Friday, August 8, 2008

JOHN EDWARDS RE-VISITED

Remember I said the National Enquirer article calling Edwards on his extramarital affair was probably true. Comments were made criticizing me for that opinion. So be it. To me, the tragedy of the situation is the damage, not to Edwards, but to a wife, a very lovely and devoted wife, mother of his children, who is now terminally ill with Cancer. Imagine the humiliation she must feel during her final days of life after being there for him through two rigorous campaigns, the last one during her radiation and chemo-therapy. And, yes, the embarrassment to his children. My goodness, couldn't he have restrained those primal urges.

Just wait--they'll be more coming out on Obama, when he is long past his (I hope unsuccessful) run for President and is no longer on the main stage.

A mother had just finished bathing her little three-year-old boy. He looked down between his legs.

"Mommy, are those my brains?"

"Not yet, dear. They will be one day."

The message of this post: Hillary should have been the nominee. She would have won, and we would not have a worry about where her brains are located.

16 comments:

Diogenes said...

OMG you are NUTS!

I notice you omitted any reference to McCain. That confused me. Obama has been married to the same woman for a long time, no? But John McCain was the guy who dumped his first wife after a crippling automobile accident and found himself a super-rich trophy wife, correct? And then called her a c**t, correct?

Doesn't that conduct go against every tenet of your cougar being?

Sorry, Hillary loses a lot of points for staying with a jerk like Bill. Especially when you realize that the only reason she did so was for her own political benefit.

Barbara LeBey said...

Interesting that you were privy to the personal thoughts of Hillary Clinton. And you accuse me of being "Nuts." Sorry fella, but you are so off base. And as for McCain, he came home after being a prisoner of war in a Vietnamese hell hole where he was tortured repeatedly and had countless bones broken. Many soldiers come home to find their marriages aren't working. And in McCain's case, there is even more of a reason considering the length of time and what he went through, but you are so biased you have no understanding of what a soldier goes through after being gone so long. He and his first wife are still friends.

You really do have narrow and distorted view. But thanks for the comment regardless of its content.

For your information, I am not a cougar.

Barbara LeBey said...

Interesting that you were privy to the personal thoughts of Hillary Clinton. And you accuse me of being "Nuts." Sorry fella, but you are so off base. And as for McCain, he came home after being a prisoner of war in a Vietnamese hell hole where he was tortured repeatedly and had countless bones broken. Many soldiers come home to find their marriages aren't working. And in McCain's case, there is even more of a reason considering the length of time and what he went through, but you are so biased you have no understanding of what a soldier goes through after being gone so long. He and his first wife are still friends.

You really do have narrow and distorted view. But thanks for the comment regardless of its content.

For your information, I am not a cougar.

Barbara LeBey said...

Interesting that you were privy to the personal thoughts of Hillary Clinton. And you accuse me of being "Nuts." Sorry fella, but you are so off base. And as for McCain, he came home after being a prisoner of war in a Vietnamese hell hole where he was tortured repeatedly and had countless bones broken. Many soldiers come home to find their marriages aren't working. And in McCain's case, there is even more of a reason considering the length of time and what he went through, but you are so biased you have no understanding of what a soldier goes through after being gone so long. He and his first wife are still friends.

You really do have narrow and distorted view. But thanks for the comment regardless of its content.

For your information, I am not a cougar.

Diogenes said...

McCain dumped his first wife, pure and simple. It had nothing to do with his imprisonment in North Vietnam. He had an affair with a cute young thing, dumped his wife, and then used the new Mrs. McCain's money to pay off the first Mrs. McCain. No wonder she's "still friends." Why make enemies with the golden goose?

As for Hillary, I read her biography, cover to cover. Have you?

On what basis do you say she "should have been" the nominee, other than you like her more? Obama got more delegates, plain and simple. End of story.

"We would not have a worry about where her brains are located." OMG, how sexist is that? What would you have said if someone suggested that we cannot have Hillary as President because we cannot trust her hormone levels? That menopause makes her potentially too volatile? That would (rightfully) be rejected out of hand.

