How Edwards' Scandal affects McCain.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Infidelity …
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 5:39 PM By Christopher Beam

Democrats can’t be pleased with John Edwards’ confession that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter. It tarnishes the Democratic brand just as they’re gearing up for their quadrennial coming-out party, and the only thing more conspicuous than Edwards’ presence will be his absence. And Edwards could have a Mark Foley-like trickle-down effect in down-ballot races, where negative/positive party associations matter most.

But the news is not all bad for Democrats. First, Obama is pretty much soaked in Teflon when it comes to family matters. Second, it could be a lot worse: What if Edwards had actually won the nomination? And third, it introduces marital infidelity back into the conversation.

Recall: John McCain returned to the United States from Vietnam in March 1973. His wife, Carol, had been in a near-fatal car accident while he was gone. She was overweight, on crutches, and 4 inches shorter than when McCain had left. McCain ended up divorcing Carol for Cindy Hensley, his current wife. Carol has remained mostly silent on her marriage to John, except for one notable comment to a McCain biographer: “John was turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again.”

There were legal complications, too. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that McCain obtained a marriage license while still legally married to his first wife. McCain suggested in his autobiography that he divorced Carol months before marrying Cindy. In fact, that period was about five weeks. He also said that for the first nine months of his relationship with Cindy, he still “cohabited” with Carol. Social conservatives were never McCain’s base, but yes, it could get worse.

For the most part, the media have politely skirted around this episode of McCain’s life. (Not to mention other unflattering moments.) For one thing, it’s long past. McCain has since developed a reputation for credibility and transparency. (Post-Keating Five, that is.) And, unlike Edwards, he told the truth about his deviance. "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity,” McCain wrote in his autobiography. “The blame was entirely mine."

But with Edwards’ infidelity front and center, that could change. In recent weeks, McCain’s ads have taken a turn for the personal, comparing Obama to vapid celebrities like Paris and Britney. Now Obama is coming under increasing pressure to retaliate. The Obama camp has never publicly raised McCain’s marital issues, nor would it. But insinuation, coupled with euphemisms about “trust” and “commitment,” can go a long way. In an environment filled with personal attacks on both sides, you can bet McCain’s past will become fair game. The Edwards news even gives McCain’s detractors a convenient pretext to raise the subject. So you heard about Edwards ditching his sick wife? Wait till you get a load of McCain …</div>

Source

I could definitely see this working for Barry if done correctly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
When an attempt to get tough with a whistleblower backfired in 1994, the McCain spin machine went into overdrive, and the candidate's wife confessed to problems the media was already poised to reveal.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Amy Silverman

Oct. 18, 1999 | PHOENIX -- GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.

It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.

I had deja vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.

I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The local press cooed over her hard-luck story. One of the four journalists spoon-fed the story -- Doug McEachern, then a reporter for Tribune Newspapers, now a columnist with the Arizona Republic (and, it must be added, normally much more acerbic) -- wrote this rather typical lead:

"She was blonde and beautiful. A rich man's daughter who became a politically powerful man's wife. She had it all, including an insidious addiction to drugs that sapped the beauty from her life like a spider on a butterfly."

What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.

I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.

But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.

Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.

It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.

But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.

McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.

Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.

This is the story of a time that strategy backfired, and yet the McCain machine still managed to contain the damage.</div>

Source

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 9 2008, 05:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How low can the press stoop?

Says a lot about Obama if he stoops as low.

Think about it.</div>

I think it is somewhat relevant to the campaign personally. If McCain wants to have a discussion about character, then we can do that.

With Obama's pastor problems for example, I don't think I've ever heard Obama say he believes in the crazy ramblings of Jeremiah Wright. He got in trouble for associating himself with dubious people, but the Sean Hannitys of the world don't seem to ever bring up McCain's character flaws. I do have to admit that I wish that were more balanced out.

 

Adultery is indefensable.

But McCain got accused of cheating on his wife already this year and it helped him. Attacking McCain for something that happened thirty years ago won't help Obama. People in glass houses don't throw stones (rev Wright).

Besides there are differences between McCain's actions and John Edwards'. Mccain was still recovering from Vietnam. John Edwards just did it because he wanted to. McCain's actions are indefensible, but the cirumstances are suuch that most people will understand why he did what he did (his ex-wife included) and this did not prevent him from running for the House, whereas Edwards is finished in politics.

