John Edwards cheats on his wife - as she fights cancer for her life!

[Ignignokt]

He's a politician. Try to keep up.

what?

I thought public servants were held to a higher standard, i guess the politcs of the 90's watered down our expectations of politicians.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't like threads like this.

I don't like John Edwards.

However... In a sense, I must defend him, and that pisses me off.

This is a situation that should remain personal between him and those around him. Why do people make such a big thig about this? We all know liberals have no sense of real morals. Just morals that look good for public view. Why is it news if it's true? If anything, we are elevating him to the status of Clintonhood. May I suggest we just drop this thread as nothing news worthy.

[Whisky Dog]

We're also not dogs, and have the ability to act, or not act, on our feelings and desires.

Being a dog or not doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

If your feelings and desires change over time, and you want to force yourself to suffer because of an ignorant decision you made when you were younger and a different person, then go right ahead buddy. Make the psychiatrists and pharm companies richer at your expense.

[101A]

Being a dog or not doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

If your feelings and desires change over time, and you want to force yourself to suffer because of an ignorant decision you made when you were younger and a different person, then go right ahead buddy. Make the psychiatrists and pharm companies richer at your expense.

Unfortunately for us all, you have stated what is most likely the majority view today. Very, very sad.

[DarkReign]

Unfortunately for us all, you have stated what is most likely the majority view today. Very, very sad.

While you may have a point, so does he.

I see plenty of marriages (as Im sure you do too) that are horrible arrangements for both parties.

It usually leads to escapism via drinking/illegal drugs/prescription drugs and the like.

Its pathetic really.

[Whisky Dog]

Unfortunately for us all, you have stated what is most likely the majority view today. Very, very sad.

It's really just a difference of point of view.

I don't think it's sad at all. Actually, I think it's a natural evolution of the species and our society that reflects the radical changes that have taken place over the years. As little as 40 or 50 years ago people entered into marriages for two main reasons - one was social conditioned and one was necessity. People were conditioned by religion and society to feel a need to partner off in a life long "til death do us part" marriage, but there was also a big advantage in doing so for survival reasons. The fact was that a man and woman could partner off and survive much better together than they could apart. By survive I mean straight logistics like having food to eat and shelter in which to reside. With today's society and advancements it is really no longer necessary for a man and woman to enter a life long bond in order to survive. Both are fully capable of surviving on their own, or with the monumental advancements in communication and travel - find many more suitable mates to be with than anyone could possibly have in one lifetime. Therefore, with necessity out the window there is no other reason other than old fashioned social conditioning to commit to one person for the rest of your life.

[101A]

It's really just a difference of point of view.

I don't think it's sad at all. Actually, I think it's a natural evolution of the species and our society that reflects the radical changes that have taken place over the years. As little as 40 or 50 years ago people entered into marriages for two main reasons - one was social conditioned and one was necessity. People were conditioned by religion and society to feel a need to partner off in a life long "til death do us part" marriage, but there was also a big advantage in doing so for survival reasons. The fact was that a man and woman could partner off and survive much better together than they could apart. By survive I mean straight logistics like having food to eat and shelter in which to reside. With today's society and advancements it is really no longer necessary for a man and woman to enter a life long bond in order to survive. Both are fully capable of surviving on their own, or with the monumental advancements in communication and travel - find many more suitable mates to be with than anyone could possibly have in one lifetime. Therefore, with necessity out the window there is no other reason other than old fashioned social conditioning to commit to one person for the rest of your life.

Sad.

You don't mention children, family, etc....

Marriage exists solely as a social/business relationship?

Like I said; sad.

[Whisky Dog]

Sad.

You don't mention children, family, etc....

Marriage exists solely as a social/business relationship?

Like I said; sad.

I never said anything about business, but isn't every marriage a social relationship?

I didn't mention children because I didn't want to make this a long rant... but since you brought it up...

People have a responsibility to raise their children in the most stable environment possible (although that seems to be a major problem in our society). If that environment is with the two parents then they should do everything they have to to make sure that the environment is stable and nurturing. BUT... once the children are grown adults there is no longer a need to be bonded to another person if either one of you are miserable in the relationship. That's just self torture.

