Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How Is John McCain's Affair Different from John Edwards'?

By Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post. Posted August 11, 2008.


With all this griping about Edwards, it's time to ask why McCain's political career isn't suffering for his adulterous affairs.
Advertisement

We have this weird notion in America now that if a politician is caught in an affair that his career is done. We seem to be saying that what he did in his private life effects his policies or how he governs. But we all know that isn't true. We know that because almost all of our great presidents, and great leaders throughout history, have had numerous affairs. Obviously it didn't hurt how they governed at all.

I love the idea of someone saying Alexander the Great can't lead his empire because he's cheating on his wife (by the way, doesn't Alexander's bisexuality single-handedly destroy the idea that gays can't serve in the military). How about Genghis Khan? He had so many affairs that nearly 1% of the entire world population has his genes. Not fit to lead? And there have also been men of great compassion who led noble fights while still doing ignoble things in their private lives. We are all human at home.

We have now heard the stories of JFK receiving sexual favors after speeches in his limo and partying with several women on a yacht while his wife was delivering. But those are all in the past -- so they don't count. But John Edwards is caught having an extramarital affair and the overwhelming assumption is that his political career is absolutely over. How does that make any sense?

Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran?

Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it's not the affair but the lies that went along with it. Really? Did JFK come out and tell the American people - or his wife - "by the way, while my wife was in the hospital I was having an affair with not one, but several women at the same time"? No, of course, he lied too. Every man that has ever cheated on his wife has lied (and so has every woman who has ever cheated). It is part and parcel of the affair.

Now, we get to the most relevant question - if John Edwards' political career is done, why isn't John McCain's? John McCain had a well-documented affair on his first wife, with his current wife. He has admitted in the books he has written about his life that he ran around with several different women while still married to his first wife. And don't forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman - multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain - after she had been severely hurt in a car accident.

So, why are McCain's actions any more excusable than Edwards'? Because it was thirty years ago? Does that wash it away? Will we be fine with Edwards running for office again in a couple of years because then it will all be in the past? What is the statute of limitations on an affair?

Remember Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Ross Perot were so upset with how John McCain dealt with his first wife that they didn't forgive him for a very, very long time. Perot still hasn't forgiven him. In fact, he said recently about McCain dumping his first wife for Cindy, "McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory."

So, I want every pundit who condemns John Edwards today to tell me what the difference between him and McCain is and why John McCain shouldn't also be run out of politics for his adulterous affairs and what he did to his first wife.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: john edwards, vicki iseman, mcccain, affair, rielle hunter

Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
all in a days work for the media
Posted by: Richard House on Aug 11, 2008 1:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“So, I want every pundit who condemns John Edwards today to tell me what the difference between him and McCain is and why John McCain shouldn't also be run out of politics for his adulterous affairs and what he did to his first wife.”

We all know there is no difference.

But some opinionated people like Gail Collins who writes for the New York Times always decide to go with the morally superior position by writing titles for AlterNet (a title more appropriate for the National Enquirer) John Edwards' Ken Doll Lust. She gives good voice to the proper American prude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a fellow POW thinks of McCain's integrity -- or lack thereof
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 11, 2008 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an article published in June 2008 by Military.com, Phillip Butler, a Navy pilot and U.S.
Naval Academy graduate who spent more than eight years in North Vietnam as a
prisoner of war, explained why he would not support McCain for the presidency.

Here are some excerpts from Butler’s Internet posting:

Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million
years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would
someday be a Senator and candidate for President! John was a
wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent.
But he was intent on breaking every regulation in our four-inch-
thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come
as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the
Academy.

I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year
and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the
majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he got
caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing
5th from the bottom of his 800-man class. I and many others have
speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his
father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both Naval
Academy graduates.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special
qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs
are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion,
something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60’s
and 70’s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate
than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and
malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s
age (71) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to
serve as our President for four or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot
head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have
experienced firsthand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger
I want next to the red button.

John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity
to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist
ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush
because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously
put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely
disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other
instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he
markets himself to be.


Butler didn't mention marital infidelity as another reason for opposing McCain's candidacy. He didn't have to. There was enough grist in Bultler's mill to reduce McCain to the small contemptible "man" he is. Unfaithfulness, which indicates of lack of integrity, is simply another indication of why the Arizona senator is unfit for command.


