What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
77 Comments
- Jordan117, on 05/11/2009, -1/+41Are you kidding me? A secret affair is not damage-control material when you're running for an office as crucial as the presidency. If Edwards had been the nominee, the revelation would have destroyed his candidacy, and if he had been elected, it would have crippled his administration. Actively campaigning for such a high office at such a critical time when you know you have a ticking time bomb in your closet is near-criminally irresponsible. I applaud the staffers for planning to prevent that.
- clvngodess, on 05/10/2009, -17/+50"They said that they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to be the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign."
How ***** chicken-***** of them. That's not the behavior of Democrats or responsible adults or campaign professionals.
Since when did Democrats become the morality police?
If they were responsible professionals, and responsible adults, they would not have conspired against the man. They would have taken him aside for a discussion about how his PERSONAL life might effect the campaign and nomination. Then they would strategize and sort out all possible scenarios, LIKE ADULTS, and make a decision based on a reasonable and ADULT discussion.
I didn't support the Dems or Repubs in this campaign. However, what a man does in or to his marriage is not my business. This affair was between three people, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards and the other woman. Period. - dtr300, on 05/10/2009, -4/+35I'm glad he didn't get the nomination, and I was an early supporter. I wonder why these staffers didn't go and confront him directly?
- smemily, on 05/11/2009, -1/+31At first I agreed with you, but at the same time, if he'd gotten the nomination and then had the affair come out, the candidacy would've been handed to McCain/Palin on a platter. If his staffers knew they were dealing with someone so arrogant that he was willing to have an affair while campaigning for president, and knew that information would come out and doom everyone to Palin as VP... well, I think the staffers were in the right, and I'm very disappointed in Edwards because I really liked him as a candidate, at first.
- mediablitz, on 05/10/2009, -5/+29The incredible hubris of Edwards, to conduct an affair while running for President. I was a supporter of his. To see how he would let his ego rule his judgment is pitiful.
As for clvngodess saying "it was no ones business". The judgment of a potential president is EVERYONE'S business. His ability to lie is everyone's business. It is extremely naive of you to suggest it should be a non-issue. - seanstuart, on 05/11/2009, -1/+19If they did, they might have been dismissed from the campaign and therefore unable to act if need be. I think they did the right thing in remaining covert. I was also an Edwards supporter - he was actually my initial preference to win. But what a stupid, stupid ass. If he had gotten the nomination, that affair could have easily left us with McCain and ... christ .... Palin in the White House right now.
- woahwoahwoah, on 05/11/2009, -2/+17Good thing Edwards didn't win, because this revelation would have been pretty humiliating for the Democrats, especially if it became public after the DNC. He acted very shamelessly, continuing with his candidacy when he knew he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife. What happened to his supposed compassion for the suffering?
- Jordan117, on 05/11/2009, -5/+19Good for them. If Edwards had won the nomination, it would have been disastrous for the country (VP Palin, anyone?). I've never really liked him, and the fact that he was willing to gamble the future of the country on keeping his dalliances secret only further proves to me that he's a first-class douchebag.
- booksnmore4you, on 05/10/2009, -0/+13Apparently they had done all that and met with denial.
- yevkasem, on 05/11/2009, -0/+11they had a picture of him eating mustard.
- asgardshill, on 05/11/2009, -1/+12Or starting multiple wars to get back at that dastardly bag of pretzels that almost choked him to death. Or sending thousands of American soldiers to their deaths so Blackwater could make a big ol' pile of money.
- elo91, on 05/11/2009, -1/+11Clinton was a pretty good President and he couldn't keep it in his pants for more than a few hours at a time. Not saying that makes what Edwards did OK though. If there is a hell, I'd say cheating on your wife while she has cancer is a pretty good way to obtain a first class ticket. Just saying it doesn't necessarily detract from a person's ability to run the government.
- BigPapi, on 05/11/2009, -0/+8If I recall correctly, McCain cheated on his ex-wife after she was crippled in a car accident. If Edwards had become the nominee, we would've had the douchebag 1 vs douchebag 2 dilemma. Elections are much easier when there's only one douchebag involved.