I thought the proper term for old women who preyed upon younger men was "cougar." I apologize if I am mistaken.

Andrew said...

I believe Psychology students are going to have a field day with this.

There does seem to be multiple issues here, from the Elizabeth Edwards is about to die, how could he? To, the, we had faith in him and he lied. Along with, how I can believe in anything he says?

I hate to use cliches, but as this happened in 2006, surely this is between himself and his family and his alleged offspring, if that part of the story turns out to be true.

People lie all the time and cheat if they feel they can get away with it. From those that think it is fine to drive home, even though they may be over the limit, to receiving an extra amount in change, at the grocery store. Regardless to the minds of some people, the largess or otherwise of the deed, it is still wrong.

This is what so irritates me, about people so eager to cast the first stone, just because they themselves have not had an affair, does not mean that they do not have an indiscretion in their past, that they would rather not be made public.

Oh, and what is with discretion these days anyway. Years ago, politicians, used to have mistresses and I am sure there must have been rich and powerful women, that had paramours. Very rarely, did these stories come out, as there did seem to be some sort of mutual understanding. These days, it is a rush to the person, waving a blank cheque, with the most zeros.

Affairs happen for a number of reasons, boredom, the sense of something new or different, the excitement of not getting caught.

I am not that big on moralizing and have no desire to go down the path , John Edwards himself did with regard to Bill Clinton in 1999.

It is far better for him to be left alone and deal with his family and his alleged son, than continue to feed the tabloid frenzy.

Diogenes said...

Well said, Andrew.

Barbara LeBey said...

Normally, I would agree that the media has no business exploiting the very personal lives of people in the public eye, but with John Edwards, there is a legitimate basis for criticism:

1. If the affair occurred in 2006 as he said, he had no business running for President because we all know these salacious tidbits always have a way of coming out, and what if he were now the nominee and the affair was splashed across the headlines of every media outlet?

2. With a wife battling terminal cancer and worrying endlessly about the future of her young children without a mother, having this to deal with is beyond cruel.

Of course, it could be said that if John Edwards really did tell his wife about the affair before deciding to run for Presiden and Elizabeth Edwards agreed that he should run, both are culpable of very bad judgment.

Barbara LeBey said...

Normally, I would agree that the media has no business exploiting the very personal lives of people in the public eye, but with John Edwards, there is a legitimate basis for criticism:

1. If the affair occurred in 2006 as he said, he had no business running for President because we all know these salacious tidbits always have a way of coming out, and what if he were now the nominee and the affair was splashed across the headlines of every media outlet?

2. With a wife battling terminal cancer and worrying endlessly about the future of her young children without a mother, having this to deal with is beyond cruel.

Of course, it could be said that if John Edwards really did tell his wife about the affair before deciding to run for Presiden and Elizabeth Edwards agreed that he should run, both are culpable of very bad judgment.

spotted-dick said...

I believe that he did not think he could win the nomination, rather that he could play some sort of power broker position. I never felt that his heart was really in it, especially with the Obama bandwagon and the Clinton machine.

Perhaps he thought he could get away with it and probably believed at the time that he was not going to be in a position to be nominated.

The press do like to get their teeth into things and the state of Elizabeth Edwards as a prime candidate to keep a story running.

Perhaps she felt that it would either not come out, or she felt it so insignificant as to not make a difference. The thing is, we do not know, what exactly he told her, so I do think it is not easy to criticize someone without the full story, which I believe we will never truly know.

I do wonder what the American people as a whole find worse. Finding their representatives hand in the till, or their pants down?

I still remain convinced that getting up to sexual naughtiness, is far less of an issue, than using your position for monetary gain.

Barbara LeBey said...