I never said that people should neglect their children or just do whatever they want without regard to any responsibilities, but people take these social pressures too far. They waste their life being miserable and self medicating just to get by because they are too scared to break the "social code" so to speak.

The whole problem stems from the social stigma that arouse with the whole "death do us part" marriage system. It's an interesting phenomena. Humans are wired by nature to be social beings for survival reasons because up until recent times the only way for humans to survive the elements and nature was to bond together into tight knit groups. These "instincts" are the primary reason for our social structure and nature, and also the reason for social conditioning - to keep everyone in line. If you were outside of the social boundaries you were exiled, and until the last few hundered years that meant certain death. This outdated wiring mixed with our very advanced modern capabilities causes a lot of confict. No longer does every individual in our society face certain death for breaking social conditioning. No longer is the ins ution of marriage a necessity. No longer do constrictions on communication and transportation create a scarcity of resources (in this case potential mates) to choose from. We live in a global society where I can wake up in Dallas, Texas and fly to anywhere in the world within a matter of hours and meet a woman to reproduce with. This idea was a complete fantasy until the last century.

Basically, the point is that all of these advancements and changes in our society give us a world where some of our social conditioning is rendered obsolete, and the "til death do us part" marriage system is one of them. The reason people still feel the need to marry and feel a stigma attached to not being married to the same person until death is because our wiring or "instincts" as a species evolves much slower than the changes in our environment. We still believe it is a necessity because we're still told it is a necessity. We're basically running on out dated software.

I'm not going to go into all of the rest of it, but we're going to just have to accept that we are on two completely different wave lengths here. You and I live in two completely different realities, and that's fine.

BTW, check out the Triune Brain model for some interesting insight into how and why we are wired the way we are... if that kind of stuff interests you.

[ashbeeigh]

I just come in here every once in a while...but I have a story to go along with this John Edwards thing.

When The Enquirer broke this story he was in Los Angeles after doing press for the Half in Ten campaign he's working on. His next stop was Houston. At the press conference, again for the Half in Ten campaign, they opened the floor for questions, most preferably about the campaign he's working on and instead one person from the press asked him about the story in the national Enquirer and his response was, "I don't respond to that trash." My boss was there and she said that he looked at his cell phone throughout the press conference/trip to Houston obviously preoccupied by the whole "scandal."

Not a big deal, except that my boss is a jerk and didn't let me go to Houston to meet him as this whole thing is going on. I wanted to see him get asked the questions!

[Nbadan]

Much ado about nothing....

In October, the woman posted an online statement denying the first story. In December, an Edwards campaign worker claimed to be the father of the woman's then-unborn child.

News Observer


The facts support the explanation that this woman had an affair with one of Edwards' staff and became pregnant. So, there is no way the Enquirer could draw any conclusions of any kind with the evidence they have brought forward thus far.

Unless the Enquirer has more facts and better evidence, this is a smear, and I hope she sues the pants off the Enquirer if it is baseless. -- invasion of privacy. She has been a very private person about this matter, in case you have not noticed.

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON — The birth certificate of a child whom a tabloid newspaper claims was fathered by former Democratic senator John Edwards of North Carolina doesn't identify the child's father.

The do ent, obtained through a routine records request, shows that Frances Quinn Hunter was born last Feb. 27 to Rielle Hunter, a videographer who worked on Edwards' presidential campaign last year.

But the space for the name of the father is blank, although the child was born more than two months after Hunter identified Andrew Young, Edwards' campaign finance director, as the father of her then unborn child. Young claimed paternity in a statement from his lawyer that was posted on the political blog mydd.com.

... Asked Thursday why no father was listed on the birth certificate, Hunter's attorney, Robert Gordon of New York, said, "A lot of women do that."

Reminded that he and Hunter had publicly identified her child's father two months earlier to the National Enquirer, Gordon said, "That's a personal matter between them."

Linky

Won't hold my breath for the Edwards apology from everyone who posted he was cheating...

[Anti.Hero]

lulz

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Linky

Won't hold my breath for the Edwards apology from everyone who posted he was cheating...

Good thing you didn't.