With love,

*Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican and ardent Obama supporter.
Seven Reasons to Vote Against Unfit McCain

*For the benefit of first-time AlterNet visitors to give context to this comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Republican troll...... Posted by: LionHeart
» ummmmmm..... Posted by: foreverhope
» Lionheart Posted by: foreverhope
» Just the facts please! Posted by: LionHeart
» Not stalking, just criticizing.... Posted by: progressive-life
» OMG! Carbon based was booted! Posted by: foreverhope
» Why stifle all opposing voices? Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: OMG! Carbon based was booted! Posted by: foreverhope
» Bless you, Hugh!!! Posted by: mountainmama
» Jealous Posted by: progressive-life
» Obama/(some loser that wont steal the show) Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
How is John Edwards affair different from John McCain's?
Posted by: toni5000 on Aug 11, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's very simple - John Edwards' wife is dying of cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They're aiming for Obama Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: How different? Yes, simple Posted by: truthlover
» Three words Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Media Feeding Frenzy
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Aug 11, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the news media that whips up this non-news and spoonfeeds it, along with commentary, to the masses who psychologically pick up on it and enjoy it because it makes them feel better about themselves. Especially if it's a candidate or politician you hate, you're more likely to demonize them for their immorality and therefore climb up a little more on your proverbial high horse.

I don't care about John Edwards' affair and I have not read articles about it. I do not care about McCain's affairs either, nor do I care about anyone else's. It's nothing more than gossip, which to me is a sin anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Media Feeding Frenzy Posted by: Lauren
» Under the UCMJ Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Under the UCMJ Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Under the UCMJ Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Under the UCMJ Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Under the UCMJ Posted by: Quannah
waynep
Posted by: waynep on Aug 11, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is only one of many things that the press seems unwilling to deal with in regard to McCain and his past. Given McCain's propensity for speaking improperly, I am beginning to wonder if the writers were beginning to worry about not have the silliness of "Bush speak" to quote if the articulate Obama were to be elected president, and want to keep the fun alive! Let's see, we have a very privileged son of a highly placed father who did academically poorly in school BUT still got into a highly competitive undergraduate program, did even more poorly there BUT was still able to skip over 100's of more highly rated competitors to the next plum assignment (and who adamantly opposes affirmative action so as to maintain a "level playing field"!), and who seems to have a propensity to mangle the English language when he explains to the American people how he makes decisions with his "gut"....Bush? yes. McCain? yes. Hmmmm....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: waynep Posted by: Lauren
» McCain's Gut Posted by: boing007
That was then, this is now
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 11, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the idea of someone saying Alexander the Great can't lead his empire because he's cheating on his wife (by the way, doesn't Alexander's bisexuality single-handedly destroy the idea that gays can't serve in the military). How about Genghis Khan? He had so many affairs that nearly 1% of the entire world population has his genes.

Bit of a stretch. That was then, this is now. It's called progress. It's time to expect more and most American voters agree. That is one reason the republicans win, ESPECIALLY in 2000. Even though they suck, they at least get that.


We have now heard the stories of JFK receiving sexual favors after speeches in his limo and partying with several women on a yacht while his wife was delivering. But those are all in the past --

I've never believed the 'stories' about JFK. He was in terrible pain from his back injury, sometimes could barely walk, had to sit in a special chair and had daily injections to control the pain. Besides running the country and two kids I think he pretty much had his hands full with other stuff. His dad cheated and JFK WAS very handsome, so 'stories' will always persist, about Robert too, even though he had TWELVE kids. If Kennedy had all these women why don't they come forward? Sounds like there must be hundreds of them.


Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran?

Who knows. He does have nerve though, all that falderall about Hillary or Barack getting his endorsement and how much that would mean. Wonder how the people that worked for him and sent him money feel? If he had won the nomination the dems would be in a WORLD of HURT going into our convention and McCain (or any other repug) would almost certainly be our next prez.


Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it's not the affair but the lies that went along with it.

Clinton lyed to my face "I did not have sex with that woman....The dog tried to blame it all on that woman. OK to lie about her ruin her, just another bimbo.

So, why are McCain's actions any more excusable than Edwards'?

They aren't.


So, I want every pundit who condemns John Edwards today to tell me what the difference between him and McCain is and why John McCain shouldn't also be run out of politics for his adulterous affairs and what he did to his first wife.

There is no dif.


The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.

Abraham Lincoln
*********

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» a clarification Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: a much bigger lie Posted by: Christie
» I'm sorry but.... Posted by: foreverhope
» Well, just plain WOW... Posted by: Aimleft
» whatever... Posted by: foreverhope
» whatever... Posted by: foreverhope
» HAHAHAHAHA!!!!. Posted by: Aimleft
saveusall
Posted by: saveusall on Aug 11, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edward's cowardly lying about the affair was compounded by his arrogance in stating that the affair took place when his wife's breast cancer was in remission. Maybe he could have said because his son died, or some other equally hideously callous reason. What he places before his supposedly devoted political fans is the same old stuff - win at any cost.

As a breast cancer survivor, I know that current diagnostics are only able to tell a patient that there is "no evidence of disease"; apparently Elizabeth's recurrence, coming relatively quickly after her treatments, was not in remission. John Edwards doesn't even seem to know the facts about his wife's illness, and, worse still, uses a life-taking illness as an excuse for his affair.