- scottknick, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7I does if the revelation of that affair will seriously impair your ability to run the government.
- kalosnycta, on 05/11/2009, -3/+9Those campaign workers are even worse than Edwards. If you're having a crisis of conscience, then quit immediately and tell the press about your findings. Be a whistleblower, but don't accept a man's money, live on it, and then conspire against him. If you can't work on the Edwards campaign in good conscience, then quit.
- scottknick, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6Right. You're doubtless talking about Rod Parsley and John Hagee, and I agree that McCain's close association with these racists, homophobes and anti-Semites made his election completely unacceptable.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6"John Edwards' Staff Planned to Sabotage His Campaign"
Too bad he beat them to it. - scottknick, on 05/11/2009, -1/+6We don't know if these staffers' doomsday scenario included confrontation or not. But the fact that John Edwards would attempt to become President -- knowing the stakes involved for the nation, and knowing that digging up personal dirt was the only weapon the GOP had left -- was a deeply delusional thing to do. It was insane -- and I use that word advisedly. The fact that he would ask his wife to play along, knowing this would be a ticking time-bomb in his campaign, was insane. And the fact that poor Elizabeth Edwards would agree to this, would be able to "compartmentalize" the man on the right side of the issues from the man whose behavior had foolishly jeopardized his entire political career, shows that she was part of the delusion. So is the fact that she seems angrier at the other woman than she does at Edwards. So there's no reason to assume that confrontation would have worked. They were both clearly out of their minds at that point.
- kalosnycta, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5A 'sleazy ambulance chaser?' He won his legal settlements fair and square. I'd even go so far as to say they were good for the country, too; the financial disaster has shown us the consequences of trusting big companies to 'work it out' for themselves. At least Edwards worked for his wealth, unlike W., who simply had his Dad call up every one of his employers and tell them to give his son a job.
You wouldn't have voted for Edwards even if he'd been a model citizen every day of his life. I don't excuse Hunter, but I have to roll my eyes when conservatives pretend they would have voted for him ''if only...'' If only hell froze over is more like it. - sv650touring, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4maybe elo91's use of the term "ambulance chaser" should have been expanded upon. I know that many of Edwards major cases were suing OB/GYNs for "causing" cerbral palsey in the babies when they were delivered. Most doctors will tell you this is utter nonsense.
"If your kid doesn't get into Harvard, sue the OB/GYN" - something my old doctor boss told me.
On the other hand, he also sued over a pool filter which disembowelled a 5 year old girl, and the company knew it was happening (12 prior similar claims) and did not add warning labels. This seems to be a more reasonable lawsuit to my non-expert mind, but it doesn't make up for the garbage lawsuits.
Most of the lawyers I know are actually good people. However if you want to really be famous, you need to win cases that shouldn't be won. - inactive, on 05/11/2009, -2/+5Inaccurate. John Edwards was never in any danger of getting the nomination.
- mannajar, on 05/11/2009, -4/+7Monogomy is not natural.
- catfish182, on 05/11/2009, -2/+5what about John McCain? his campaign was sabotaged.
I did not vote for him but McCain was not running his campaign at all. - inactive, on 05/11/2009, -7/+10seriously, did anyone NOT expect this guy to be slimy?
- rpgmakr, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3seanstuart wrote: "If they did, they might have been dismissed from the campaign and therefore unable to act if needed to be."
- yutt, on 05/11/2009, -1/+4I don't understand how Edwards career as a lawyer, for patients against doctor malpractice, is some spun as a negative.
How does that even work out in your mind? That patients don't deserve legal representation? That doctors are never neglectful or malicious in their practices? That our legal system shouldn't protect patients from dangerous medical practitioners? - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3I'm kind of amazed that after the past 8 years, people here would think that Edwards claim that "they were out to get me" is nonsense.
Ross Perot claimed that the Bush family dirty tricks squad was out to get him. He TOLD us all years ago, what NAFTA would do to jobs in this country. He told us that it isn't about "good ideas" of any party -- that lobbyists would get what they wanted as long as they had a seat at the table -- we are run by lobbyists today, not politicians. In Retrospect, there wasn't anything crazy or outlandish about Perot's claims -- he was called crazy at the time, before we had all these damn disinfo agents blogging.
