I am FURIOUS at these reports Edwards had an affair

**Carol** · 08-08-2008, 07:04 PM

This is an interesting exchange.

jonnyblitz (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
14. I agree! It only should be news if it's a republican or somebody
we DUers HATE!!!111

MadHound (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. Such an affair speaks to a person's character and morals.
I know that's probably viewed as old fashioned and quaint, but nevertheless it is true. And while this affair of Edward's didn't victimize somebody younger and weaker, it did victimize his wife(who is ill) and his family.

My question for you is would you be taking this stance if Edwards was a Republican. Somehow, given the evidence I've seen around here, I doubt that you would.

krabigirl (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 04:06 PM
Original message
if he were Republican, he'd be with another man :)

brazenlyliberal (772 posts) Fri Aug-08-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. My answer for you is the same as I posted above
Yes, if the situation was the same and it involved a Republican, I would feel the same. I elaborated on this above when someone else asked. I can't imagine what evidence you could possibly "have seen around here" that would lead you to doubt that. Please point out posts I've made that show me to be a hypocrite who holds Republicans to a higher standard than Democrats.

I must say I am flummoxed by the logic that says Elizabeth was victimized by this affair, so the right thing to do is to further victimize her by putting her private grief all over the airwaves.

MadHound (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Really? You would feel the same? Interesting
Because back in February of this year when McCain's lobbyist affair came to light, you were snarking it up right along with the rest of us. You certainly didn't post a diatribe against the media, nope, you were yukking it up too, something about your dog

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3190736>

Sorry, but you're being hypocritical. Good news, you're far from alone around here.

I don't doubt that's true, but I didn't see any comments by brazenlyliberal on that thread.

Evoman (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
26. Geez....republicans are caught raping little kids and they get less press.

Two words. PROVE IT. And I mean both assertions.

Sonnabend · 08-08-2008, 08:10 PM

Because back in February of this year when McCain's lobbyist affair came to light

...the affair that never happened, and was in fact a lie?

**Gingersnap** · 08-08-2008, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Elspeth

No kldding.

I'll have to read it more often. :)

People love to sneer at the tabs but in certain narrow areas they are far more accurate than the MSM. Drugs and sex are their bread and butter. Now different tabs have different levels of trustworthiness in this area. The Enquirer has been sued and lost back in the 80s for "fluffing" unsourced material of a damaging nature. They learned their lesson and haven't been successfully sued since then.

The Globe is much less reliable on political scandals. Read the The Globe for their hard-hitting stance on space alien-human hybrids, not politics. The Sun is good for celebutard sexcapades and high-intrigue divorces but not so much for American politicians. The Examiner is tuned more to new of the bizarre - the kid with 4 arms and the Austrian Incest Guy. Hope this helps. :p

**FDK** · 08-08-2008, 10:44 PM

This is news. Here's why:

Edwards is/was a potential VP pick.

And the real story is not thte affair itself but why should voters trust ANY politician who cheats on their spouse. If you own wife and family can't trust you then why should voters?

**Constitutionally Speaking** · 08-09-2008, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I actually don't understand why anyone cares. Edwards isn't running for President anymore and this affair only became news because his name was being bandied about for VP. His endorsement of Obama so soon after dropping out of the race may have made him some enemies. Didn't Clinton people buy the National Enquirer during the 90s? I thought that was why the NE was targeted for the first anthrax envelope.

The Democrats didn't seem to have any reservations, and the Media front-paged the Mark Foley "scandal". Mark Foley did NOT have sex and WAS not married. He sent E-mails to a former assistant who was now of age. It would seem that was really a non-story, but it was front page for weeks - at election time.

**movie buff** · 08-09-2008, 09:54 AM

How much you want to bet MadHound is going to end up tombstoned pretty quickly for disagreeing with the hive mentality and pointing out the hypocrisy of other DUmmies?

**SarasotaRepub** · 08-09-2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gingersnap

People love to sneer at the tabs but in certain narrow areas they are far more accurate than the MSM. Drugs and sex are their bread and butter. Now different tabs have different levels of trustworthiness in this area. The Enquirer has been sued and lost back in the 80s for "fluffing" unsourced material of a damaging nature. They learned their lesson and haven't been successfully sued since then.

The Globe is much less reliable on political scandals. Read the The Globe for their hard-hitting stance on space alien-human hybrids, not politics. The Sun is good for celebutard sexcapades and high-intrigue divorces but not so much for American politicians. The Examiner is tuned more to new of the bizarre - the kid with 4 arms and the Austrian Incest Guy. Hope this helps. :p

Ginger, you know FAR too much about this subject...:eek::D

**Teetop** · 08-09-2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by FDK

This is news. Here's why:

Edwards is/was a potential VP pick.

And the real story is not thte affair itself but why should voters trust ANY politician who cheats on their spouse. If you own wife and family can't trust you then why should voters?

In addition to potentially becoming the next Attorney General, for SnObama...

:eek:

**Elspeth** · 08-09-2008, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking

The Democrats didn't seem to have any reservations, and the Media front-paged the Mark Foley "scandal". Mark Foley did NOT have sex and WAS not married. He sent E-mails to a former assistant who was now of age. It would seem that was really a non-story, but it was front page for weeks - at election time.

That's because it involved a gay love interest and apparently that still shocks some people, especially in the media. :)

But the Edwards thing is odd. Like I said, I don't get the Edwards story--especially the timing--unless it really was to prevent him from having any role in the Obama campaign. I don't think the Enquirer cared one way or the other, but I think certain Democrats might.

**GenYConservative** · 08-12-2008, 07:55 AM

I believe it was reported that the DNC was pushing Edwards to come clean on this and get it out of the way because they didn't want it as a potential distraction come Convention time. Basically a "Here, you need to get in front of everyone and fall on the sword to wipe this from OUR hands."