I hate to say it, but I think Edward's affair will cost Obama his lead in the polls.

[Dark]

He's high profile, and this is going to be spread over the airwaves (think Clinton's mess).

It won't kill Obama's chances, but I guarantee a few percentage points of voters are going to swing back to the middle, or even to the right after this.

Hopefully we can recover them.

What do you think?

(Note, I'm not trying to attack Edwards, simply stating the ripple effect of this announcement, as i see it.)

On Edit:

Since everyone says that Edwards isn't Obama, Id point out that Edwards polled third or second place throughout the race. He was our Democratic VIce President Nominee in the last election. He came so close to being 2nd in charge.

He is a representative of the party. His actions reflect on the Party, and represent its values to the average voter.

That is why this is a big story in the media. A Dem bigwig has finally been caught pushing something under the rug.

And to those of you who say it isn't a big deal, I'd assume that you'd say the same thing about a republican getting caught with a guy, a prostitute, or in an airport bathroom.

[FrenchieCat]

1. If you suggested here often enough, it could happen.

But the reality is that it is McCain who is similar in his story to John Edwards, not Obama.

Again though, if enough suckers ask this stupid question here enough times, then the media that reads this blog (and don't think they don't) could decide that if Democrats are stupid enough to believe that this is a possibility, it might be worth a try pushing.

In otherwords, Thanks for nothing.

[TheDonkey]

6. Interesting that this story might be bad for McCain. The media might actually report his adulterous

past if they keep banging the drum about Edwards (or at least Democratic surrogates)

[Demit]

16. Yah, really. These posters have completely bought into the media manipulation

of sh*t like this, and they don't even know it. The media rule their thinking. Their own common sense goes out the window. It's disgusting and sad. Hopefully for the posters, since they can't think for themselves, Obama will find a way to come out and reassure them that he did not in fact cheat on John Edwards' wife, because he is not John Edwards.

[Dark]

24. It's not about the media. Most Americans will know him as only a prominent Democrat,

just like Obama. That will be enough to link the two.

[Demit]

43. There are many more prominent Democrats who aren't caught up in a scandal at the moment.

Just like Obama. You act like the Democratic Party is an obscure group with just a few members. Your reasoning, such as it is, is a learned response to what the media has been feeding you. IF—and it's a big if— 'most Americans' (btw, I love how you know what most Americans are going to think) come to think "Oh, Edwards is a Democrat and he had an extramarital affair and Obama is a Democrat so therefore he must be a bad man too! Even though Vitter and Craig are Republicans and had sex scandals and McCain is a Republican but he is NOT a bad man too"—well, that will be because that is what the media blowhards will be pushing. They don't have to get away with it. You don't have to let them.

[Dark]

22. No, you'll see the drop long before they can repeat it.

This will be covered, and it will be linked to him as a Democrat, not as Edwards.

That will affect Obama.

[LostInAnomie]

2. Nope

The story won't make it past the weekend.

[gateley]

15. Good Morning America already has announced they

will have it covered on their Monday morning shows, complete with EXCLUSIVE information and EXCLUSIVE photos.

[LostInAnomie]

25. By then the Olympics and time will have made the story irrelevant.

[gateley]

32. I'll keep that in mind, and hope you're right. nt

[Dark]

52. No, this is gossip. It will be an important part of the Media. Hell, GMA is already running

a special segment on it.

And Edwards is a Dem, and Obama is a dem.

If A is similar to C (in the minds of the public) and B is similar to C, than A is similar to B.

[CTyankee]

70. No, it will take a little longer but it won't be much in the news in a week's time.

Of course, there will be a stir if/when Edwards submits his DNA for a paternity test. If it proves he is NOT the baby's father then that will be that. god help him if it proves that he was lying AGAIN. He better not be...

[nsd]

3. Nonsense.

Edwards isn't associated in the public's mind with Obama. He's just one of the guys who ran against Obama and lost. Really no different than Richardson or Biden or Dodd.

I don't think anything comes of this.

