True.

Personally I only have only been having problems with a certain class of comments here. Most here have been pretty reasonable.

Sure there's more to it....actions that reveal part of Edwards' character. But, the main issue that has me floored is that he would run for president having been involved with Hunter. Delusional if he thought this wouldn't come out and it would have seriously hurt more people than just his family if he had gotten the nomination. But, like may others, he thought he could buy his way out of this ...buy silence...again delusional in this regard....human nature is fascinating, to me at least.

Poppycock, it was a tabloid newspaper that had Edwards hiding in the nearest restroom, not the KGB.

So what else is new?

Yes, and boy did the Amerian people miss the boat showing bad judgment in 2004 with Bush/Cheney...

and did Bush miss the boat in choosing Cheney...who has by his secretiveness and assertion of executive authority hurt the office of the presidency...hopefully not irreparably...

Kerry made the decision in 2004 to pick him as VP -- at that point Edwards had not had the affair --- or any affair that anyone knows of...

All a politican can do in selecting a running mate is interview them and decide based on what they know...

Did Thomas Jefferson have bad judgment in choosing Aaron Burr to be Vice President who eventually ended up murdering Alexander Hamilton?

What about Abraham Lincoln who chose Andrew Johnson who ended up getting impeached?

Your logic is bizarre...IMHO

Edwards is not as delusional as you may believe, it is not likely that this is the first incident that he "bought" his way out of.

And Amy has Mac2 provided any evidence to support his assertion that his lack of character in his personal life would have translated to and negatively impacted upon his professional public life as a public servant?

Without such evidence, his statements are nothing more than blind conjecture.

Its not reasonable to blame Elizabeth at this point, this is not likely the first predicament that Edwards has involved her and the family in. It may well be reasonable for her to believe that he would buy/lie his way out for them again. We do not know.

Mac2 do you have any evidence that Edwards "bought" his way out of this incident?

If not, you ought to watch yourself or you may be guilty of libel and slander.

Mac, you missed what I was saying. I am not saying that Edwards was hiding national security secrets. I was stating a completely hypothetical situation to illustrate that Edwards' real character problem here was illustrated by the affair itself, not so much his attempts to hide it. Now at a certain point they became pointless, and he decided to confess the whole thing.

When I say "buy" I'm referring to the money the lawyer has spent to house Hunter (and Young, for a while, I believe). No proof that Edwards is "reimbursing" the lawyer so I guess technically, he's not buying silence.

Conjecture, maybe...."blind conjecture", no that can not be reasonably said; its foolishness to suggest "blind conjecture" after all of this.

You say "guilty of libel and slander."

Thats ridiculous, I scoff at it.

I actually think that Mac seems to have a point. Deciding that infidelity indicates a character problem that someone should be concerned about is perfectly plausible, and people need to decide just how important that problem is and is likely to be. That is not "blind conjecture" in my mind.

Well, I believe Clinton's affair seriously hurt Gores's chances for the WH. So, issues like this can have an impact beyond the personal sphere.

Scoff all you like.

By suggesting in an online internet forum that a public person may have engaged in an act which you cannot prove is true -- that person could hold you for libel...at least and in this internet age perhaps slander as well...

But you keep scoffing...

Oh, I scoff and a great deal more. Why don't you contact Edwards or anyone elses legal counsel? You can tell them that I invited your involvement.

That Edwards would have been subjected to the same situation of temptation had he been VP... two years into his term.

You now have the wisdom of hindsight and the revelation of an event which may never have happened. At the time there were an infinite variety of future events which could have led to a differenet reality... and it's likely that the reality which we can now judge Edwards by would have never happened under your scenario.

Now... it is easy to say how flawed Edwards is... but we only know that by hindsight and from a given set of circumstance. It is easy to say he was the same flawed man before and we simply didn't know it but you cannot separate the circumstances from the action.

Every man is faced with his own temptations, his own unique circumstances and events and every man has the capability of good and bad... given a different set of circumstances. It is those circumstances which men may fall or may excel... may rise to greatness or succumb to evil.