Integrity is in short supply these days. Edwards is a great example of this - smiling while he is interviewed, and not being the least bit credible. Don't believe him now. Never did. He played the "cute" thing for the last time for most women - especially breast cancer survivors.

NOTE: "saveusall" is about curing cancer, not saving us from Edwards - the latter is a personal choice for all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's called manning up Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: saveusall Posted by: D. Julian Terry
» RE: saveusall Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: saveusall Posted by: bc430
» bc430 Posted by: foreverhope
» republican outrage and impeachment Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: saveusall Posted by: Aimleft
» Aimleft Posted by: foreverhope
The difference? Edwards is a smart guy
Posted by: citizenjoe on Aug 11, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with real moral fiber-- McCain is the living dead.Who expects anything from these Republican monstrosities? The problem is the press wants us to think they are normal politicians. The Media does not want to admit the Republican Party has been transformed into a cult greedy to rule the world, spill blood, and steal everything. Corporate Fascism any one?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warmonger
Posted by: Christie on Aug 11, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some opinions of McCain from his own party and military comrades:

McCain - War You Can Believe in!

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Republicans_and
_miltary_men_on_John_McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Warmonger Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Warmonger Posted by: Lauren
The real "marriage-commitment party"
Posted by: DanYHKim on Aug 11, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real difference between McCain and Edwards is that the Edwards' are staying together. While Reagan, Gingrich and McCain are all divorced and re-married (and so are continuing in adultery, according to the Bible); the Clintons and Edwards are still together.

Commitment to marriage means staying together and coming to reconciliation, even after a disasterous betrayal such as an affair. The commitment of marriage requires humility, character and compromise . . . qualities that should also be found in a good president.

A party whose prominent leaders include so many adulterous divorcees could perhaps be called . . . the 'cut and run' party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no difference between FOX and the rest of the MSM at this point
Posted by: Jasonix on Aug 11, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched a few minutes of the Matt Lauer and Meredith Veira (sp?) this morning just to see Olympic results. They started talking about the McCain/Obama race and ended up talking about John Edward's affair (message - Dem's cheat). Then they concluded with an interview with Dan Quayle. These are the same folks who quiver about Rev. Wright while giving John Hagee and Pat Robertson a free pass, who talk about Obama's tire gauges, and talk about the success of the surge.

I do think, of course, that the MSM can press Obama (and McCain) on various issues - like how they're going to deal with the need to rebuild the public transportation system, get Americans to accept driving less, and deal with the fact that our public infrastructure is decayed and that our private living and commercial spaces are doggerels that weren't built to last 30 years, and a wave of massive architectural collapse is coming upon the country at the same time as peak oil and economic collapse. But that requires too much attention span.

On the issue of politicians having affairs, I think everyone should realize by now that powerful men are never faithful - that's why they're driven to become powerful in the first place. Powerful men just shouldn't get married in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Difference? Very Little....
Posted by: ChicagoPaul on Aug 11, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is interesting is listening to the Republicans (and especially the Right Wingers) as they defend Senator McCain. They find themselves painted into a very sticky corner right now.

Can the Republicans/Right-Wingers condemn one and not the other? Can they "forgive" or gloss over one and not the other?

Is the line so fine that it really makes a difference between breast cancer and car accident? Like "Oh, it was just a car accident and Elizabeth has breast cancer...much worse!"??

My favorite (so far, anyway) is "Well, that's ancient history!" Well, yeah, McCain, by virtue of his age, CAN have some ancient history! So, how does that make things different? Time vs Behavior.

No, what is REALLY important about these affairs is how each side handles them and how the MEDIA decides to play it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right on the money, Cenk!
Posted by: patsy6 on Aug 11, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, Republicans seem to have particularly severe short term memory loss when it comes to this type of thing. Apparently the names Mark Foley, Larry Craig and David Vitter don't ring a bell to them anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RNC Where are you? Posted by: boing007
Funny how moral fiber only applies to sex...
Posted by: loxias on Aug 11, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rob the country blind? Patriotic. Gut social services and education? Fiscally sound. Wipe out a foreign culture to secure resources? Needs of the people. Imprison without trial? Enhanced justice. Force lower class majorities into poverty-level existence? Economy trickling down. Use political power to extract bribes? Cost of doing business. Sleep with someone outside your relationship? You sick, perverted, liberal, lying, scummy, communist, insensitive, corrupt, inhumane, populist, dishonest, anti-American terrorist lover... Allowing this logic to consume American culture is why your phones are tapped, your home is foreclosed, you can't find work and you wonder what having health care would be like. It's not that cheating isn't wrong, it's about the greater good for society. How many people did you not hear about losing their job while you fretted on about Edward's marriage?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only Democratic affairs count
Posted by: DrSuess on Aug 11, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven’t you noticed that only the Democrats seem to have their affairs spread across the front pages. John Edwards and Bill Clintons affairs were front page news. But John McCain’s affair is backroom gossip.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