[Dark]

21. Richardson, Biden and Dodd weren't considered among the top three in the election.

He is connected to the Democrats. In A(DHD)merica, that's enough.

[nsd]

45. This year there was a top two -- not a top three.

After he lost Iowa, Edwards was finished, even if he stuck around for South Carolina. This year was all about Obama and Clinton. The others were quickly forgotten.

[Dark]

53. He wasn't quickly forgotten. He still wound up in the polls, getting a decent percentage.

And he was also our VP nominee in 2004. His actions reflect on the Dem Party -- and that includes Obama.

[nsd]

56. No he didn't.

His campaign was a complete failure. Edwards' high point was on the very first day (Iowa, Jan. 3, 30%). It was downhill from there. By the 4th contest less than four weeks later (South Carolina, Jan. 26), he only got 18%, despite basically betting his whole campaign on that state. Then he dropped out. In total, Edwards got 26 pledged delegates, whereas Obama and Clinton each got more than 1600. To compare him to them is ridiculous.

Where are you getting this stuff?

[Dark]

60. 18 percent is still respectable in the polls.

Not to mention he was our VP nominee in 2004.

[nsd]

61. 18% in a state on which he "bet the farm" is crap.

In total, maybe 37 million people voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Edwards got less than half a percent of that --> FAILURE

Who cares that he was the 2004 VP? In 2008, that translated into a big nothing for him.

Personal peccadillos reflect on the individual, not on the party.

[Phredicles]

4. I don't,

despite the media's best efforts no doubt. But they are, as I'm sure you'll agree, two completely different people.

[Dark]

33. So were Gore and Clinton, and the rest of the Dems in 2000.

nt

[NYC_SKP]

5. Nope, no big deal here, he wasn't high on the list for VP and McCain has a problem...

...if anything this might cast light on McCain's past, which would be a benefit.

[Dark]

30. You think they're going to talk about McCain's adulterous past? You have a lot of faith in the media

nt

[Lithos]

7. The focus here is not so much on Edwards

Though that is a good story, but rather to inoculate McCain on this point. People will now make the comparison only through the lens of Edward's own affair and in turn will be more inclined to shrug it off.

Will it cost Obama? Yes and no, it will cost him a point that people can use to hammer McCain on his own ethical failings, but it also doesn't directly hurt Obama either in that his polls won't be affected.

L-

[JeffR]

8. Oh, yes, totally!

For anyone who believed that Obama had some weird mind control over Edwards' penis. All two or three of those people are going to totally opt for Wandering Penis McCain. for sure.

Thanks for posting this urgent penis ripple warning.

[Dark]

26. Umm, it's not about who has control over who's penis. It's simply Edwards = Dem, Obama = Dem,

that's the extent of thinking your average american devotes to politics.

[JeffR]

38. Sorry, but I disagree.

I know a lot of stupid Americans - I may well be one myself - but there's no guilt by association here, no matter who spins it or how much it's spun.

[Dark]

54. There was in 2000, 2002 and 2006.

In each, association with a prominent representative of the party, a figure, in the first two with Clinton, and the last with Bush, cost seats to the respective party, and in 2000 an election.

So why will this election be diferent?

[JeffR]

55. Because we have a better candidate with a better team this time

and because Edwards was never, ever a credible contender this time. That's why.

[babylonsister]

9. No way. Edwards is Edwards, not Obama.

Did you forget about this?

http://www.republicanoffenders.com/

If anyone does, we can remind them.

[vaberella]

14. Yeah....I agree with you. It makes no sense that Edwards clandestine actions should affect Obama.

[Dark]

29. Just like Clinton's clandestine actions didn't affect Gore or Dems in 2000.

n/t

[JeffR]

41. They didn't.

Election fraud, the Florida SoS and 5 Supreme Court justices "affected" (stole) the election. Nothing more complicated than that. The Clenis had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

[Common Sense Party]

10. I don't see how or why it would. Edwards was Obama's rival,

not his running mate. I just don't see this being that big of a deal.

Most people will think: "A horndog philandering politician? What else is new? Let's watch the Olympics."