 

I agree 100% that adultery is indefensible....If I was going to give anyone a pass, which Im not, It would be John McCain....5 and a 1/2 as a prisoner of war, being tortured and abused, will have an effect on someone and certainly could lead to a mid-life crisis....one could argue that when you return, your the same person in name only....either way, both did something I cant look past and something that I consider to be a stain on their charachter....Obama has different stain in my opinion, and his prevent him from leading this country, so at this point, I have no one to support and Im questioning if I even want to be a part of this country....

 

I don't see the Obama campaign making any reference to this but I can see the DNC and some 527's doing so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 9 2008, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Adultery is indefensable.

But McCain got accused of cheating on his wife already this year and it helped him. Attacking McCain for something that happened thirty years ago won't help Obama. People in glass houses don't throw stones (rev Wright).

Besides there are differences between McCain's actions and John Edwards'. Mccain was still recovering from Vietnam. John Edwards just did it because he wanted to. McCain's actions are indefensible, but the cirumstances are suuch that most people will understand why he did what he did (his ex-wife included) and this did not prevent him from running for the House, whereas Edwards is finished in politics.</div>

You're talking about the New York times hit piece? Yeah that was handled improperly, that doesn't mean that these infidelity verbal flourishes can't be used against McCain. I'm sure a savvy enough surrogate could stain McCain with them. People in glass houses do throw stones in politics.

The article doesn't just mention the events that happened thirty years ago.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "assholes" and in at least one case "a fucking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.

As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.

Schecter, who also blogs at The Agonist, said in an interview the anecdote is "an early example of his uncontrollable temper." In the book he outlines several other examples of McCain losing his cool and raises the question of how that would affect a McCain presidency.

What should voters make of this pattern? In February 2008 Tim Russert succinctly described McCain on MSNBC's Morning Joe. A devilish grin spread from ear to ear as Russert, no McCain hater, leaned forward and spoke in a whisper, "He likes to fight." Russert got it right. But the big question isn't whether McCain likes to fight: it's who, when, and how.

The exchange between McCain and his wife was not reported anywhere when it happened, Schecter said (a LexisNexis database search confirms this). In 1992, McCain's mention in the national media revolved mostly around his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, and only local reporters closely followed his re-election bid.

McCain is well known for his rapport with the national media covering his presidential bid (he's jokingly referred to the press as "my base"), but Schecter said this incident was buried not out of fealty to the Arizona senator. Rather, it was uneasiness about how to get such a coarse exchange into a family newspaper, and he didn't fault the local press for not covering the incident.

"Members of the media are squeamish covering stuff like this so they let it go," Schecter told RAW STORY in an interview Monday. "Back in '92, when people use naughty words, [reporters] don't know as much what to do with it."

Much has changed since then. President Bush's reference to a New York Times reporter as a "major league asshole" was reported in at least 47 newspapers during the 2000 campaign, when the off-color remark was overheard, according to a database search. And more than a dozen newspapers have reported Dick Cheney's recommendation that Sen. Patrick Leahy "fuck yourself."

McCain and his aides have brushed off suggestions that his temper could impede his ability to perform the sometimes-delicate tasks asked of a president. The candidate was asked about his legendary temper last week on "Fox News Sunday," where he cited his ability to work "across the aisle" while in the Senate.

"You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want," McCain said. " The second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. ... When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry."

McCain's campaign did not return a call from RAW STORY seeking comment Monday morning.

Schecter says McCain's anger is much more than a passion for the issues. One can only imagine what would happen if McCain were to try to squeeze that temper into the tight confines of diplomacy.

"The public certainly has to know what this guy might do as president," Schecter says. Examples like the ones in his book "should worry people, quite frankly."</div>

Source

Just interesting, I thought.

 

If Obama, the DNC, or any Soros-funded 527 bring up McCain's affairs, then nothing is off limits from that point on, and McCain, the RNC, and the 527s on the right will be giving Jeremiah Wright his second 15 minutes of fame.

If this is truly a referendum on Obama as everyone says it is, that it would be in the Dems' best interest not to bring up anything like what happened between McCain and his wife up now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Aug 9 2008, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Obama, the DNC, or any Soros-funded 527 bring up McCain's affairs, then nothing is off limits from that point on, and McCain, the RNC, and the 527s on the right will be giving Jeremiah Wright his second 15 minutes of fame.