Are you people naive or something? The seat of the Presidency means billions of dollars to some folks, and can tip the balance of power in the world. Do you think this is going to be treated like a Sunday school election?
Yes there are plots, conspiracies and double-agents on campaigns trying to discredit candidates. The TV Networks took one shout by Howard Dean, and played it over 2000 times in two weeks so that a limp noodle like John Kerry became the only thing standing between Bush and his second term of corruption.
Not all conspiracy theories are true -- but grow the hell up people. There are bad people doing bad things all the time in this world and it's about time that you learned something besides Santa Claus doesn't fit down the chimney. - FlaG8r, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3It's easy to talk about how they were going to sabotage now that it's all over. There's no chance in Hell that they would have actually done it if they were winning. This is just CYA stuff.
- paulvq, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Doesn't your dad realize that Hillary and Obama are both lawyers too?
- birch25, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Yutt, some people hate all lawyers no matter what. My dad is a republican and I asked him which democrat he would vote for if he had to and he specifically said he would not vote for Edwards for the sole reason that he was a lawyer. Blew my mind...
- smemily, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2If his wife had given him permission to seek satisfaction elsewhere, I wouldn't have a problem with it - except that he was in the middle of a presidential campaign and the repercussions of an affair would obviously be catastrophic.
- rpgmakr, on 05/11/2009, -1/+3I agree with scott. Remember that Bill had a whole first term before things crumble down for him. Edward wouldn't have that "luck".
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2McCain's ethical dilemma never came up because he is a corporate flunky.
When are you folks going to realize that ETHICS are arbitrarily used against people who would be fighting for the people.
If you are pro-war, pro-health insurance, pro-Oil, you can eat babies for breakfast and the media will extol your virtues.
Bush's shortcomings only made news after he was a lame duck. Then they get you to ignore all the scumbags like Mitt Romney, McCain and the rest. Cheating on his wife is nothing exceptional, nor anything that is going to impact my life. - scottknick, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2clvngodess, perhaps they should have gone to him directly first, and perhaps they did. One way or the other I don't think it would have helped. John Edwards and his wife were completely absorbed in denial and delusion -- they must have been, or they would never for a second think that they would have gotten away with hiding this. So confronting him might have been a nice pro-forma thing to do, but they would probably had to enact the doomsday scenario anyway.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2He supported his wife. He stuck by her.
Humans are humans, and this is not the first or last time some man is cheating on his wife. Especially when there is a lot of stress. "But she had cancer." That didn't JUST happen. It doesn't make it any easier. Sure he was being selfish -- but does it change BECAUSE of cancer? I think people object to the idea and want to believe it doesn't happen. If she didn't have cancer would it be OK, if Edwards weren't running for office?
MOST guys in commission sales and most people "selling themselves" is a major player. That's the nature of being outgoing and that's just the flat nature of people in power. Don't shoot the messenger, people. I'm just telling you the reality. I've never cheated on my wife -- a combination of some ethics, few offers and a hot wife, I suppose.
Edward's wife and the public at large would not be hurt by the affair, had we not known. Edwards was not a hypocrite, like Newt and so many others, because he is not going on some holy rampage pointing fingers.
It's better to try and figure out which politician is NOT getting busy with someone on the side. It's a gregarious, power hungry and intense profession. And I think the public at large is clueless and wants to have feel good notions about leaders.
Your representative is likely having an affair. Yeah, even the ugly ones.
Edwards only mistake is in thinking that he wouldn't be singled out. Probably everyone he knows is doing the same thing but they aren't pro union. - allyclark, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one who thought that.
- sv650touring, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1yutt,
That's a pretty bad straw man. No one said anything along the lines of the questions you asked at the end of your comment. The point is that frivolous lawsuits hurt everyone, and Edwards didn't let the facts get in the way of his multi-million-dollar settlements. In the case of OB/GYNs, many are simply driven out of business due to insurance premium driven up from huge insurance payouts. In some places there just aren't enough doctors to go around. Google 'OB/GYN shortage', and you'll see that I'm not making this up.
elo91,
Pointing the finger at "liberals" makes you sound dumb, even when your larger argument is valid. Don't think in terms of "conservative vs liberal", think "politicians vs your freedom". There is no shortage of articles describing Obama continuing to support Bush's old ***** policies. They are a lot more like each other than either one of them is like a regular person. - smemily, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1If he'd been the nominee there would have been no Dem administration for them to take jobs with.