[Dark]

28. Yea, cause nobody paid attention to the scandals involving the Republicans sex lives,

and they were obscure senators, not presidential candidates.

Keep telling yourself that it's nothing important.

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. I despise aimless, alarmist posts like yours. You keep telling us the

sky is falling, but you offer no solution. What do you propose Dems do, or do you indulge in verbal diarrhea just for kicks?

[Dark]

46. Um, i'm not an alarmist. I am simply giving my opinion, The last Dem VP nominee was shagging

a woman while his wife is dying of cancer. That doesn't sound like a problem for the dems?

This is what Republicans were praying for.

As for what we can do, it's complicated. Obama has now lost this battle. It's over. Any 'family values' stunts will be shredded. All Repubs will have to do is say "Clinton, Edwards' and that cred will be lost.

I'd say, refocus the campaign on jobs, the economy and healthcare, and keep it centered on it while attacking McCain's foreign policy creds.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Any examples of "shagging while married" can be amplified x 10

when dealing with the family values crowd on the right. There's a growing list of republican offenses that can be brought to bear when the time comes. DU'er, babylonsister has posted that list if you care to take a look.

I just don't see the need for a true Democrat to post this shit on a public message board where it can be picked by God knows who.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Why do so many folks here think Obama is such a weak, helpless candidate?

He's not.

[Dark]

31. He's not weak, but he's not omnipotent. This is beyond his control.

He can't sto the effect, but he can repair the damage.

[liberalmuse]

12. I think it will increase his lead. n/t

[flamingdem]

13. I think it's good because Obama now looks better than ever (faithful) n/t

[gateley]

17. I doubt he'll lose the lead - maybe a point or two for just a minute, but that's all. nt

[Seldona]

18. Perhaps in the short-term.

But the more the media talks about this, the more it gives us a chance to push the McCain philandering. The whole situation sucks. I am simply commenting on those ripples you were talking about, and Edwards did a good thing in mentioning McCain.

[Dark]

35. You're right, it is good that he mentioned McCain.

But this will hurt Democrats, especially since Edwards could have been the VP.

[my3boyz]

19. The long vacation might but it won't have anything to do with the Edwards story.

During his long vacation I'm sure McCain will throw all kinds of stuff at Obama like he did when Obama was overseas.

[sfam]

20. Well gee, does this mean if Romney is caught sleeping around than McCain is finished?

Gimme a break. Why on earth would this affect Obama? Nevermind, don't answer that as there really isn't an answer other than, "It won't."

[Dark]

37. It will. He was a prominent presidential candidate for the Dems, as well as having been our VP

nominee.

That makes him an important figure in the Dem Party.

[Danger Mouse]

23. I don't think it'll directly hurt Obama.

[and-justice-for-all]

27. What the hell does Obama have to do with Edward's..

private matters?

[Dark]

34. They were both prominent, likely Democratic Presidential candidates.

that's enough for most Americans to associate them.

[and-justice-for-all]

40. That is sad and pathetic...

if it hurts Obama, then McBush should be raked over the coals for his adulterous affair.

[Dark]

44. Should is different than will.

Besides, it is old news with McCain, and the news story will center on the recent affair.

[americanstranger]

36. If Reverend Wright didn't hurt him, this won't.

There will be plenty of distance put between Obama and Edwards, and it'll be a peripheral story in about a week.

I think you're worrying about it way too much.

- as

[Dark]

39. Rev. Wright did hurt him, it just wasn't a mortal wound.

Neither is this, but every polling point we get, we get closer to a filibuster proof majortiy.

[Franc_Lee]

47. The same can be said of McCain, matter of it already started...

[anonymous171]

48. No. It will hurt John McCain because McCain did the exact same thing.

The only difference is that John Edwards had the decency to withdraw from the race.

[Dark]

50. It will hurt all democrats, and Obama is a dem, so he will be hurt.

It won't destroy his campaign, but it will dampen the poll numbers.

