Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Edwards: I don't want a saint. I want a politician.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
planetc Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 03:25 PM
Original message
John Edwards: I don't want a saint. I want a politician.
I am sixty-five years old. When I was born, Franklin Roosevelt was President. Dwight Eisenhower began his invasion of Europe when I was 1-1/2 years old. I was 20 when they shot John Kennedy. The first vote I cast was for Robert Kennedy for Senator of New York. Thereafter, I voted for a number of noble Democrats who always lost until I voted for Bill Clinton, who won.

Now, this is what I know of John Edwards: he was born to a poor family. He nevertheless made his way through college and law school. To do that, you need brains and a capacity for hard work. He then embarked on a career that made him a millionaire by working on behalf of people who had been the victims of malpractice or of large incidentally evil corporations. Then he got elected to the Senate. Then he ran for president. His personal life includes one marriage to Elizabeth Edwards. That marriage had been tested by two events that that many of us pray won't happen to us, the death of a son, and Elizabeth's cancer. The Edwardses had two more children, and John stayed married to, and proud of, Elizabeth. Then the marriage was tested again, when John made a mistake in 2006. Now, according to him and his wife, one of the first things he did after he made this mistake was confess to Elizabeth, and start atoning for his sin, his breaking of the bond of trust between them. Since I cannot see into anyone else's soul, I have no right to judge John Edwards, but apparently Elizabeth has forgiven him and they are standing firmly together in the family they created together. I repeat: it is none of my business--I should not even know about Mr. Edwards' mistake unless he were running on a platform criminalizing adultery.

I really don't care what people's personal sins, or vices, or weaknesses are when they are running for public office. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, and souls, and families, is none of my business unless their sins affect the way they do their jobs. If they smoke a joint, or drink to excess, that's fine with me as long as they don't try to drive a car anywhere until they're fit to drive. If the President is committing serial adultery with exciting women, and also helping to inspire America to a great leap forward in civil rights, and public service, and competitive space programs, I do not need to know about the adultery. Because we have never elected a robot, or an android, or a saint to the presidency.



What I want to know about any and all candidates are their positions on important areas of policy, how much and what kind of experience they have, and any aspect of their character that has been made visible by their public work and actions. They can play sex games with sock puppets while smoking nasturtiums for all I care, but if they will reduce the national debt to zero, and then proceed to a surplus, I want them in the White House.

Now, I don't know much about John Edwards' policies, but I heard him say recently, between the jokes on the Colbert show, that he wanted to eliminate poverty in 30 years. YES! YES! Mr. Edwards -- I want you or someone like you in the White House. I want somebody who thinks big, and appears to have the smarts and the determination and the will and the capacity for hard work to try to do that. I don't know whether Mr. Edwards is an impractical visionary, but his previous life history shows a capacity to take this world as he finds it, and do something about the most glaring injustices. YOU GO, John Edwards.

In 1983, I met a woman who was within 7 months of her death from cancer. She had already been fighting it for about 10 years, and she was losing, and she knew it. When I met her, she was trying to complete the raising of four teenagers while living on welfare. She had not always lived on welfare. The children's father was at that time living in a nearby state with his second wife and their infant. He had apparently not been able to find a way to deal with his first wife's illness. Margaret (not her name), was a superb human being, bright, strong, determined, and fighting several battles, the most important of which she knew she would lose. I cannot see into the soul of Margaret's first husband, but I could see the effect on her of trying to raise her family without the support of a partner.

John and Elizabeth Edwards are still together, still supporting each other, still raising their children. To tell you the truth, I find them an even more admirable couple today than I did before their private pain was exposed to the glare of publicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pyrzqxgl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. I supported John Edwards and the things he stood for & I still do.
I'm still hoping that he will have a place in an Obama administration. We need people like John Edwards in government &
we sure don't need to get involved in his private business. That John & Elizabeth have worked it out is good enough for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Supported and support him, still. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I want a politician who has enough sense to keep his dick in his pants.
I mean, seriously--if you held or were running for a major political office (president, say, or governor of New York), and you KNEW your opponents were gunning for you, doing everything they could to trip you up and embarrass you, would you not, then, take EXTRA care in matters of personal conduct? It's not a moral issue for me--that's between Edwards and his family. It's about judgment. The guy made a choice, and he fucked up. It's not as bad as his Yea vote on the IWr, or his co-sponsorship of the Patriot Act, but like those two epic fuckups it accrues, and it tells us something about the man. And that something isn't good, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Well said. It is about judgment (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Unfortunately, most, yes, most, of the best and most humane national leaders
Edited on Sat Aug-09-08 05:08 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
seem to have had trouble controlling their libido, with plenty of attractive women all around most of the time. It's like 'showbiz'. (Except that it's been said in the UK, that politics is 'showbiz' for ugly people.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. So, what's Edwards' excuse?
Have you seen pictures of his gf? Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. For what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sewsojm Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. I used to like and look up to John Edwards
Not anymore, he's as Worthless as every other Sorry SOB that Stabs his family in the back!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Sure you did....
And of course you're perfectly qualified to judge him becaaaaaaause.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Well, we face many disappointments as we grow older. Poor old Senator
was apparently as shocked as Little Red Riding Hood when the wolf dispensed with his disguise, that a President (Bill Clinton) might not be a truly upright citizen in every way. It was a very sad spectacle on CNN, as I BELIEVE he murmured how he could never believe in the honesty of a President again. It was something like that, if my memory serves me. Imagine, a politician... and.. and ...a lawyer...!

