I'm dismayed about Edwards' affair -- but I shouldn't even know about it

[brentspeak]

None of us should. Who gave the National Enquirer and Fox News -- and whoever it was who fed them this information in the first place -- the right to invade a family's privacy?

[bryant69]

1. First amendment I suppose. Edwards is a public figure.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DangerDave921]

2. Same way

that the "news" outlets cover every person who is out in the public eye.

I wish we could go back to the days of FDR where news outlets had some sense of decency regarding what was -- and wasn't -- news. Today is like People Magazine 24/7.

But it sells so it's here to stay. What did Brangelina's pics go for? 11 million?

[zorahopkins]

3. Our Insatiable Appetite For Celebrity News

"Who gave the National Enquirer and Fox News -- and whoever it was who fed them this information in the first place -- the right to invade a family's privacy?"

Look at E!, or VH1 or MTV or CNN or MSNBC or People magazine or In Touch or any other part of the media.

We (not you or I, perhaps) Americans have an insatiable appetite for celebrity news.

John Edwards is a celebrity.

Therefore, his "failings" are news.

[Bluebear]

4. .

[high density]

5. Edwards has admitted to it

That kind of blows alleged out of the water.

[Bluebear]

7. Yes I saw...

...crikey. :(

[MadHound]

6. Umm, our Constitution, freedom of the press, etc. etc.

Perhaps Johnny boy should have thought of the possible consequences of this affair before he started it. Consequences both for him and his family. I'm sure that this is tearing his wife up, especially given her current health.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for John, he was thinking with his little head instead of his big one, and got caught out.

Besides, some of us have this old fashioned notion about how such things reflect on one's character.

[nels25]

8. Mad Hound - Thank You!!

I could not agree more!

Some of us do have a sense of right and wrong (and not situational ethics) it is why I would like to see a lot more consistency from our party concerning matters like these.

Because I am sure you would agree if the name was changed to Huckabee or Romney the reaction on DU would be completely different.

And some wonder why independent voters (or people who just plain do not pay allot of attention to politics) had a less than positive opinion of Bill Clinton when it came to his ethics and moral standard.

I should not take away from his overall accomplishments as president, but I have had many people tell me over the last 12 or so years that they would have a large problem if their daughters brought home a young man who wanted to marry her with the morals and overall character of Bill Clinton.

Sometimes wrong is wrong and what do we accomplish by stating otherwise.

[brentspeak]

9. You've got a twisted sense of "right and wrong"

"Gosh, it's so awful that John Edwards did this to his family, isn't it? Maybe it would be best for the Edwards family if the news lets the entire world know all about it..."

[nels25]

10. I am not sure you understand my meaning.

As a matter of fact it would have been much better if this had never seen the light of day via the media, however 2 or more need to be considered.

1. He was a public figure running for our highest office who was asked about these allegations and who continued to lie about it until he could not consider to do so.

2. He could and should have informed his wife about this situation when it occurred and let the chips fall where they may, instead he as I have read not told his wife about this until it broke in to days news via MSM.

3. Certain conduct are just flat out wrong no matter who conducts it and what their political party is a blow job in the oval office demeans the office of the presidency of that there should be very little question. Did it rate a impeachment witch hunt no off course not and I am not going to argue that it should have.

On the other hand at the very least a admonishment or letter of censure should have been sent to President clinton indicating that those type of actions should not be tolerated (regardless of the perspective political party) and that those actions demean the office of the President of the United States.

By and large Edwards is getting the same treatment that Gary Hart received 20 years ago and for essentially the same reasons.

Some things are wrong and some things like wedding vows should be taken seriously.

I will grant you this that as much as possible these things should remain private between the people involved.

That only changes to some degree when the highest office in the Nation is involved, it requires being held to a very high standard of conduct (and rightly so in my opinion).

This what I mean, and all I am arguing for is a consistency of viewpoint, wrong or vile conduct is just that and it should not matter which political party the person conducting it belongs to.

If a persons political persuasion is taken into account in a reaction to wrong doing than it becomes no more that situational ethics and that is also abhorrent.

Any way I will be glad to debate more if you would like.

I am not looking for a fight just expressing an opinion that I would wager is not a popular one on DU.

Still want to see Obama and our party do extremely well in the November elections.

To me this type of thing really has very little to do with weather one is a progressive or not.

[pansypoo53219]

11. the gnews must have gossip!

noi missing blondes or shark attacks.