If this is truly a referendum on Obama as everyone says it is, that it would be in the Dems' best interest not to bring up anything like what happened between McCain and his wife up now.</div>

I think it's going to get quite nasty.

 

Heh, I'm going to play the other side here and say adultery is completely defensible. OK, not really, but I think there's a lot worse things out there.

Among them is horrible judgement, such as that which Edwards displayed with his affair.

McCain's past affairs... not so much. Maybe they say he's not a saint, but within the context of his life they don't scream out to me that this is a man I shouldn't trust to make the right call.

 

Drew Westen, blogger for the uh..."Progressive" Huffington Post has fired the first shot so to say.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Catching the Wrong John: Why Are the Media Talking about John Edwards' Infidelity If They Aren't Going to Talk about John McCain's?
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted August 10, 2008 | 09:57 PM (EST)





My first thought upon hearing Friday's "big news" on all the cable stations -- straight from the pages of the nation's leading investigative newspaper, the National Enquirer -- that John Edwards had been caught with his trousers down, was, "Oh, no, what if this cuts into the story of that little girl who disappeared whose mother hasn't seemed to figure out that someone is recording her jailhouse telephone conversations and putting them on the news! How will I ever get the news I need tonight?"

Let me be clear. I'm not a proponent of infidelity. As a clinical psychologist, I've seen its corrosive impact on many a marriage. But Edwards isn't running for president anymore. He's not running for Pope as far as I know. And he's not even a sitting elected official. To watch Larry King interview two "journalists" from the National Enquirer on his show Friday night was as pathetic as seeing the Edwards affair on the front page of the New York Times. If the media ran stories on every former or sitting elected official who ever had an affair, those stories alone would fill the news or sports sections of every newspaper (depending on how they classified them).

Rationalizations for Running the Story

I know what you're going to say. "He was running for president, and had he won the nomination, imagine what that would have done." True enough, and for that reason perhaps the story merited a migration from the Enquirer to the coupon section of the print edition of some newspaper somewhere. What he did was unbelievably reckless for a man who was running for president and could have put the Democratic Party in real peril had he won the nomination. And to paraphrase another Democrat who wedded restlessness with recklessness, Edwards should not have had financial relations with that woman, his videographer. All fair criticisms.

But Edwards didn't win the nomination. Personally, my primary feeling is sadness for the Edwards family. This would be tremendously difficult in private. It must be excruciating in public.

But this is an issue of character, you say. After all, he lied. But every affair involves deceit, and denying the affair is what people confronted with infidelity usually do, as they see their marriages potentially crumbling before their eyes -- and that's without the glare of the camera. It's not clear in this case (as in other such high-profile cases) to what extent Edwards' original denials were primarily motivated by self-protection, protection of his wife and family from humiliation, protection of his gonads from an angry spouse, or, most likely, all of the above.

So is lying about an affair a good predictor of other forms of deceit and corruption in office? By all reports George W. Bush has been faithful to his wife. If only he had been so faithful to the Constitution, the American people, and those silly little things we have in this country called laws.

But Edwards' infidelity was even worse because of the circumstances. His wife was ill. How could he do such a thing?

That's a compelling question, and those without sins should certainly cast their stones. An equally compelling question, however, is how the media humiliating his wife publicly in the final years of her life at this point serves any purpose than selling papers and boosting ratings. The man's children are already dealing with their mother dying. Do they really need to know -- and to know that everyone who ever meets them will know -- this level of private detail about their father's indiscretion?

As someone who has practiced psychotherapy for 25 years, there's one thing I've learned: that it's a lot easier to judge than to withhold judgment. Life isn't easy. Most people try to live good and decent lives, and most people fail at many points along the way. If fidelity over decades of marriage were so easy, I suspect more people would practice it.

What's Sauce for the Donkey out of the Race is Sauce for the Elephant in the Room

But this media "affair" raises a more serious question. If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. We all extol John McCain for enduring 5 years of extreme hardship in Vietnam. But aren't his first wife's circumstances much like Elizabeth Edwards'? After all, the first Mrs. McCain waited in agony (and presumably fidelity) during those five long years for her beloved husband to return from Vietnam, raising their children while he was away and undergoing dozens of painful operations herself, only to be repaid by a philandering husband who ultimately left her for a younger woman.

