you know what? your last paragraph is really the only point. it's exactly the point. it's THE point.

the media just wants their monica moment. they're going to find out what you've done. if you're banging somebody on the side, then be ready to own up to it - and don't play the morality game.

(Reply) (Thread)

And Thomas Jefferson, well, it's still in some debate, but he's been accused of fathering a child with a slave.

Still in debate? Last I heard there was now DNA evidence.

(Reply) (Thread)

According to that, it could be from other branches of the Jefferson family. It wasn't conclusive, and many scholars still deny it.

...According to Wikipedia, which is always correct.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I think if Americans quit worrying so much about what is going on in other peoples' bedrooms, we'd get a lot more done around here.

Edited at 2008-08-10 04:04 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

My favorite line from D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover (said by Oliver Mellors) says something right along the same lines.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Over on boutell's journal, this issue was brought up as well. It's irritating to see politicians lie about their personal lives -- better to not say anything at all, if you have even one skeleton in your closet -- but I've got outrage fatigue. It doesn't matter as much to me anymore. Besides, I'm more interested in the strategy angle: how long ago did Edwards say this, versus when the muck was raked? I get the feeling that it was originally said way back when he was originally running for Prez, and only now is it getting gleefully touted around the media because he might've been considered as Obama's Veep. (He still might be, for all I know, but wouldn't that put quite a sabot in the gears!) It says more to me about how real people think his chances are of being Obama's Veep versus his chances at being President.

(Reply) (Thread)

And for my part? I really don't care whether someone sleeps with his wife, his secretary, or Bob Dole, as long as he does a good job at what I, the voter, need him to do. Affairs--with another consenting adult--are between you, your partner, and the third party. They're none of the public's business.

Honestly...people cheat. Men with power have mistresses; women with power probably sleep around a fair amount too, though it's not been very well-documented because there've been fewer of 'em. So what? Not everyone who has an affair or two--or five--is a scumbag in general. Someone I wouldn't date, if I valued monogamy, sure. A bad person? Not necessarily. Not at all.

(Reply) (Thread)

"A bad person? Not necessarily. Not at all."

You've confused the issue there. If someone has affairs, in the "not approved by their spouse" sense, then yes, they are a bad person, at least in part.

But your original point wasn't about whether someone was a bad person, but whether or not they were a good (as in effective) governor (as in person who governs). That is, I entirely agree, orthogonal to their sexual lives. As Ferrett said, efficacy of governance and after-hours behavior are not strongly correlated. A good governor can be a bad person, and vice (ha!) versa.

That said, I have no sympathy for Edwards, who not only said many things about the importance of character, but also criticized Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. Thus does he join a long and distinguished lineup of politicians from both sides of the aisle who slammed Clinton for exactly what they had done, or were to do thereafter. To which all I can say is: "morons".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

But when you play the "VOTE FOR ME 'CAUSE I'M ALMOST AS MORAL AS THE POPE!" card, then don't be surprised when someone trumps that play with "NO YOU'RE NOT."

That's the point right there. The thing that disqualified Gary Hart from being President was not that he had an affair and lied about it, but that he challenged the press to follow him and see for themselves... And then continued his behavior, and was shocked - SHOCKED! - to find out that the press had done exactly what he told them to do.

It's not the affair or the dishonesty so much as the extreme downright stupidity.

(Reply) (Thread)

Heh. I never actually followed that and had no idea it happened. That's hilarious.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"I did not sleep with that RealDoll!"

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

But when you play the "VOTE FOR ME 'CAUSE I'M ALMOST AS MORAL AS THE POPE!" card, then don't be surprised when someone trumps that play with "NO YOU'RE NOT."

Exactly. And this is also what screwed Spitzer. I don't think anyone in America is shocked by Edwards, but most are thinking he's a total idiot and hypocrite.