In fairness all that we can say about JE is that he was human and that he exercised bad judgment in his personal choices when faced with his own unique situation. Any slight difference in circumstances and there may have been a different result.

And... again these are decisions of a personal nature... and when beset with the consequences of one bad choice he made a series of further bad choices... but, for the most part those were human, personal choices.

The worst thing I can say is that his judgment to continue his candidacy after this affair was extremely bad. But... he is still human.

Oh, they can have an impact...but Mac2 has implied that the fact that Edwards had the affair shows something about his character which would have made us regret electing a Kerry/Ewards ticket in 2004 which is silly IMHO --- since we have the evidence of Bill Clinton being a serial adulterer and having that have minimal affect on his role as president --- though as you note it did impact Gore -- but Gore was affected by more than that --- he ran away from the Clinton legacy which he should not have done --- IMHO...and this gave Americans more of a reason than anything to say -- well if he is not proud of the record of the Clinton Administration why should we be...

But the point is that Mac2 has done nothing to suggest that Edwards would have had the affair as VP and even if he did that he would have been an ineffective VP...even if he had had such a liaison and that the nation would not have been much better off with a Kerry presidency...rather than what we had...with Bush not changing on Iraq until 2006 after Rumsfeld was dismissed...

Mac seems to be saying that Edwards was most likely involved in other affairs as this incident is most likely part of a pattern of behavior. While I think that such a conclusion is not warranted (I think it possible for a man to have succumbed to temptation only once, although clearly many do more than once) I don't think that he can be accused of libel here. He is not saying that he knows specific facts which he likely would not know.

TWO PEOPLE GAVE MONEY AND PROPERTY

Edwards himself ADMITTED it on tv on nightline- there is NO debate on that. It is not rumor. It is FACT.

No one has said otherwise.

So that could indeed be construed to the average person who would be on a jury AS A PAYOFF.

PAYOFF FOR WHAT?
WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?
WHO INITIATED THE MONEY

Why would these two people USE THEIR OWN MONEY???
Isn't Mr. young married with children of his own

Is Mr.Young being paid back someway and same as the other guy who's name I can't think of???

Why would a lawyer, who his fans say was a good one (though his detractors say he used dolls as feutus' and was just an ambulence chaser) why would this person give this info
out to the public???

There is SOME WEIRD FREAKIN' SPIT GOING ON HERE...

And, the timing, the timing, the timing...

and snuffy just put up 2 articles on a coup'd'etat being planned by Hillary and the rightwing in two weeks...
and Howard Wolfson...

SOMETHING SUCKS HERE


And, in 100% agreement with Mac2-
this is not the first time IMHO for Edwards

NOBODY IS CAUGHT THEIR FIRST TIME
They just say it is when they get caught the first time

This whole story is just f---ing ODD and does not pass the sniff test.

Something is up...

Sorry I offended you Amy. I wasn't doing it for that purpose. This discussion has now reached the stage that it's smearing not only Edwards, who may well deserve it, but its reaching back to '04 and dragging in Kerry. Can Obama be far behind ? When we indulge in the kind of garbage some have in this thread there is always blowback. That is my concern. Nothing high minded or moralistic about it. Common sense as I see it . But you are right .. it isn't my business.No one else necessarily would agree with it being common sense . That's their right. They can all tell me off as well.

by the way, these discussions are going on thousands of websites and blogs and in comments to every single posted topic that allows conversation

We are hardly alone

And a quick perusal of Edwards friendly places shows the vast majority of his and his wifes fans are sick of the lies told them

Class action lawsuits are in order.

And remember, the uproar that Sen. Craig went through when there was no actual proof he did anything at all but spread his legs while taking a crap
in a public bathroom(though he plead guilty).
I am anti-republican as anyone, but, I believe in equal guilt all around.
right is right and wrong is wrong
it is not left vs. right.
We cannot (IMHO) only blame those we dislike, and overlook those we like.
(and of course, we can put down McCain for being as big a cad as Edwards, but McCain's backstory wasn't a lie like Edwards, and it really is not
the same thing)
Kick them all out.

