That was very very well put.

I still believe generally, that - regarding item 2 - a person almost has a DUTY to lie about an affair to anybody whose business it is not, and it is not generally the public's business. In this case, though, because of item 3, the live grenade issue, it was public business.

agreed.

So why is it when pubes do the same thing (McCain, Gingrich, etc.) or worse (Stevens, DeLay, etc.) the repercussions aren't the same?  Why do the pubes 'rally the troops' and defend these guys, with the MSM just following suit and not beating on them when it's a pube but crucifying them when they're a Dem?  Why the brazen double standard?

Co-signed..

A fascinating little aside on Rielle. Apparently, per Jay McInerney as quoted in PageSix of the Post (the photo accompanying the piece also shows Rielle with Jay), Rielle was the model for the vapid party girl heroine of his novel, "Story of My Life." www.nypost.com/.../_123637.htm

Quote: "Hunter, born Lisa Druck, first turned up in New York in the 80's, where she hooked up with novelist Jay McInerney.

"She used to be a real party girl," he told Page Six. "When she wasn't out at nightclubs, she was taking acting classes. "We dated for only a few months, but in that period, I spent a lot of time with her and her friends, whose behavior intrigued and appalled me to such an extent that I ended up basing a novel on the experience."

The book was called "Story of My Life."

In 2005 she caught the eye her soon to be politician paramour at the Regency Hotel bar. She was out with a group, drinking "like an old cougar fool," Page Six's source said. "She's an idiot, a fool, a moron, a faux-guru, but not mean-spirited."

"So why is it when pubes do the same thing (McCain, Gingrich, etc.) or worse (Stevens, DeLay, etc.) the repercussions aren't the same? " Because all they have to do is confess their sin to G-d and everything's ok.

And besides, what reason is there to rallly around Edwards? He's not the nominee. He's doesn't hold a public office.

As I recall, the dems. rallied behind Clinton way back when.

Also, I think there was something icky about Edwards that always stuck in a lot of people's craw. The sense that without his wife, there was nothing there. He was too plastic. Which is the real reason I think he didn't do better. Not because he was a white guy who couldn't compete with two historic firsts.

Actually, the principal thing I hold against Edwards is not that he had an affair, but that he had an affair in 2006 *after he decided to run for President* (that's why he hired her to make videos, yes?), and with *a member of his campaign staff that he subsequently let go.*  That was really, really stupid, and says volumes about judgment.

Stick a fork in him.  He's done.

Y'all think Hillary and her ex are evil and irresponsible, but riddle me this: what does it say about a leading Democratic presidential contender that he was willing to continue putting himself in contention for VP  and Atty Gen, all the way up to November, and beyond, while he knew that he was exposing himself and his party to the fallout from a patently stupid lie and scandal?

Talk about irresponsible. Dems should consider themselves lucky, The party and its candidate dodged a bullet. Imagine if this had been broken during the last week of the campaign.

rozenson - I disdain Obama and his cultists. I like the Times, like most of the traditional, non-bloggerish non-MoveOnner Democrats.

Mr. Edwards, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

NO TEST FOR 'LOVE LIPS' JOHN

www.nypost.com/.../no_test_for_love_lips_john_123859.htm

[The revelation came as Hunter, 42, broke her silence for the first time yesterday to let Edwards off the hook.

She will not pester her ex-lover to take a DNA test to establish once and for all the paternity of her 5-month-old daughter, her lawyer said.

Hunter, 42, does not wish to take a genetic test "now or in the future," attorney Robert Gordon said in a statement.]

[The mother did not list the father's name on little Frances Quinn Hunter's birth certificate.]

For most people, having an affair means lying and covering up. ("Closed marriages" appear to be so much the norm that the word "closed" usually goes without saying - the word "marriage" is enough to indicate coital exclusivity between the two partners.)  If Edwards wanted maximum freedom to indulge his libido and also engage in politics, he could say: "In my postion, it's just too hard to turn down nookie from everyone who offers it - I bypass more toe-curling tail in a week than most men will see in a lifetime, but I'm not made of stone. In addition, my seduction skills are far beyond those of most men, and occasionally I like to give them a workout by going after new conquests. If you were in my [boxers/briefs] you'd do the same thing. Elizabeth doesn't like it all that much, and we still haven't figured how to discuss it with our children, but she's happy to tolerate the situation because she thinks I've got the best health care plan. I hope the American people will too."

If he'd said this, he'd apparently have gotten EJ Graff's vote, and maybe mine too, if I had liked him and his policies more than I liked Obama's or Clinton's. He'd have also been inoculated against exposure for lying, hypocrisy and extreme unctuousness. He might even get the votes of a previously undiscovered Mark Penn interest group "Womanizers Deluxe" (which would net him a large percentage of Republican male voters who otherwise wouldn't consider voting for a liberal - "I hate his socialized medicine, but I every time he scores some snatch, a thrill runs up my leg.")

