So what do the skeptics (and dare I say, atheists) think of the Edwards controversy?

[Evoman]

If you want to turn it into a discussion of monogamy, that's cool too. But specifically...are you outraged at his infidilety? Shocked? Disgusted? Indifferent? Secretly jealous?

[varkam]

1. Indifferent, really.

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked at the level of outrage expressed here on DU. I remember how quick the right was to wash their hands of Craig after he let his foot drop in that bathroom - I figured that we don't turn our backs on our own. Seems like some progressives, though, would just as soon toss Edwards under the bus as opposed to continue to show support for him.

[Evoman]

2. I would be more shocked if politicans like Edwards DIDN'T cheat on their wives.

I kind of think it's a douche-bag move on his part, seeing as how it could have really cost the dems the elections if he was nominated. I just can't help but think that this sort of stuff is normal among the elite...hell, I bet ya even Elizabeth Edwards could care less.

[Warpy]

19. Yes, especially when they were getting over something

truly terrible, like being cheated out of an election. Some have affairs because they're going bald or just because they're bored or because they've had 3 drinks in an hour and the opportunity is there. Women mostly have affairs out of boredom and occasionally because they want a way out.

At least his was with a consenting adult woman instead of a terrified child or via anonymous buggery in a toilet stall or a cash transaction for kinky fantasy.

He also didn't abandon his family over it, which is how GOPs try to deodorize their affairs.

[progressoid]

25. I wonder if the election season has made some DUers a little too sensitive to this.

If this "news" would have come out in 2009, maybe it wouldn't have caused such a stir?

I'm also shocked by the amount of threads it has received. I sort of expect if from the media because it's easy fodder for them. But had hoped wouldn't be so sensationalized here.

Oh well.

[mr blur]

3. Luckily, I'm far enough away to not care.

Although if I lived there I wouldn't care much either.

[Random_Australian]

4. Hmmmm, I haven't heard about this case, but in general, it's a shitty thing to do.

I'd think the person was an arsehole, but it's not like arseholes can't build sheds or run offices or whatever else they are qualified to do.

So I'd probably spit in his direction, but still vote for him over his republican counterpart, especially because I expect political types to have done some really screwy things in their private lives. (In fact, I prefer to be apathetic about such things so they are that much less effective as blackmail)

More precisely, I should not be the one to dole out the consequences. Let them work it out in private and in the courts. Let infedelity translate into losing half your stuff or more, or losing someone you love, not being judged by some random stranger who knows fuck-all about your situation and what you did.

[trotsky]

5. Meh.

I feel the same about it as I did about Craig, Vitter, Clinton, etc. As long as they aren't out there moralizing about how everyone else should live their sex life, I don't care.

But I do find it fascinating how incidents like this always polarize DU. You've got the morally outraged, the truly indifferent, the ones who are outraged at the ones who are morally outraged, and the ones who are outraged by the ones who are indifferent. And plenty of DUers everywhere in between. I just like to step back, laugh, and use "Hide Thread" when necessary.

[Evoman]

9. Yeah, but he did moralize.

And some gay duers also pointed out his personal stance on gay marriage now makes him a hypocrite.

Again, I'm not suprised...who ISN'T a big fat hypocrite in politics.

[trotsky]

10. He did?

I guess I wasn't aware of that. Then by all means, pile on! Freaking hypocrite.

[dropkickpa]

12. This is the only place I have issue with it

He thinks the sanctity of marriage should be saved for those his religious beliefs support (man + woman). He stood up and told this to the country, all while he was diddling someone other than his wife. The hypocrisy to presume to be a good judge of what marriage is allowed to be. The fact that he cheated on his wife doesn't actually in itself bug me or matter to me one way or the other.

[HamdenRice]

6. I'm politically outraged, not morally outraged

I didn't post in the many GD:P threads about this, but I agree with the many DUers who argued that it was monumentally reckless for Edwards to run for the Democratic nomination after having an affair and possibly using campaign funds to support his mistress.

This is the most important election for us to win in a generation, and he was willing to gamble that he wouldn't be found out. If he had won the nomination and this affair was disclosed now, just weeks before the convention, we would now be up shit creek. Clinton may have gotten away with it in 92, but with the country still mindful of the Clinton sex scandals, Edwards would have been toast in the general.

It reminds me of Gary Hart daring the press to find out about and report on his affair with Donna Rice. There is something in many politicians' psychological profile (Hart, Clinton, Edwards) that is different from the average person's -- a kind of unfounded belief in their own invincibility -- that is scary.

[cosmik debris]

7. Mildly disappointed

I'm reminded of when Princess Diana discovered that the Prince Charles was cheating on her. My thought at that time was that anyone who marries a man from the British royal family and expects fidelity is playing a long shot.

The fact is that most men can be seduced. Sometimes they are seduced by their own misconception of infallibility, immunity, or invincibility.