(Reply) (Thread)

I never understood while the whole Lewinsky thing was happening just what the big deal was. I was only 12 when it all started, of course, so that could be why. XD

In all seriousness, though, I've never understood the tremendous leap of logic that takes us from "cheater" to "POSSIBLY THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER OMG". I know that most politicians who cheat (assuming there isn't an "open marriage" going on, which I consider entirely possible) are not thinking right when they do, because when you're in the spotlight there is simply no way to keep secrets. Especially not the ones you really care about keeping. Heck, it's hard enough for me to keep secrets from anyone, with the internet age going on (if I slip and mention it on one of my blogs, who knows who might find it?), and I don't have swarms of obsessive news jockeys combing over everything there is to know about me.

(Reply) (Thread)

Just because you gave me the opening, not because it's what ANYONE else thinks, or would say....

If I had been a 20-year-old girl (and I was once) and a rich, famous, powerful man was my boss, I'd surely have thought it was a great "honor" (or at least a coup) to have him want to have an affair with me.

If my dad found out about it, he'd have made me quit my job and ripped my boss a new asshole.

I did not see Clinton/Lewinsky as a slightly shady, everyone-does-it affair between two consenting adults. For me, it contained all the romance of my restaurant manager coercing me to blow him in the walk-in cooler. If my restaurant manager suddenly becomes more attractive, or the walk-in cooler suddenly has the cool cachet of the Oval Office, it doesn't really change the image, for me, of Clinton being the kind of mouth-breather that takes advantage of his position for cheap thrills. It's plain that he wasn't in love with Monica; he was using her.

Of course, this has nothing to do with Paula Jones, grand juries, or impeachment. I was just too squicked to do anything but shudder.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

you completely underestimate the public. For instance, what got Clinton? Was it the blow job? Nope. In fact, if he had gone on tv the very first time it happened and admitted it, the whole thing would have blown over. His mistake was lying about it. He lied about it to the grand jury

from Starr Report September 9, 1998


Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky.


They didn't get Clinton for an affair. They got him for lying about it. The republicans could not have impeached him if he had straight up admitted it.

When Gary Hart was in the 1988 campaign, he told the press

"Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored."


If Hart had admitted his affair it would have blown over. Instead he was humiliated and driven from the presidential race. When John McCain had an affair with Cindy Lou Hensley, he admitted his adultery and then later got a divorce from Carol Shepp.

What was Larry Craig humiliated for? Being in a bathroom stall? A homosexual affair. Maybe he was just curious. Look, the public is a lot more forgiving than you give them credit for. If Craig had been a man and admitted it, the thing would have eventually blown over and he could have taken his place back in the senate.

But he lied about it, he lied just like a politician lies, he lied like they all lie, he lied as if we, the public are so incredibly stupid and they, the rulers of the world, are so incredibly valuable that we just have to believe any damn thing that comes out of their mouths. Craig was busted, Hart was busted, Clinton was busted, keep going down the list they are all busted for the same thing.

Not the affair! Lying about it to the public, and trying to con us.

On to John Edwards. He did not make an apology for his affair. Instead he said this: "It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry."

He didn't say he was sorry! He said that it was inadequate for him to apologize so he didn't do it. What is more he defend his actions against the National Enquirer with the statement that "When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough."

He defends himself in every way, he weasels his way around the main points, he defends himself by saying that not what he did was wrong but that the Enquirer was the party at fault because they didn't get every single detail right.

His conduct has been that of a used car salesman, scheming at every turn. We don't care about the affair, but his reaction to it tells us an awful lot about his character.

Don't sell the public short. They are not getting steamed about his affair, they are getting steamed, you know not necessarily because he lied, but that after he got caught, he wasn't able to come clean in a way that satisfies the public. A true humble sincere confession.

You lie. You get caught. The public wants a sincere confession. Not more of this bullshit job. That's what Edwards has given us, just more of the same bullshit job. The public will forgive you for the affair and even forgive you for lying about it the first time, give some credit to the public for that. What they don't give anyone credit for is assuming that we are so stupid, so incredibly stupid, that we will believe you even after you were caught red handed.

Floyd Landis, caught for testosterone in the tour de france, never admitted it, and is now persona non gratis. It's not the cheating that gets you, it's pretending you are so much above the rest of humanity that you do not have to admit it when you are caught that steams us.

(Reply) (Thread)

He defends himself in every way, he weasels his way around the main points, he defends himself by saying that not what he did was wrong but that the Enquirer was the party at fault because they didn't get every single detail right.

