Sunday Roundup

This week brought us the latest twists in the John Edwards infidelity story -- a story with many inconsistencies, which HuffPost began to explore last September. Edwards told ABC that he will have no more to say on the matter, but so many loose ends remain -- the incomplete birth certificate, the money paid to Edwards' mistress by his campaign's finance chairman, that blurry pic of Edwards and the baby he claims isn't his -- that more revelations seem inevitable. I've long pushed for a giant border fence separating public life and private lives. But the issue here wasn't Edwards' infidelity, it was his lying directly to the American people. The last thing we need is a sexual purity test for our politicians, but we desperately need political leaders whose word we can trust.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[srijani]

I'm disapointed in John Edwards its really a shame, but lets not forget John McCain who did
the same, divorced his wife,( mother of three children ) and married his mistress, with
no bad press...lets be fair about this.

[dawlishgal]

And, McCain is STILL a candidate for the presidency; Edwards hasn't been one for a long time.

[Transit]

Since nearly 80% of all marriages have one partner or the other having an affair at some time (Google it!) and 90% of the people think adultery is wrong, it goes without saying denial is the first response when caught. John Edwards wasn't the first politician­-celebrity to have committed adultery nor will he be the last.

Remember when Jimmy Carter admitted that he "lusted in his heart" and therefore as a Christian had committed adultery? Fact is he told the truth and almost lost the election. Or when Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky and got impeached for lying?

We hear that it's not the adultery, it's the fact they lied about. I looked up the Ten Commandments and sure enough its says you're not suppose to commit adultery. But it doesn't say you can't lie about it. You just can't lie about your neighbor (bear false witness).

Now in some states adultery is a crime. Sometimes it's conditional whereas a one-time quickie is okay or only married women (not men) who cheat are criminal. No, maybe we don't need a sexual purity test for politicians. They just have to learn to be a little more discreet and not get caught.But asking that a politician be truthful to us reminds me of used car salesman jokes. In short, "There ain't no such animal!" Judging someone for denying infidelity is not the same as judging someone for lying to get us into a war.

[pastgone]

I was a big supporter of Edwards during the primary process and would have voted for him had he still been in the running during the VA primary. But here's the thing about infidelity. We can all say "it's none of anyone's business" and "the private lives of politicians aren't relevant to their ability to govern." But those statements are false. By engaging in infidelity, a politician in America is opening himself up to endless attacks that are in and of themselves going to compromise his ability to get anything done. That's just the way it is. If a man is serious about getting anything done, he is going to have to be faithful to his wife. That's actually not too much to ask. With this infidelity, Edwards has cost himself the position of attorney general in the Obama administration. It was a stupid, foolish thing to have done. It was unworthy of his stated ambitions. It really isn't just about the lying. It actually is about the infidelity itself.

[kvass]

I beg to differ. It is not about the infidelity but rather about the lack of judgement . To aspire to or be in public office requires certain standards and to ignore these is to put that person in an undeniable position. This in turn undermines the trust the electors must hold in that official. When the judgement of an official is in question, whether by the public or by himself, he is then completely undermined and can no longer function in public life.

[dmack]

Does this mean that someone who hasn't committed adultery will be a great leader? Most leaders throughout history, even U.S. presidents have done this act. They are human and will make mistakes. The great mistake wasn't the adultery, but the vote to go into Iraq.

[dawlishgal]

I don't like either one, but infidelity is or ought to be more private. Lack of judgment comes in particularly in these post-Clinton days, when politicians know (or ought to) that they and their behavior are under close scrutiny and that adultery does matter to voters (and to Republicans with a bent to impeach).

To campaign on a platform and to take money from supporters of the platform and then to engage in blatant behavior that discredits yourself AND your platform is reprehensible. I don't care what that behavior is...opponents will use it to discredit the platform.

Edwards--to me and a lot of other people--had the most decent platform, and --in betraying his wife--Edwards also betrayed his political promises. Did he ever bother to THINK that he might be betraying more than just Elizabeth? Did he even think he was betraying her? I doubt it.

[ApolloSpeaks]

On Jun 28, 2008 at 17:20:12 I posted on Huffington Post

"THE STAR OF CONSERVATISM

Lieberman's victory over anti-war candidate Ned Lamont in November 2006 was emblematic of Obama's coming defeat to John McCain on a day when the Star of Conservatism is powerful in the Heavens triumphing over [the Star] of Progressivism...... "


Edward's shocking admission of infidelity on 08-08-08 came 88 days away from Election Day on the second anniversary of Ned Lamont's primary win in Connecticut over John McCain's buddy Joe Lieberman, which ended in defeat for Lamont in the general election. As Edward's was on the losing ticket in the presidential elections of 2004 it looks like this scandel is an ominous sign that Obama is fated to be the black Ned Lamont in November.

[dawlishgal]

Keep on thinking that way. It is amazing the contortions in logic and common sense that Republicans are willing to pretzel-twist themselves into so that they can emerge believing that voters will choose a Republican philander after a losing Democratic candidate is revealed to be one. Edwards indiscretions point up two things:

l. Democrats are lucky that Edwards isn't their nominee
and
2.Democrats are lucky that the Republicans have chosen one of their own philanderers to be their lead-candidate, especially now when philandering candidates are again in the spotlight..

Don't forget that Lamont was defeated by REPUBLICAN votes for Lieberman when Republicans were advised by their party to vote for him rather than for their own previously Republican-endorsed candidate.

[ApolloSpeaks]

MYSTICAL MCCAINIANISM

This has less to do with logic and more with a mystical approach to political forecasting relying on the synchronicity of dates, numbers and events. This is a democratic year and logically Obama should be victorious in the fall as his rival is identified with the policies of an unpopular Republican President. But in the Democratic year of 1986 when Dems took back the Senate from Republicans McCain crushed his Democratic opponent by a towering 20 points to become Arizona's 4th Republican US senator. McCain is an anomoly who shouldn't even be alive let alone his party's nominee. That 1986 election, by the way, fell on November 4th.

[lifeinfullcolor]

You look at France and the difference, there, your wife and mistress both go to your funeral together. Unfortunatly, it seems that here politicians have to have a story, a life story that propels people to vote for them, that life story doesn't include a mistress. Edwards used his wifes story, her breast cancer, their two y

[larry278]

The USA isn't France. There are times when a wife doesn't go to her husband's funeral if she knows that he had a mistress. As for the man's mistress, it's her choice.