[TZ]

8. He's a politician

I'm gonna quote my political scientist uncle "they are ALL crooks".
So my reaction is "meh". Considering some of the truly slimy things I know about some Congress people (both Dems and Repubs) this is pretty mild.
Its between Elizabeth and John as far as I'm concerned.
And the whole thing about oh he was risking losing the election...well maybe, but I tend not to get outraged (faux or real) about "might have been".

[cosmik debris]

18. That's not very nice

My father served 26 years as a State Senator. He sponsored and passed landmark legislation on the environment, education, health care, and worker's rights.

Now you tell me that he was a crook.

There are a lot of public servants who don't fit that stereotype. And it is not fair to the true public servants for people to condemn them all with one broad brush insult.

[TZ]

20. Hm

Well I should say in DC...thats pretty much the case...My Uncle knows has known a whole bunch of people in Congress..and some are fairly decent people (a couple of his ex-students are in national politics)..but it seems to be more true than less.
The problem is on the national stage the honest ones are usually drowned out by the ones who are more ruthless in their behavior..
I'm sure your father was a good man. I just think power corrupts pretty well..and the ones in Washington have alot of power.
I've heard too many godawful things about Capitol Hill to trust politicians of any stripe, personally though-even the ones I like

[LeftishBrit]

23. I agree that there are plenty of decent people in politics...

but they are usually not the ones who get to the very top. My MP Evan Harris is really good; but I don't think he's ever likely to be Prime Minister - partly because he's third-party (LibDem), but partly because I don't think he's got that sort of thirst for power.

In the UK, most politicians are *not* crooks, but those who become Prime Minister tend to be the excessively power-hungry - notably Thatcher and Blair. And a president these days has far more power than an British PM. So I think there's a big difference between a State Senator, Member of Parliament, or other public servant and someone with a real thirst for the presidency.

[regularguy]

11. Falls into the category of:

Things that I shouldn't know about, don't want to know about, but for some reason do. If anything my reaction is similar to when I hear about some dude getting busted with tons of cocaine in his car 'cause he got pulled over for speeding. WTF?

[frogmarch]

13. He should have known

the affair wouldn't remain a secret, and that it would eventually be used against him politically. I'm just glad he didn't become our nominee, and THEN have the story break.

[rexcat]

14. Extremely disappointed to start...

but in retrospect he is a politician and we should not elevate these people on the proverbial pedestal. They will always fall!

What he did IMO was (is) wrong but the issue should be between he and his wife. His wife and kids are the ones who were hurt. He let his penis think for him and that is dangerous. He will have to rectify the situation with his family and that will be difficult especially since it is the public realm. I don't think it should be drawn out into the public domain.

On the other hand if it were McSame I would go after his throat, but that is based on pure political ideology and distaste of conservatives "values" and what they say and do are usually incongruent. This might be considered hypocritical on my part but it's politics but it is just a tit-for-tat situation with the conservatives!

[LeftishBrit]

16. 'if it were McSame'...

But it was.

Some time ago, but nevertheless. This os one of the things that makes the whole hullabaloo so strange.

[rexcat]

17. As far as McSame...

he probably had more than one affair considering he was a Navy fighter pilot and more than likely belonged (belongs) to the Tailhook Association. He was know to be on the wild side prior to his first marriage and I can't believe that stopped after getting married. The man has the morales of a cat.

[AZCat]

28. Hey!

Not all cats are that bad!

[LeftishBrit]

15. Well, I'm far away...

but I don't see why it's creating *such* a stir. Bad behaviour no doubt, but it's not as if he were the candidate, or even a senator any more.

While affairs by our politicians certainly create gossip in the tabloid press, I don't think they'd receive *such* attention on a serious political board. Boris Johnson is known as "Bonking Boris", with good reason, but he still became Mayor of London. When it was revealed that former PM John Major had had an affair with the MP Edwina Currie, this was greeted with some gossip and indeed amusement because she's flamboyant and he virtually defines the word 'grey' and always did - but I don't think Tories went around saying how 'betrayed' they felt. I think Brits just tend to be cynical about politicians anyway. Of course, it's worse on a personal level here because of Elizabeth Edwards' illness - but still as Edwards is now a private citizen, I don't see why it's seen as *so* crucial politically. Plus the fact that McCain is hardly an angel himself.

[onager]

21. Speaking of your (UK) scandals...

I recently came across a very...odd DVD, called Scandal of the Century.

Odd, because I can't find any mention of it on Google or any of the usual DVD sites. Though somewhat ironically, Google returned a bunch of hits for a DVD called Spy Scandal of the Century, about the Philby/Burgess/McLean spy ring in the UK.

Anyway, I...cough...found a copy of this DVD. It turned out to be a quickie, sleazoid production with Christine Keeler on-camera, talking about the 1963 Profumo scandal.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but will soon.

For younger and culturally deprived readers, John Profumo was the Secretary of State for War in the cabinet of Conservative Prime Minister Harold MacMillan. In 1963 Profumo had a (supposedly) brief affair with party-girl...and that's NOT Conservative Party...Keeler. Unfortunately, Keeler was simultaneously canoodling with a Russian spy...er, naval attache in the Soviet Embassy.