- scottknick, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Obama never campaigned with Wright or sought his endorsement. Compare this to McCain, who actively campaigned with Hagee and called him his "spiritual advisor."
Unlike Obama-Wright, there was an actual ideological connection betwen McCain and his racist buddies Hagee and Parsely, one that McCain actively sought. - 3The3Dude3, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1That's the campaign fraud equivalent of a CEO shorting 5000 shares of his own company just before announcing they missed the quarterly earnings estimate.. by 60%. If that happened and went public, you'd have a lot of Edwards campaign donors that would sue. (and win.)
P.S. You a Broncos fan? If so are you as pissed about the offseason as I am? - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Just grow up.
There is no Santa Claus and there is likely only 2 chances in 10 that your representative isn't getting some action on the side.
The people who are singled out and exposed are not playing nice with the other crooks in the club. So you vote for people who SEEM moral, but are anything but. - brucealmighty, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1"for better, for worse, in sickness and in health"......"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"......just words ? So they should all be considered negotiable if things don't always go according to plan?
- yutt, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1@sv650touring
elo91 clearly implied that there is something inherently unsavory about being a trial lawyer, specifically a trial lawyer involved in medical malpractice suits representing patients. elo91 used the over-generalization, I simply pointed out that such an over-generalization is ridiculous. Trial lawyers do a great public justice, whether they are beacons of virtue on a personal or case-by-case level is another discussion entirely.
I was simply attacking the idea that there is something wrong with him being a trial lawyer. There is not.
Lawyers are responsible for providing the best possible defense of their clients' cases. If that is what Edwards did, I don't see how there is any basis for disparaging him. If you are not happy with the results, you should be criticizing the judges and juries responsible for determining the verdict, or the legal framework they navigate, not lawyers who are adhering to their ethical and legal responsibilities. - JoeParanoid, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1I frankly don't understand the whole tsimmus over sex: Bill Clinton was confronted with his affair with Gennifer Flowers during the first campaign and that didn't change anything. If Democrats want to turn into hypocritical puritan police, then they really have nothing left. As long as the guy in office is doing right by the country, I don't give a rat's ass what he's doing in private. Bush was probably faithful to Laura, for all the difference that makes.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Whats so cool about being a republican anyways?
- govtdoesnotwork, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Buried for George's anonymous "sources."
- yutt, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1@smemily
All good points, regardless of the moral questions, it was an idiotic thing to do as a candidate for president of the US. I am just trying to look at things from a different perspective.
I find Elizabeth's (or any wife's) opinion is rarely considered in these discussions. Given that she is still with her husband, she obviously doesn't share the views of some of the more extreme here.
@brucealmighty
Both oaths are regularly broken and bent. Reality is dealing with being imperfect humans, not living in a fantasy where any of us are icons of abstract virtue. - 3The3Dude3, on 05/11/2009, -1/+2With all due respect, let's not act campaign dirt digging is some sort of right-wing-only campaign strategy. We knew more about Sarah Palin's personal life then one could imagine. But that wasn't enough, we needed to know about her husband's and daughter's too.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1The DNC democrats are Corporatists now as much as the Republicans.
Edwards was pro-Union, and that means he'd get in the way of profits.
It wasn't anything personal. They are just marketing dog food, and for that, they don't need candidates who tell you that there are better things to eat.
>> You guys think that Edwards, was at risk because he was fooling around? No. You think most of the Republican candidates weren't -- or that the press would spend one second on such a rumor? NO. This was just a way to discredit Edwards because he didn't have the right belief system as the status quo. - FreddieD, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1McCain would have won without lifting a finger. And even though I'm a liberal, I would not consider that the end of the world in of itself, because traditionally he has been moderate and we would have a democratic congress and senate to keep him from overreaching. Adding crazy Palin to the ticket, however, is what sealed the deal for me.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is