INVESTIGATE

Do you really want me to do that?

You can be sure, if the Clinton's were able to find anything on our nominee, they would have months ago. That they didn't shows they couldn't.

And of course, who do you think brought this out in the first place- she even said something was out there big time, and then Edwards quit.

I smell collusion, but that's only a guess.

On behalf of whom, pray tell?

Hello? It was the National Enquirer!



Quotes, links, sources, so that we can judge the significance for ourselves?



That's right. And your guess seems to be a pretty baseless one.

Well, I did come on a bit harsh, CO, and I apologize for that. I didn't say this wasn't your business...merely pointing out that we can discuss "this garbage" and still be on top of the more important issues,particularly the issue of Obama being elected. I don't think discussion of this hurts Obama..if anything it could help Obama a bit...compare his marriage and behavior within his marriage to that of Edwards or even McCain, for that matter.

CO, I'm just "slightly" miffed at Edwards.....the odds didn't look promising for him to win the nomination but if he had, McCain would win the WH...no doubt in my mind about that. So, sorry for the harsh response. I do always value your opinion even if we don't always agree.

WHAT PART OF YOU NEED A SOURCE TO GET A STORY DON'T YOU GET???

Reporters and photographers DON'T JUST SHOW UP

SOMEONE leads them there.

You see pictures of Tom Cruise in the papers, because SOMEONE TELLS THEM TOM CRUISE WILL BE THERE

Saying National Enquirer, they are the MESSENGER just like WATERGATE WAS BROKEN BY SOURCES LIKE DEEP THROAT

WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN FOUND SOURCES AND IT LED THEM TO THE TRAIL TO THE CONCLUSION
SAME IN THIS.

We actually might have stumbled on a story bigger than Watergate

If this is investigated, and their are links, this might be the smoking gun that brings down the entire house of cards and dominoes...

one connection to another step by step toe to toe, it may all come down because of this...

He has suggested that there is a pattern of behavior with regard to coverups.

He may not be found guilty, but the fact that he is suggesting that Edwards is likely guilty of past behavior --

Look at step 2 ---

You must have known the statement to be false...

The standard used by courts is a standard of recklessness as far as libel is concerned --- known or should have known it was false..

And there must be damage as well...

But damage can be nominal...

The reality is you should not make up things you do not know the truth of ---

Mac2 could be sued for libel -- would Edwards win?

That would be left to the jury...

BUt if it goes to the jury do you really want to take the chance?

Bring an Internet Libel Lawsuit Against Someone
http://www.ehow.com/how_2040840_sue-someon...rnet-libel.html

Step1Know the statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit in your state. A helpful chart and direct links to information categorized by state can be found at FreeAdvice.com (see Resources below).
Step2Understand how to protect yourself if you're responsible for any potentially libelous content published on the Internet. In order for someone to sue you for libel, the published statement(s) must first of all be known to be false and second, must cause injury to the party at whom they're directed.
Step3Remove any potentially libelous content at once if someone threatens to sue you. In some jurisdictions, Internet content may still be applicable to cease and desist laws. This essentially means that the complainant must first ask the webmaster or person responsible for the offensive content, in writing, to remove it before legal action can be taken.
Step4Know that Internet law can vary wildly from place to place. Internet libel lawsuits can be difficult to win. It is recommended that you track any subsequent Internet activity, such as blogging, that may go on in response to the libel. Presentation of such activity in court is a key way in which to show that the offensive content caused you harm.
Step5Prepare to gather witnesses to testify to the effect of the libel. You will probably also have to disclose financial losses on court record if your suit goes to trial.
Step6Find a specialist in Internet law or libel and slander law. AttorneyPages (see Resources below) has convenient links to personal injury law firms categorized by state. Have your attorney review your case and initiate any subsequent legal action.
Step7Consider seeking an out-of-court settlement if you have a strong case and would prefer to avoid the hassle and expense involved with civil law proceedings. However, be aware that defendants in Internet libel civil lawsuits may be reluctant to settle out of court, given the diffuse nature of Internet law.

and don't let her bully you into forgetting- as of 2 and 1/2 days ago, JOHN EDWARDS WAS ON THE SHORT LIST FOR VP OR AG
An attonrey general in 2008 with baggage like this, is one who won't prosecute to the full extent of the law someone else...