Of course, taking bribes, embezzling, committing fraud is far worse. That said, the media is voracious and can't seem to get enough of these salacious stories because most "journalists" aren't up to dealing with complicated corruption and abuse of power situations. Even the dumbest of them understand illicit sex in whatever form it takes so when the high and mighty fall because of sexual indiscretions, the pundits jump, especially when hypocrisy and cover-ups are part of the mix. These stories drive up both their ratings and their bottom line. If these politicians, who normally love being in front of the camera, want privacy, they should find some other line of work.

spotted-dick said...

Is the media so indignant because he had the affair, or because he lied about it.

I never understand why these politicians or any other person for that matter, lie about something, when the evidence against them is so damning.

It would be rather refreshing if they just came out and said, "Well, she was hot, look at her, I just could not help myself." Or, "I just feel, that one woman is not enough for the talent that I have".

Something instead of the denial, the subsequent denials, then the big interview on television, followed by pleas for forgiveness.

I am sure most people would say, "Given the chance, I would have done it too", if the other woman or man, though they are few and far between, has a high bonkability factor.

There does seem to be a lot of, "How on earth, could you cheat on her, with that".

Perhaps it is the case of something different, because in all the recent affairs and call girl scandals, the one at home, always seems much better looking, than the one they end up caught with. Or, is it that the one they do get caught with, is giving them something, that they are not getting at home.

The thing is this. Do men, just have an affair purely for the sexual thrill, or do they look at other attractions? Like a mind for example.

Barbara LeBey said...

Having done over 200 male interviews for my book project, HE'S NOT TOO YOUNG FOR YOU, I learned a lot about the motivation of men to have an affair. The reasons are varied: 1. they want the excitement of someone new, a stimulation they are no longer getting at home; 2. their marriages are deeply unsatisfying, not just in the area of sex but in other ways, feeling as if they are "just a paycheck;" 3. they are lonely even in a marriage; 4. their wives are no longer interested in having sex with them; and 5. they're sensing a loss of sexual potency in themselves and need the thrill of a different woman.

All of this begs the question: Is it a betrayal, a fall from grace, a cruelty to their spouse?

Some would say it is always wrong. I can't say that. I believe it depends on circumstances. If a man or a woman wants to keep the family together for the sake of raising children, but the spouse is not a willing sexual partner, must their first be a divorce before the deprived spouse finds companionship elsewhere? Unwillingness to have sex with a spouse is a widely accepted ground for divorce. Putting the children first and not divorcing but continuing the marriage while having an affair may be the right solution for some. Putting religion aside, who can really say?

No one knows the inside story of a marriage except the people in it. Best not to judge.

As for a man running for President and having an extramarital relation while his wife is battling terminal cancer, I believe that is an entirely different situation, and my take: Despicable! A betrayal of everyone: family, friends, staff, supporters, and the American people.

spotted-dick said...

Just commenting on the betrayal thing and running for President.

I am not perfect, never met anybody that is, though some do come close. However, these days, does the immense media scrutiny, stop people from running for President, that would otherwise be ably qualified.

Should what we do in our private life and the mistakes we make in them, taint our ability to be professional at becoming President of the United States. Was the ability of President Clinton to do the job, rendered pointless, because of his inability to pay for a dry cleaning bill? Being that his reputation, was somewhat in doubt, before he ascended to the White House, I do find it odd, that people became indignant. Though from what I could tell, it was more about where he did it, the fact that he lied under oath, according to those accusing him, than the act itself.

I believe these days, it is more difficult to live up to the old age of "Cometh the hour, cometh the man", due to scrutiny of your personal life.

Barbara LeBey said...

No matter what we may think of an indiscretion, once the media get a hold of it, it's over. They won't let go because it's the way they increase their ratings and their bottom line, plus the fact that it's not complicated. They (the pundits who aren't the brightest and the best) understand the simplicity of infidelity. They don't do as well with complicated corruption...like the Halliburton contracts for example.

BloggerTruth67 said...

The Globe reported on Obama's Gay/Drug problems:
http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/23/globe-covers-sinclair-obama-sex-scandal/

Hillary could get the nomination at the Demo Convention this week if superdelegates knew the truth about Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

 
Add to Technorati Favorites