It was certainly a hilarious spectacle to see a grizzled, old Republican Senator simpering about his cruelly disabused innocence, like Little Red Riding Hood might have.

Don't get me wrong. I like the old guy. Which is unusual re a Republican politician. He was apparently just playing the game as it's played over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Since when did fidelity elevate someone to sainthood?
This is fucking ridiculous. Don't cheat on your wife. It's that simple. But thanks for the nice straw man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. About the same time infidelity made one Satan.
Where's this "strawman" you speak of?





A 'strawman' is the misrepresentation of someone's position. Where has the OP done anything of the sort except state their own opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. During every campaign, we accept that candidates have to make compromises
None of us ever agrees on everything the candidate stands for, since we know that the most important thing is for that candidate to be elected so that s/he can implement the broad policy about which we agree - nominating better Supreme Court Justices, for example.

John Edwards - whom I supported, voted for, gave money, and shook hands in both 2004 and 2008 - had an obligation to get elected so that he could do all the things that he promised.

Like it or not, we do judge candidates on their "moral standing." We judge them on their background, on their race, their churches and their families. This is a fact that wishing it were not does not make it go away.

For him to be have an affair and to think that he could hide it and then run fro President was a poor judgment. Worse, he cheated not only on Elizabeth - and I agree that this is between them - he cheated all of us who put our hopes on him, who sent him money and supported and voted for him.

In these days of the Internet, and YouTube, and blogs, every public official is constantly under a magnifying glass. This is a fact. You cannot hide any blemishes.

Thus, he should have at least come clean about this before he declared his candidacy. It would have made him a better candidate. Who knows, he may have been our nominee by now.

Like many, it scares me to think what would have happened had he been our nominee. Such revelations, now, would have sink our chances to win.

And claiming that McCain cheated, too, is irrelevant. At least his supporters have known, or should have known, about his affairs before they chose him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. It says a lot to me that Elizabeth forgave him and that they're still together.
I still don't like what he did, but I'm not married to him and can't make that decision for Elizabeth. Not everyone divorces after infidelity, even with a possible baby involved, and it's their marriage.

I hope both of them can get through the media malestrom and that John can still be AG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. There are other parts to this story besides infidelity.
Edited on Sat Aug-09-08 05:07 PM by nsd
1) Money. 2) Cover-up. 3) Baby.

1) Edwards paid Hunter more than $100 K from his One America Committee for video work for which she wasn't obviously qualified. Using anti-poverty political donations to pay off his mistress (if that's what this was) is certainly slimy and possibly illegal.

2) After the story first broke, Edwards' finance chairman paid Hunter another $100 K. Was this hush money? As the cliche goes, the cover-up is what gets you rather than the crime (or indiscretion) itself.

3) There's a baby involved. Maybe Edwards is telling the truth on this and it's not his, but the spectacle of a presidential candidate forced to take a paternity test would have killed us. That's the stuff of Springer and Maury Povich -- not the kind of thing a prospective president should have to do.

Edwards was a selfish jerk for running.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. if he used public funds to pay for sex, is it still a private vice?
What people do in the privacy of their own homes, and souls, and families, is none of my business unless their sins affect the way they do their jobs.
In 2006, Edwards was widely seen as a likely presidential candidate but he had not yet formally declared his intentions. At an event with supporters and donors at a New York City restaurant, Hunter introduced herself to some of Edwards' staff and gave them her business cards, saying she was a producer, and was allowed to briefly meet Edwards, according to accounts given by Hunter and Edwards' staff.

Less than a month later, she and her video production company, Midline Productions, had a six-month contract worth more than $100,000 to produce a series of videographed "Webisodes" following Edwards on the campaign trail, which included trips to Africa and Iowa. The videos were posted on Edwards' political action committee. They have since returned to the Internet on YouTube.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/08/20080808edwards-hunter0808-ON.html

John Edwards' political action committee paid his mistress, Rielle Hunter, $114,000--ostensibly to produce four short web videos for the campaign, ABC News reports. Given that Edwards has now finally admitted he had an affair with Hunter (and, according to the National Enquirer, which first broke the affair story, fathered a "love child"), it's possible that this is the first instance of hush money essentially being laundered through YouTube.

Also notable: Rielle Hunter may be the best-paid web video producer in the business.