character
Posted by: sureshot45 on Aug 11, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for years i have listened to everyone around me talk about how the affairs of politicians should not and do not matter. their personal life has nothing to do with the way they govern. i disagree. when you enter a marriage, at least in this country, you make a vow. a vow to your husband or wife to stay faithful. before your friends and family. and at one point in these peoples lives, they loved this person more than anyone else in the world. im sure no one on this site will agree, but i think it speaks volumes about someones character when they cheat with hookers or have full blown affairs while still married. if these politicians can lie and betray the trust of the one person they were supposed to care about more than anything in the world (by society's standards of marriage in the states) then who is to say they will not lie and cheat their way through the job? a liar is a liar, a cheater is a cheater. if you can flat out lie to your wife dying of cancer and sleep around while she is receiving treatment, why do i want someone as disgusting as you representing me and the american people and making very important decisions that affect the entire world? i dont.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: character Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: character Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: character Posted by: sureshot45
» RE: character Posted by: badkitty
» RE: character Posted by: dangerouslysane
English 101
Posted by: mdwoade on Aug 11, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say: "And don't forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman - multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain - after she had been severely hurt in a car accident."

This sounds like he left his first wife for a younger woman, who had been severely hurt in a car accident. Maybe John McCain has a thing for crash victims (see James Spader movie "Crash"). What you mean and what you say are apparently different things; perhaps, you might want to re-work that sentence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: English 101 Posted by: Libertine
MSM has been sitting on this story for a long time
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 11, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many months, most in Washington knew, only went public when the Enquirer put it out. Don't blame the media, it is ALL on John's shoulders. Blame Monica, blame the repugs, blame the media! Blame me! BAH! That's fucking bullshit.

I am just not understanding why fellow dems and progressives insist on making out that just cause the repugs conduct themselves in a reprehensible manner it is ok for dems to get away with it. Voters want and expect character and integrity! Dems better come to terms with that and deal with it instead of complaining. If you (we) can't we might capture the presidency and the Congress in this election cycle but we won't hold onto them.

Dem or repug, they are paid quite a lot to do the People's business, they asked for it. If they don't like being on the front page they should find another line of work or watch their ps and qs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Points taken Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Points taken Posted by: Lauren
Sex Education John Edwards Could Have Used -- Like Others Before Him
Posted by: Religious_Institute on Aug 11, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some basic guidelines for politicians -- or any sexually healthy adult.

Honor your commitments to your partner. A sexually healthy marriage is based on honesty and trust; only you and your spouse know what you have agreed to, but don't put her in the position of having to stand by you at a microphone while you confess to the entire world. Keep that picture in your head as you are considering your behaviors. I have great respect for the way Elizabeth Edwards responded this weekend.

Understand that you can have a sexual feeling without acting on it -- without even telling anyone about it. Think about it -- if Bill Clinton had thought to himself, "Cute Intern. Too Young, Too Risky" and moved on, he would not have been impeached. If your partner isn't interested in exploring a particular part of your eroticism with you, the safest thing is to explore it only in the confines of your mind.

Nothing, really nothing, is ever private between two people. Someone always tells someone. And the less the other person has to lose, the more likely they are to tell more people. In fact, unless it's your life partner, only have sex with someone who has as much to lose as you do. Sex workers don't. Neither do women or men in their twenties. Oh, and the scrupulous use of birth control and condoms are not alternative behaviors. One can only hope that Mr. Edwards knows for sure that this is not his child.

Rev. Debra Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leaders as role models
Posted by: taxidriver on Aug 11, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ideally, we want our leaders to be role models--to be men and women of integrity. With his callous treatment of his wife and his self- serving confession on TV, Edwards failed this test. I'd argue that McCain also fails this test. His past is dubious (at best), and he seems to treat his present wife as a bank and an ornament.

Ironically, the GOP of "family values" should be celebrating Obama--by all accounts, he has a healthy and stable marriage with two adorable children.

Imagine if McCain was the Democratic candidate, and Obama the Republican? Imagine how the Republican party would be exploiting the flawed character of the womanizing McCain, the one who left his crippled wife for a younger woman who could bankroll his ambitions (even better if this story isn't quite true)? And then contrasting that story to the faithful Obama, with the attractive wife and adorable kids, testifying to the strength of the American Christian nuclear family?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wrensis
Posted by: wrensis on Aug 11, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who uses this for political gain for any candidate is sick. Be grateful he is not the Democratic candidate and move on with your lives. Say a prayer for th