His conduct has been that of a used car salesman, scheming at every turn. We don't care about the affair, but his reaction to it tells us an awful lot about his character.

Don't sell the public short. They are not getting steamed about his affair, they are getting steamed, you know not necessarily because he lied, but that after he got caught, he wasn't able to come clean in a way that satisfies the public. A true humble sincere confession.

You lie. You get caught. The public wants a sincere confession. Not more of this bullshit job. That's what Edwards has given us, just more of the same bullshit job. The public will forgive you for the affair and even forgive you for lying about it the first time, give some credit to the public for that. What they don't give anyone credit for is assuming that we are so stupid, so incredibly stupid, that we will believe you even after you were caught red handed.

Very eloquent and totally spot on.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My comment got too long so I turned it into a blog entry.

(Reply) (Thread)

And just think: as recently as the 1960s, there was a conspiracy among the press to keep such items out of the news. How long would Kennedy have lasted in office in the '90s, I wonder?

(Reply) (Thread)

I remember back when Miterrand of France was running for PM (again), and some American paper made a remark about his mistress. The French Miterrand supporter said something like, "We French don't trust a politician if he *doesn't* have a mistress."

(Reply) (Thread)

Sorry, that should be President, not PM! :thwacks self:

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't particularly care what someone does in their personal life as long as it's consensual and it doesn't affect how well they do their job. So he had an affair; big fucking deal. As long as he can be a decent president/boss/physician/mechanics, it's none of my concern because it doesn't get in my way.

A politician lies? Film at eleven. In other news, water is wet, fire is hot, and rocks hurt if you land on them.

(Reply) (Thread)

Most affairs involve the lack of consent with the spouse.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply) (Thread)

Now if a Russian general were having an affair with a Georgian mistress...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Who wants a politician that has never made a mistake? Where did they gain experience and build character if they were never challenged or failed?

Of course, if you tout yourself as something you are not, you deserve what is going to happen to you.

Talk about what you are trying to become. (Not just the office you are a candidate for.) If you have a track record of learning from your missteps and failures, and don't make them again, you should be fine.

(Reply) (Thread)

So let me get this straight. Newt divorcing his wife while she was dying, terribly evil. John Edwards fucking some other woman while his wife was dying, trivial. Is that about right? Look, if you want to say personal lives don't matter, that's fine. If you want to say they do matter, that's fine too. But you have to apply the same standard to the people you do agree with as the people you don't.

(Reply) (Thread)

Oh good, I was stumbling on that one, too. She may not die tomorrow, and a car wreck might get her first, but otherwise metastatized cancer is going to be her killer.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Campaign tactics aside, someone who can't even keep a vow to their wife is not someone I want keeping vows with nuclear powers.

(Reply) (Thread)

From the "I knew that bastard when he was just the worst possible kind of self-serving lawyer..." files, I'm glad that the rest of the country gets to see the kind of person John Edwards is. Our state had been waking up to his scheme over the years, but his re-branding for the presidential elections had most of the country still fooled.

Thanks, John. Without your compulsion to lie in the face of evidence, I never could've convinced as many people how contemptible a human being you are the way that you did.

(Reply) (Thread)

I didn't care about Clinton and I could care less about John Edwards. Was it dumb yes? Does it have anything to do with any of us no? But, the media insists on focusing on it.

Sunday morning I got up to work out and flipped on CNN. I was looking for news on Georgia and Russia. You know that pesky situation where they appear to be on the brink of war. I kinda think that's important news. But, no all I got was a lame travel piece on how the airlines are nickel and diming us (ya think?) and John Edwards. Is it his child? Is he still lying? Did his family know? How will this affect the upcoming election? I don't care. And honestly I don't know anyone that does. It feels more like the media is wasting their time on it because somehow they missed it and the only paper to pick it up was a tabloid.

Its too bad I am too cheap to upgrade my cable to get BBC America.

(Reply) (Thread)

You say it's the electorate that doesn't care about the issues, but I lay the blame with the reporters. It's the media who decide what stories are aired, and what details we get to see, and I think they are, for the most part, lazy and not particularly intelligent.

(Reply) (Thread)