[JeffR]

58. Nothing like a cracker wang to depress poll numbers, right?

:rofl:

[file83]

49. I agree - it's guilt by association - a reminder of Clinton, etc...

It can't help. I also agree with you that it'll be a minor impact.

[osaMABUSh]

57. BS - by that rational Hillary shouldn't even be in the Senate

She's married to a cheater.

This hurts McCain (and Clinton not that it matters) because infildety is in the news and McCain has the same (or worse) past as Edwards present.

[Dark]

59. Campaigning in New York is very different than campaigning in the whole country

as Hillary apparently found out.

[Doug.Goodall]

62. The publicity of John Edwards is a pure attempt of the Main Stream Media to smear Democrats

It is an obvious case of guilt by association.

John Edwards is a private citizen. John Edwards holds no public office. John Edwards is not actively seeking any public office. The only connection between John Edwards and Barack Obama is that they are both registered Democrats.

I hope most clear thinking Americans see this for what it is, and ignore it.

[TexasObserver]

63. Nonsense.

[truthisfreedom]

64. Here's the equation: Obama=non-cheater. Edwards=cheater. McCain=multiple cheater, with proof.

Math doesn't lie.

[Teaser]

65. I think you're smoking Lysol

.

[bklyncowgirl]

66. Unless he was caught in the sack with Barack himself, I don't know how that would happen

I imagine the Democrats will throw John under the bus. He'll be "indisposed" during the convention and besides, isn't McCain the one who's known to have had an extramarital affair when he returned home from Vietnam and found his wife had been disfigured?

[skipos]

67. ABSOLUTELY!

It will remind voters of the fact that Obama cheated on his disabled wife with a multimillionaire a couple decades younger than him! Obama is dooooooomed! :eyes:

[CreekDog]

68. Many people believed the rumor prior to this

and that didn't hurt Obama's numbers.

so, i don't buy it.

[flpoljunkie]

69. Then, don't say it!

[Edgewater_Joe]

71. WHERE'S VICKIE ISEMAN????

That needs to be the retort from every one of us in response to the Edwards ad -- if the Enquirer will hound Edwards when he isn't a candidate, I goddamned well want to know about a lobbyist sleeping with an actual Presidential nominee.

Start demanding it rather than whining and bleating about how unfair it is and how it will hurt Obama and demand equal time and truth.

[barack the house]

72. I think Edwards has saved us they were going to milk this now he's come clean media will look bad to

bully him further. Edwards killed the story we should thank him really. There will be a temprorary hit then back to normal. If they scrutinize that we should inpsect teh abaundance of affairs mccain had with his first wife.

[Avalux]

73. WTF?? You guarantee a few percentage points?

This isn't going to hurt Obama; if anything - if the Dem reps do it right - it will hurt McCain, since he cheated on his ailing wife with Cindy years ago.

Geez.

[vaberella]

74. I didn't think this was going to cost him a lead. Now, I'm hearing noise screaming, "love child"

It's a bit unnerving. I never heard any such rumor or non-sense. It's the weirdest thing ever, and yet there is now DNA searches apparently and this rumor is gaining more ground and making more noise because of Edwards situation. I'm sure plans of this non-sense were in the works since earlier, however, I think people are really going to be digging even if it's not there---it might take on the same significance as the whole Michelle..."whitey" tape.

[saltpoint]

75. McCain's own dalliances are now closer to press scrutinty than they

were last week this time; Edwards is not the nominee; Obama's ground game is politically savvy.

[Thrill]

76. So Edwards banging someone on the side, will effect how people feel about Obama?

If so, people are more fucked up, than I already knew they were

[rasputin1952]

77. There is no connection, but the RW will try to put it together...

I don't think this means anything, and I'm holding off all bets until McCain makes a complete ass of himself in the first debate, that should be the stake in the heart for McCains' campaign.

Bottom line, McCain has nothing, so this will be used...but since McCain has nothing, this is essentially irrelevant.

[DailyGrind51]

78. If Rove was running Obama's campaign, "infidelity" would become

a "family values" issue, targeting McCain.