Now personally, I don't think anybody's sex life has any bearing on a campaign, except to the extent that the candidate runs as a hypocrite, extolling family values, fighting gays while fighting his own gay demons, etc. But John McCain is increasingly making this campaign about character, and his actions over many years suggest some worrisome patterns that fly in the face of the entire story he tells about himself. Setting aside his cheating on his first wife, what about his attending to something other than the people's business as a member of the Keating Five (and ultimately contributing to a bailout that cost middle class American taxpayers the equivalent of nearly half a trillion in 2008 tax dollars -- imagine the middle class tax break we could offer if we weren't still paying off the principal and debt on that boondoggle); or hiring the most dishonest, amoral campaign team money could buy in 2008; or generating one fabricated or grossly misleading charge after another against Obama in the last three weeks (as in his sleazy new tax ad where, for example, he says Obama would raise taxes on small businesses when Obama has never proposed anything of the sort)? Like George W. Bush, he doesn't seem like a man who once was lost but now is found. He seems more like a man's whose principles are soluble in self-interest.

The Obama campaign seems reluctant to attack McCain even when the attacks are both true and on point, such as his standing on every side of virtually every issue, so they certainly won't go after his private life. Nor would I recommend they do so, unless McCain continues to raise issues about Obama's character, in which case Obama might want to take a public shot over the bow to let McCain know that if he wants to make this election a referendum on character, he can do that, but it would not be in his interest. McCain would get the message, and I suspect he would call off the dogs. Similarly, if McCain tries to mobilize anti-gay sentiment, or (more likely, since I suspect he's more libertarian at heart) colludes with those who do, it would be perfectly fair to ask him where in the Bible God prioritizes homosexuality as a sin over adultery, since there's a Commandment about one but not the other, and adultery is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than gay people entering into committed relationships (McCain's first marriage being Exhibit A).

Washing the Media's Mouth Out with Soap

In any case, the media either need to be an equal-opportunity Enquirer -- in which case if John Edwards' infidelity deserves three or four days of media attention when he's not even running, McCain's deserves three or four weeks -- or they need to grow up. Personally, I vote for the latter. If the media decide that McCain's sexual transgressions, like virtually all Republican transgressions as long as they're heterosexual, are unworthy of media attention, they should do some serious soul searching about why they went after Edwards, and they should stop reporting on the sex lives of politicians in the future, whose personal foibles and frailties are none of our damned business.

And that leads to a final point. I have long thought that we need a watchdog on the watchdogs. Like most Americans, I watched in horror as the impeachment process was abused in 1998 with the complicity of a ratings-frenzied media that made a fortune turning the Congress into a reality show and the grand jury system into an adjunct to The People's Court. We now have a watchdog: the blogs. I suggest we use the blogosphere to teach journalists a lesson about privacy, humility, and humiliation, and put them on notice that if they continue to practice gutter journalism, bloggers will publish the same data kind of data on them that they publish on politicians. After all, journalists' objectivity is of the essence, and if they're purging their own sins by attacking them in others, the public has the right to know. And surely journalism requires the same level of honesty as public service.

So call it empathy training. My guess is that media enthusiasm for sex scandals would drop within days of the first report (replete with photos) on the sexual indiscretions of a television news anchor or reporter, and that the kind of rationalizations we have heard for two decades---"we had to cover it because the newspaper that brought you 'Woman Gives Birth to Four-Headed Reptile" was covering it -- would disappear as fast as you can say "zip it."

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.</div>

Link

It's also important to note that the Huffington Post is claiming that they were the first ones to investigate Edwards' infidelity. If it's not obvious that the liberals are running as far, far away from John Edwards to prevent Barack Obama from suffering, I don't know what is.

 

Actually, I take that back. That was the second shot..this was the first.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How is John McCain's Affair Different from John Edwards'?
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted August 8, 2008 | 04:41 PM (EST)
Read More: Adultery, Affair, Cheating On His Wife, Cindy Hensley McCain, John Edwards, John McCain, Politics, Rielle Hunter, Politics News

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up!

* Share
* Print View
* Comments

Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

We have this weird notion in America now that if a politician is caught in an affair that his career is done. We seem to be saying that what he did in his private life effects his policies or how he governs. But we all know that isn't true. We know that because almost all of our great presidents, and great leaders throughout history, have had numerous affairs. Obviously it didn't hurt how they governed at all.