Make up your own joke about strange bedfellows...or about the Conservative campaign slogan: "You never had it so good!"

Or you could watch the 1989 movie Scandal, where you can catch Bridget Fonda's first major role as Mandy Rice-Davies.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Yes. Still a legend here!

It is said that a woman voter was interviewed live on the BBC in the 1960s about her political preferences, and said, "Well, I can't speak for other women, but Harold Macmillan always satisfied me personally - that is, more than any other Cabinet minister!"

[YankeyMCC]

24. The positions he took on political and social issues

were the reasons I supported him. I don't see how his affair affects that.

If I had a personal relationship with him and/or his family I'd be disappointed and express the appropriate level of condemnation (like a dope slap to the head). As a political supporter it gives me a little pause only because of the deception after the fact, because now he needs to work a bit harder at convincing me of his credibility on staying true to his word. But I'm smart enough to recognize the difference in lying about something like this very personal issue versus following through with public policy and political positions and one does not necessarily matter much to the other in terms of measuring veracity and credibility.

If he, like so many of the right wing politicians, had been out preaching to others about how they should conduct their personal lives, in particular in regards to sex and marriage, then it would be a more serious matter because he would have proven himself false on a matter of public policy which he espoused.

[realisticphish]

26. Boring, useless waste of time

especially considering that RUSSIA INVADED A FUCKING COUNTRY the same day. That, more than anything, pissed me off. On a slow news day, perhaps, but not this.

One thing that does irritate me is that people keep harping on the election, and how he would have been risking everything, etc. You know what? That doesn't matter to me. He's a person, just the same as all of us, with the same weaknesses. PEOPLE WHO HAVE AFFAIRS ARE NOT USUALLY THINKING LOGICALLY AT THE TIME. It's not like he sat down and wrote "have an affair" on the calendar 2 years before, and circled it.

Whatever. Not my business, and it shouldn't be ours, especially with all the other stuff that's going on. Once again, the left turns on itself at a critical time in the election cycle.

[Orrex]

27. The thing that bothers me most

Is the number of times I've heard the old "Alpha Male Primate" mantra rolled out as an explanation for his behavior. Ambitious leader-types are alpha males, so it's in their nature to carouse and philander and whatnot. People who invoke this argument don't always excuse it, but they seem to adopt a "well, what can you do?" attitude about it, since these testosterrific alpha males are driven by their virility to conjugate with every likely filly who struts past.

Bullshit, sez I. If that were the case, then just about every behavior you can think of could be justified and/or mitigated simply by claiming "I'm a primate enslaved to my primate nature."

What apparently happened in this case is that a successful and better-than-average man under enormous stress entered into a consensual extramarital relationship. That's it.

I'm just glad that he didn't get the nomination, or we'd be facing an absolutely certain McCain presidency right now.

[MJW]

29. yawn

[NoodleBoy]

30. You mean that guy who was a moderate/conservative North Carolina Senator before he decided to run

for President as the great scion of all things liberal?

I didn't ever really like him. Supported the Iraq war, patriot act, NCLB, and Bush's judicial nominees, that is, until he decided to run for President, saw he had no real accomplishments to his name (unless you count being pretty as an accomplishment) and no one identified him as a leader of anything, and all of a sudden he was an electable Dennis Kucinich.

That's bad enough-- and then he screws around on his wife and have a child to show for it.

And then, as though running for President and losing, and then running for Vice President and narrowly losing, and cheating on his wife aren't enough to make him think his political career is over, he runs for President again.

So... as you can guess, I really didn't think much of Edwards before all this.

[LeftishBrit]

31. I mainly liked two things about him

(1) He was a Democratic senator for North Carolina. That means that he must have defeated at least one North Carolina Republican for the post. Which could mean that he prevented another Jesse Helms!

(2) He ran for vice-president against CHENEY. Which instantly makes him a comparatively attractive character. (All right, I know, so did Lieberman!)

[NoodleBoy]

32. but those aren't reasons to vote for someone in a primary.

And I know some might be tempted to compare 2004 Edwards to 2008 Obama, but I supported Obama in the primary because he wasn't just talking about a clean break from the conniving politics of the 1990's, he was never affiliated with anyone associated with them, his campaign people have come largely from outside that group, and he was never a member of the DLC-- something I never heard Edwards disavow.

And just to take point #1 of yours further, him leaving his Senate seat to run for President and then Vice President instead of running for re-election tossed what was polling as a safe or only slightly competitive Senate election straight into the Republican bin.

[LeftishBrit]

34. He wouldn't have been my primary choice if I voted in the USA

I am not quite sure who would have been; but not him anyway.

I take your last point about the Senate; but doesn't it go both ways? IIRC there were complaints about Lieberman and earlier Bentsen putting too much effort into getting re-elected to the Senate, instead of concentrating on supporting the presidential ticket.

[WoodrowFan]

33. disappointed

disappointed. I had thought better of him than that. Not perfect by any means but not so big an asshole.....