This is not some far off or past story- this is today's news, this election, 2008.

Talk about assumptions...

There is always a first time... and a last... and without any proof of any other philandering (which is hard to hide under the scrutiny of a campaign... as Edwards found out) it is quite a jump to go from JE being a fallen man to JE being a bed-hopping playboy.

Sure the potential is there... as is the potential for anything for that matter, but in the absence of any proof it is meaningless conjecture.

Philandering and adultery are irrelevant as far as exercise of judgment in other matters. To me the only flaw in judgment that matters is the error in continuing his run for the Presidency. That... was a huge error in judgment because the consequence of trying to hide the affair carry with it far too much risk that affected far too many other, including candidates and voters.

As far as the adultery and his personal relationship... that's his cross to bear and his to deal with between his wife, family and creator.

Based on what we know, it appears that the only thing involved legally *might* be some illegal use of campaign funds. That's hardly a major crime.

Comparisons to McGreevey, etc., don't hold, because they were elected officials and public funds may have been misused. In Edwards' case, he was only a candidate.

Do people want to clean up the government or not?

This story may be the straw that broke the camel's back of the entire she-bang.

Heads or tails...what's it going to be?

As I said 6 years ago, had the democrats just back in 1998 sacrified the Clintons, none of the last 8 years would have happened.

Time for a sacrifice right now for the home team.

The entire fate of the world is more important than one cheating man who lied.
Maybe John Edwards will win his immortality after all.

I have no doubt JE has the qualifications to be a fine AG...BUT,serious personal problems can interfere with how well a person can remain focused on the job at hand, so for this reason, I think he would be a poor choice.

Well Taz, I think that there is a difference between making knowingly false statements and faulty logic. On the basis of that I doubt that there is a libel case against Mac. He is laying out his chain of reasoning and saying it [b]most likely[/b] means Edwards did this more than one time. He is not saying that Edwards did this more than one time, that this is an established fact.

And I doubt that Mac's statements would likely damage Edwards.

I'm sorry Graham, but appealing to the noble cause of cleaning up government does not make pathetic logic reasonable or despicable twisting of the moral issues involved justified. No amount of tying such things to a "higher cause" can change that.

Well G4A, you happen to be right for a change and I agree with you. Had Clinton resigned Gore would a served out the balance of his term and would a been eligable for two full terms of his own. I got no doubt Al Gore would be our president right now had Bill done the right thing.

Exactly right. Instead, Gore's chances in 2000 were diminished by Clinton's garbage with Monica.

I agree with your sentiment.

I think every person has a right, and indeed an obligation, to decide where to draw the line... morally and otherwise.

There are as many "lines" to be drawn as there are people and issues... and this is one.

Draw your line...

BTW - everyone's line WILL be different...

I have drawn mine- getting rid of the Clintons/Bush's/Edwards & 99.9 percent of the others from a power position and our lives altogether is a small price to pay for the greatness America once had and can have again
Time for country ahead of whatever it is (self,$$$,power).

I am a worrier I guess Amy. Howard Wolfson is already on record today as saying if Edwards had gotten out earlier or not run that HC would have won the primaries. Her supporters planning demonstrations at the convention are going to latch onto that. Count on it.

Put it down to my paranoia. I am not upset at what you said. I understand why you would think as you do. I won't breath till the convention is over. So take me with a grain of salt.

Uh, no.









Yeah, talk about narcissism! The mind boggles.

Of course the "Hillary people" will look for any evidence, however remote, to explain her loss. Obama will get the nomination....relax.