I love the idea of someone saying Alexander the Great can't lead his empire because he's cheating on his wife (by the way, doesn't Alexander's bisexuality single-handedly destroy the idea that gays can't serve in the military). How about Genghis Khan? He had so many affairs that nearly 1% of the entire world population has his genes. Not fit to lead? And there have also been men of great compassion who led noble fights while still doing ignoble things in their private lives. We are all human at home.

We have now heard the stories of JFK receiving sexual favors after speeches in his limo and partying with several women on a yacht while his wife was delivering. But those are all in the past -- so they don't count. But John Edwards is caught having an extramarital affair and the overwhelming assumption is that his political career is absolutely over. How does that make any sense?

Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran?

Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it's not the affair but the lies that went along with it. Really? Did JFK come out and tell the American people - or his wife - "by the way, while my wife was in the hospital I was having an affair with not one, but several women at the same time"? No, of course, he lied too. Every man that has ever cheated on his wife has lied (and so has every woman who has ever cheated). It is part and parcel of the affair.

Now, we get to the most relevant question - if John Edwards' political career is done, why isn't John McCain's? John McCain had a well-documented affair on his first wife, with his current wife. He has admitted in the books he has written about his life that he ran around with several different women while still married to his first wife. And don't forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman - multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain - after she had been severely hurt in a car accident.

So, why are McCain's actions any more excusable than Edwards'? Because it was thirty years ago? Does that wash it away? Will we be fine with Edwards running for office again in a couple of years because then it will all be in the past? What is the statute of limitations on an affair?

Remember Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Ross Perot were so upset with how John McCain dealt with his first wife that they didn't forgive him for a very, very long time. Perot still hasn't forgiven him. In fact, he said recently about McCain dumping his first wife for Cindy, "McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory."

So, I want every pundit who condemns John Edwards today to tell me what the difference between him and McCain is and why John McCain shouldn't also be run out of politics for his adulterous affairs and what he did to his first wife.</div>

Link

 

Tim Rutten:
Old media dethroned
Edwards' admission signals the end of the era in which traditional media set the limits of acceptable political journalism.
Tim Rutten
August 9, 2008
When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.

From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.

Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd. Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story. Like the Enquirer's reporting, the special-treatment charge is largely true, as anyone who recalls the media frenzy over conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett's high-stakes gambling would agree.

Edwards, 55, now admits that he had an affair with Hunter, now 44,in 2006, but denies that he is the father of the child she had in February. Andrew Young, another former Edwards aide, has said he is the baby's father. In a statement released Friday, Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test; doubtless we'll hear more on that issue.

So far, so sordid.

But what's really significant here is the cone of silence the nation's major newspapers -- including The Times -- and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign. Next, the Enquirer reported that the unmarried Hunter was pregnant. Still no mainstream media interest. Indeed, never in recent journalistic history have so many tough reporters so closely resembled sheep as those members of the campaign press corps who meekly accepted Edwards' categorical dismissal of the Enquirer's allegations. Late last month, Edwards came to Los Angeles, and Enquirer reporters trailed him to the Beverly Hilton hotel, where he met Hunter and her daughter in their room.

The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence. The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton. As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been "confirmed."

Well, there's confirming and then there's confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, "Find somebody and have them make a few calls." Then there's the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada's and says, "Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion."

Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer's story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.

Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside.

First, it was less than unlikely that Elizabeth Edwards was unaware of the allegations. (She says now she knew of the affair in 2006.) Second, Edwards' name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Barack Obama and as a possible attorney general or Supreme Court nominee -- posts in which character and candor matter. Finally, throughout his political career, Edwards has made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaigns.

It's interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed "95% to 96%" of the tabloid's reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception.

With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.

Link

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 10 2008, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>OK, how does this compute?

They're showing loops of Edwards lying his ass off just a week or two ago on TV 24/7 these days. If the guy had actually won the nomination, imagine how this scandal would be going down right now, and taking down the democrats with him.

What's looking to be even worse is that Edwards is getting caught in more and more lies as time goes on. No paternity test. He paid the woman $15K per month and denies doing that.

He's done. Stick a fork in him.</div>

Indeed, his plethora of lies in spite of everything is impressive.