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/8/john-edwards-affair-hush-money-laundered-through-youtube-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planetc Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Yes, he seems to have misused campaign contributions, on the one hand...
On the other, he got something besides sex for the campaign funds he spent. He may have overspent for what he got, but web episodes were produced. If there was a contract, and there probably was, it was fulfilled. I doubt he could be prosecuted for it. He's a good lawyer, and if he were ever prosecuted for wasting campaign funds, he would have the good sense to hire a good lawyer to defend himself. And I find it doubtful that the child is his. If he says the affair was over when the child was conceived, I believe him. Mr. Edwards certainly seems to have lost his head, but I doubt he lost his brain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. THANK YOU planetc! Wisdom is always based on humanity in the best sense of the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. And fucking around makes him as electable as Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Your days are over buddy boy. The left will come back in a big way
with this depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. It won't be John Edwards leading the way. He's toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Edwards comes from the centrist DLC faction (of Joe Lieberman fame)
Edwards founds New Democratic Coalition for DLC
Filed under: DLC, Democrats, Senate — is @ 8:34 pm

New Dems Organize in Senate

Though U.S. Senators have always played a key role in the DLC and the New Democrat movement, we’re pleased to see that nine senators have taken the formal step of organizing a New Democrat Coalition to work with the existing 64-member NDC in the House. The founding members of the Senate NDC include: Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/dlc/

Compare to "New Labour", contrast with "the left" as seen on our centre-centre-left-to-theocratic-right political spectrum:

“Voters have every right to ask, ‘Were you telling the truth then, John, or are you telling the truth now?’ And Senator Edwards has a responsibility to answer,” Kucinich said.
<...>

“Now,” Kucinich continued, “we have a candidate who voted for the war and voted to fund the war, but says he against it. He voted for the Patriot Act, and now he complains about its abuses. He voted for China Trade in 2000 knowing that Americans would be hurt, and now he’s decrying the unsafe products pouring into this nation from China. He supported nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, now he’s against it.” “Will the real John Edwards please stand up?” Kucinich said.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WesDem/175

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Whoa - zing, Dennis! No wonder Edwards wanted to cull those who were
"not serious contenders" from the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Aren't you a right-wing Democrat, gately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Politically, Churchill didn't know which way he was pointing most of the time.
Edited on Sun Aug-10-08 10:10 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
And when he did, it was ugly. But he was a great war leader. Set an imperialist thief to catch a thief.

John Edwards didn't know which way he was pointing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's been learning how to be a great peace-time leader, from a base that already terrified the right wing. And you can see from the hostility towards him that he still terrifies them. Maybe they're scared of Obama choosing him as VP. Another double assassination wouldn't look good, even by their standards. You wouldn't put it past them to hanker after Obama's assassination.

To compare Edwards with Lieberman is too sick to be even laughable. He should sue you for defamation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. so Churchill was an Ur-Blair?
I thought the go along with Hitler idea was more the third way's way, not counting the fascists awaiting 'liberation', but I understand Sir Winston was no Green & Bow or whatever passes for radical-not-separatist in your part. As for Edwards and Lieberman, no juxtaposition is required:
S.J.RES.46

Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. <CT>

COSPONSORS(16), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Allard, Wayne <CO> - 10/2/2002
Sen Baucus, Max <MT> - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan <IN> - 10/2/2002
Sen Breaux, John B. <LA> - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim <KY> - 10/4/2002
Sen Domenici, Pete V. <NM> - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John <NC> - 10/3/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse <NC> - 10/2/2002

Sen Hutchinson, Tim <AR> - 10/2/2002
Sen Johnson, Tim <SD> - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. <LA> - 10/2/2002
Sen McCain, John <AZ> - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch <KY> - 10/2/2002
Sen Miller, Zell <GA> - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom <SC> - 10/10/2002
Sen Warner, John <VA> - 10/2/2002

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P:

If you believe in Redemption, fine, but Edwards was born-again politically like bush not drinking on camera.

In a major story today about the relationship between Edwards and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, the Times reported, “Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.” Edwards was a co-sponsor of the 2002 war authorization resolution, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WesDem/175

“I thought it was important, if I believed that, to take responsibility for it and take that responsibility publicly,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a telephone interview.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2867.html

Mr. Edwards looked genuinely surprised, and almost indignant, when the ABC correspondent Bob Woodruff suggested that his career was coming to a close. “I don’t think anything has ended,” he said firmly. “My Lord and my wife have forgiven me, so I am going to move on.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10stanley.html?em
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. I'd say Kucinich is now considerably more electable than Edwards. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. yeah, but in terms of absolute electability rather than relative electability he is unchanged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planetc Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-09-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. No Democrat is electable if the Republicans want to win the seat
because the elections are fixed. Florida was fixed in 2000, and Ohio in 2004, and dozens of other races in other states possibly going back to the 1970's. Or much earlier. The people who are elected are the people the vote counters want announced as the winners.

I personally find it stunning that we are still arguing about images and how well campaigns are run, when we have absolutely no idea how many ways there are to fix an election, and how many of them were used in the most recent one. With computerized voting, and, even worse, computerized vote tallying, we have no idea who won what race.

But we continue to pump money into a system so totally corrupt that only Dennis Kuchinich and the United States Marines could fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC