to go to college and put off for at least four years their exposure to the draft.  

But, even from that school many served in Viet Nam and I believe about a dozen or more died there.

Channy, I don't care what you did.  I also agree with you re bravery, front line service and all that. You continually ignore my main point. Why is it that those who fancy themselves national security experts obtained their medical degree without attending medical school? Or for that matter, college? Why? Why? Why? They are security obsessive,  possess a bellicose temperament and uber patriotic, yet they exhibited no willingness to fight a Commie for Mommy. Or kill any so-called enemy of the U.S. They don't even have a desire to wear the damn uniform?   That passes as strange and damn suspicious, to me.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I surmise you have a job and it's not spilling ink on macho, national security bullshit or engaged in the subject for mercenary (e.g., Cheney, who orchestrated the whole no-compete, excessive contracting environment) and/or perfidious (e.g., Kristol, Feith, et al) reasons.

Almost the entire cabal , with the exception of Dubya and his co-drunk Cheney, are smart, sophisticated and privileged.  They knew wtf was going on during 'Nam. (I recall reading a positive "Atlantic"  profile of a Harvard historian and it mentioned Billy Kristol and some other asshole who spent hours discussing the war.)  Some members, take Elliot Abrams and Joe Lieberman were lefties in their college days, then, when it was safe to come out--and they were concerned about emigration from the USSR--turned rightward. My, how convenient.

Chris Shays, though not a cabal member, but a Bushco enabler,  was a goddamned conscientious objector.  Going from moral opposition to "all" war to supporting "preemptive war" is a long, long road. it's great to see to have a road to Baghdad experience when one is a U.S. House member, the draft is long over and one is 58 years old.

Why no qualms? Because you agree with the Bush policy? Whatever.

As for McCain, who lost my respect after he didn't demand Rove's head after the noxious doings in the 2000 South Carolina primary, supported the war for political reasons. The staying 'til we win bullshit was part red meat to the GOP base and his psychological battle with the denouement of the Vietnam War.  (Though, I suspect he's largely over it. McCain wasn't an opponent of rapprochement with--still Communist--Vietnam.)

You often write as clear-headed, degage type. But your absolute refusal to admit these men have ulterior motives and are immoral (at least when it comes to the disjunction between their strong rhetoric and pathetic actions) bothers me. But, heh. That's you.

I try to be fair-minded and see every point of view.  Advocating war when one is a coward only brings out the self-righteous moralist in me. Such a position is despicable.

tec619 writes, "...And why doesn't the yawing chasm between the tough talk and physical cowardice of the neocon yahoos trouble you? You don't detect any character flaws worthy of your contempt, eh? Again, surprising."

Because physical courage (assuming these people are indeed cowards in regards to their physical well-being) and opinions about when our country ought to go to war and when it shouldn't don't connect particularly.

Obviously, if you have served in battle, or at least served in the military, it gives you more moral authority if you are a hawk in support of a given military action.

But such service doesn't give you either more nor less wisdom about where one ought to fight vs keeping your powder dry.

I am certain that in 2002 there were many fine and brave soldiers on both sides of the Iraq question.  

There are some very level-headed and thoughtful people here-- not firebrands or hotheads by any definition-- who can lay out for you and have many times, why the United States was more than justified in going into Iraq and removing Saddam.

Frankly, if we had employed half a million troops as we did the first time, and had a smart counter-insurgent like Petraeus, the war would likely have been resolved to a point where it is right now-- only 4 or 5 years ago.

If that had happened, nobody would be arguing much about the war.  It would not, in any event, be a political issue.  Just as in the election just past, Iraq was essentially off the table.  Though I don't doubt that it lost McCain many votes.

Channy, again you demur. Kristol, Wolfie, Fieth, Cheney are allo physical cowards. They refused to serve.  They didn't want to wear the uniform.

Worse still, as you pointed out, serving wasn't a guarantee of seeing combat or being located near to danger. Yet they refused to make the higher commitment. Nevertheless, we should respect their muscular foreign policy (jingoists in my book) positions.

You also refuse to address, again, what these I-slept-in-a-Holiday-Inn-Express "experts" gave us. Wrong strategies, (or is that "strategeries?") wrong tactics and a woeful refusal to let facts and information effect their rigid, stupid and, surprise, surprise, like the pacifists, ideals and ideology.   (Lambs will lie down with lions, Shiite will lie down with Sunnis and Kurds, we'll be greeted as liberators, WMD, and on and on. Iask you: Would you board a plane flown by someone whose experience was confined to devouring books on the subject of  aeronautics.?)

It is easy to write checks that others bodies will have to cash. It's even easier when one doesn't have to be responsible for the lives of others. And easier still, when one's live isn't in extremis.

As I said before, these bellicose guys skipped out on the war of their generation and despite skipping out on what one should think is a (natural) step in the progression to becoming "experts."  These asshole want to set policy, advise on strategy, encourage military adventures and influence the public. All the while, they are what? Honorable men? Hmm. I don't think so. Where the fuck to they get off?

It doesn't bother you, so fine. The fact that you don't find them contemptible IMHO, is a major character flaw. Even for a detached realist such as you. Nonetheless. I have more respect for you (unless, of course, you really do have a radio show and possibly a newspaper column that you use to influence the public) than I do any of those jerks.

Tec619, if you wish to hold Cheny et al in contempt, so be it.

My point is, there are people with the moral authority of military service and strategic smarts who fall on both sides of the Iraq war question.  

That people you don't respect militated for the war doesn't say one way or another whether the policy was right.  Only that it had prominent supporters who were not admirably credentialed.

That, I, but for a pair of spectacles, would likely have flown in combat doesn't make me any more honorable objectively speaking than Cheney or Wolfson.  But, it doesn't de fact discredit my support of the Iraq war, either.  (And no, I don't have a radio talk show or any other political forum bigger than this one.)

Your contempt and the reasons for it in the cases of Cheney, Wolfson, et al, are not either irrational or hard to understand.

But, in a  practical sense, that contempt is irrelevant to the argument about the correctness or otherwise of the Iraq invasion and war and the removal of Saddam.

Colin Powell, for instance, had all the credentials you would require, and he supported the war with all his moral authority.  He may now regret that.    Maybe he didn't believe in the policy at the time.

Was he a patriot for supporting the government?  Or would he have been more patriotic to have resigned?  

That's a question that can be, and no doubt will be, chewed on for a longtime.

P.S. War supporter Hillary Clinton is in consideration for Sec of State in war opposer Obama's government.  What are we to make of that?