Otherwise, I don't think he can have it both ways. It's either "I'm doing something wrong, therefore I'm hiding it and hoping against hope that I won't get caught," or "I'm doing what comes naturally - if you don't like it, then vote for some guy who couldn't get action in a brothel if he had a pocketfull of Benjamins."

tnmats writes:

"So why is it when pubes do the same thing (McCain, Gingrich, etc.) or worse (Stevens, DeLay, etc.) the repercussions aren't the same?"

In general, I agree that the Republicans weather these sex scandals better, but it has to be said that every situation has its own extenuating circumstances and, frankly, the passage of time does have a way of diminishing the impact. The fact that there were photographs, a baby (possibly), a beloved and well-known wife, and a dramatic press confrontation made the Edwards scandal extremely potent. And the fact that this was all playing out while he was running for president gave it added relevance.

With McCain, however, we're talking about events from more than a quarter century ago. It had none of the sturm and drang of l'affair Edwards, and, in fact, the mistress eventually became his wife and is with him to this day. It's much easier for voters -- and the media -- to shrug this off as water under the bridge.

If you want to make your case about how Republicans survive while Democrats take a fall, a more useful comparison, it seems to me, is between what happened to David Vitter and what happened to Eliot Spitzer. Although their crimes were fairly comparable, Vitter still "proudly" serves in the Senate, while Spitzer was rushed out of Albany within a matter of days.

If ever you needed proof of the double standard, that's it.

Tragic question:  How much time must pass now before a commitment to fight for the poor and against corporate corruption will no longer be viewed as a symptom of deficient character and disqualification for office?  That is the sad legacy of John Edwards (and Elliot Spitzer); and that is the ultimate consequence of betraying the public trust.

"a commitment to fight for the poor"

How about his poor wife? Edwards was always and ever a consummate BS artist. Many things to like about his message but he was w/o question the wrong messenger. Good riddance.

Eve.  Your post is brilliant!  It's nice to find myself on the same page with you so often.  

I think discussion of Edwards outta stop now because it could hurt Obama.  The more Edwards gets a voice to explain, describe, lament what he did, the more direct and indirect ammo it will give the repubs against Obama.  

It doesn't matter that lot of repubs have had affairs or had sexual indiscretions.  They are part of the past.  The public operates on the present and Edward's affair is the most recent and likely to be the one people think about during the next few months.   Plus, in the ABC interview, stupid Edwards says something to the effect of "well, I was a young senator, thrust into presidential politics with little experience and I developed quite an ego with lost of self-absorption. yadda yadda."  Does the guy not understand how some might make a parallel to Obama?  (minus the affair). Dumb-ass Edwards.  Still self-serving.  

Ask yourselves this, which party does the American public associate more often with marital infidelity and sexual indiscretions?  It's the democrats!

Right on. Well put.

Tep, perhaps I wasn't clear.  My point was not to defend Edwards.  My point was to deplore the very real possibility that, following the indiscretions of Edwards and Spitzer, candidates concerned with the problems of poor folks and corporate corruption will become easy targets for cynics' comtentions that they are all "phonies" or "too good to be true."  And that would be a shame.  I don't know about you, but I hope is that the Clintons don't represent the best we can elect.

I'm a pretty simple man, but here's what I don't get. I consider myself a pretty poor specimen of intestinal fortitude, and not just because I have crohn's disease. I eat stuff I shouldn't eat and far too much of it. I watch too much TV. I spend far too much time playing video games when I should be working. I'm nearly 40, for heaven's sake. When am I going to grow up? I'm pretty much a 95-pound weakling in terms of my moral strength.

And yet, I haven't cheated on my wife, although I've had offers from people far more attractive than Rielle. And in my case, the stakes aren't nearly as high. My wife doesn't have cancer, we don't have kids, and by the way I'm not running for the leader of the free world, against a machine that is truly and absolutely evil. If I can keep it in my pants when my cheating actions would hurt exactly one person (well, two- my wife knows martial arts), how the hell does he carry on like this knowing that if he won and it came out (which it would), he'd be essentially dooming the nation to another four years of everything he claims to loathe?

Many people manage to stay faithful to their spouses without the added motivation of a presidential run. What the hell was he thinking?

And, while I'm exercised about this, need I remind folks that Edwards was one of those self-righteous dems who, with a straight face, recently argued that marital fidelity was a qualifier for the presidency (in an attempt to dig at Clinton and through him Clinton), he was the one who couldn't support gay marriage because he stood for the sanctity of the institution and he was the one who did most of the pot-stirring about Clinton tearing up in NH.