[1369]

Much ado about nothing....



News Observer


The facts support the explanation that this woman had an affair with one of Edwards' staff and became pregnant. So, there is no way the Enquirer could draw any conclusions of any kind with the evidence they have brought forward thus far.

Unless the Enquirer has more facts and better evidence, this is a smear, and I hope she sues the pants off the Enquirer if it is baseless. -- invasion of privacy. She has been a very private person about this matter, in case you have not noticed.

[2centsworth]

People make mistakes. He's going to pay the price, but the public should give him a second chance after making ammends.

[TeyshaBlue]

Linky

Won't hold my breath for the Edwards apology from everyone who posted he was cheating...

self-pwnage?

[Brutalis]

Politician cheated on his wife? Bull . You know all those guys are sober and straight with their life. ... ............... .. . . . . . ..

Okay well at least he wasn't caught ing another dude in a bathroom like some other Repubs were.

[boutons_]

Edwards did exactly what Presidential Candidate McAnkleBiter did, cheat on his wife.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, what a .

[balli]

This pretty much sums it up for me-

I am incredibly annoyed that we have to waste any air, print, or pixel time on this. Why do I care about some dude's marriage and marital problems—unless he did something that in any way abuses public power? Comstockery, as I wrote in CJR once upon a time. Celebtainment and domestic voyeurism disguised as politics.

I just don't care what politicians do with their zippers, so long as their policies and votes are in order. By nature, national politicians are people who want power and want to be admired, even adored, to an absurd degree. Really, what emotionally healthy person would run for president of the United States? You have to have some ego issues to even imagine it might be possible.

Some large proportion of them will mess around. I. Do. Not. Care.

Was there any abuse of power—sexual harassment, assault, coercion? Did anyone get pinned up against the wall and groped against her or his will? Any abuse of public funds? Any manipulation to get a lover or family member a public job? Any payment to use someone else's body, which I find more and more appalling the more I learn about the sex trade? Then I have the emotional energy to be outraged.

But private dalliances, seductions, and oversize sexual appe es? Eh. Not my problem. Leave the poor family alone.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

[1369]

This pretty much sums it up for me-



http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

That's all well and good, but he blatantly lied to the public.

I could give two s less what he did in his personal life, but when called on it he should have owned up to it.

[balli]

Meh, I don't give a if Edwards lied to me or America about it. It shouldn't have been our business to begin with.

Incidentally, I watched an interesting do entary on Larry Flint last night and was intrigued by his (successful) attempts during the Clinton impeachment to expose GOP members of congress for infidelity. Very evident hypocrisy. I wish instead of talking about ruined political futures we could just face the fact that powerful politicians have s and often use them. The only time a public figure's infidelity should be a problem in my eyes, is when it creates a scandle or policy that negatively impacts the public well-being. Edwards didn't do that, despite his denial. I could care less.

[Nbadan]

Edwards did exactly what Presidential Candidate McAnkleBiter did, cheat on his wife.

Except Edwards stayed with his sick wife.....so the National Enquirer finally got one right, even a broken clock is right twice a day...I hope that all those who defended the 'credibility' of the National Enquirer and publications like it will continue to do so and not just because it involved John Edwards...who by the way is finally relevant....

[T Park]

Meh, I don't give a if Edwards lied to me or America about it. It shouldn't have been our business to begin with.

Incidentally, I watched an interesting do entary on Larry Flint last night and was intrigued by his (successful) attempts during the Clinton impeachment to expose GOP members of congress for infidelity. Very evident hypocrisy. I wish instead of talking about ruined political futures we could just face the fact that powerful politicians have s and often use them. The only time a public figure's infidelity should be a problem in my eyes, is when it creates a scandle or policy that negatively impacts the public well-being. Edwards didn't do that, despite his denial. I could care less.

The only problem with Larry Flynt's witch hunt was, he was looking for infidelity. when the whole thing was about lieing under oath.

That whole small bit was looked over.

[PixelPusher]

The only problem with Larry Flynt's witch hunt was, he was looking for infidelity. when the whole thing was about lieing under oath.

That whole small bit was looked over.

(cough, cough)...Scooter Libby...(cough)