John Edwards Admits to Affair

Answers and Replies

  • #2
OrbitalPower
I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.
 
  • #3
18,423
8,260
I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.

Yeah how could he think that would not surface if he was the candidate. It would be game over before it started.
 
  • #4
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
36
Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren
 
  • #5
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
50
I feel sorry for his wife. She has had the attention of more than a few people on health-care issues, and this is really going to derail her work.
 
  • #6
18,423
8,260
Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?

In the interview, Edwards says he lied repeatedly about the affair with a 44-year-old woman while his wife struggled with cancer. He denied he is the father of the woman’s child as reported by The National Enquirer, which broke the story.

Do don't see a problem with that chroot? That he could have been candidate for president?
 
  • #7
Jordan Joab
Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

Thank you.
 
  • #8
740
13
I actually was rooting for him in the primary and was sorry he lost to Obama and Hillary. Of course, now I am glad, as it likely would have come out during the campaign or something. I think it's unfortunate so many people are concerned with superficialities.

Who gives a crap about what a politician does with his genitals? Find something more relevant to worry about.

- Warren

Today is the day that the Beijing Olympic organizers humiliated every western, blond-haired, blue-eyed, English-speaking Olympic host city with their opening ceremonies. Maybe that's the reason the US media opted to focus on Edwards' personal life today.
 
  • #9
2,425
7
It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?
Truth is : it sells tabloids. There is nothing more to it, people don't like to think too hard about complicated political arguments.
Oh, the bad guy cheated on his wife is a simple argument understood even (especially) in Texas.

Disclaimer : I have absolutely nothing to back up this opinion.
 
  • #10
kyleb
It's not what he did with his genitals, but what he did to his family of 5. I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?
I'm not much on trusting politicians regardless, but I think Thomas Jefferson did a respectable job with the office despite his infidelities.
 
  • #11
1,250
2
I don't personally care about this frivolous issue, but I am very disappointed with John Edwards for endangering and damaging the democratic party with this nonsense. He, and Bill Clinton in 1998, were more concerned with themselves then they were with advancing the democratic agenda (I don't say that because they wasted time having extramarital sex, I say it because they knew their actions had a high probability of hurting the party in future elections but they couldn't stop themselves).

On the other hand, democrats likely wouldn't mind if bedroom issues become central to the campaign, since Obama has a much cleaner history as a husband and father then does John Mccain.
 
  • #12
Jordan Joab
I don't personally care about this frivolous issue, but I am very disappointed with John Edwards for endangering and damaging the democratic party with this nonsense. He, and Bill Clinton in 1998, were more concerned with themselves then they were with advancing the democratic agenda (I don't say that because they wasted time having extramarital sex, I say it because they knew their actions had a high probability of hurting the party in future elections but they couldn't stop themselves).

On the other hand, democrats likely wouldn't mind if bedroom issues become central to the campaign, since Obama has a much cleaner history as a husband and father then does John Mccain.

That we know of.
 
  • #13
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
I would not trust a man for president who cheats on his wife and betrays his children, do you?
A lot of people will be voting for McCain.
 
  • #14
1,250
2
That we know of.

That is hardly worth saying, since we have no reason to doubt the public account of Obama's life. It would likewise be wrong to follow the statement "John McCain has not ever been a pedophile" with your "that we know of." The reason that it is absurd to say things like this is that we do not doubt things without a reason, since otherwise we could doubt everything everyone ever says. In other words, cautioning that Obama may have hidden affairs in his past, without any evidence for this, is simply fear mongering.
 
  • #15
WarPhalange
It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a pedophile.

You can say "McCain has never had an affair that we know of." but saying anything about pedophilia is a bit far.
 
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
20,572
7,231
Can't believe I am first to break this on PF.
Really? It doesn't surprise me at all! :tongue:
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
20,572
7,231
This is interesting - this is almost exactly the same as how McCain's went down (difference is he married the woman). Is Edwards' name still being kicked-around as a VP candidate? This could kill him because I suspect the Dems are holding this issue in reserve for Sep/Oct.
 
  • #18
1,250
2
It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a pedophile.
So exactly how likely does something have to be in order to arouse your suspicion? Would it be correct to follow "John McCain has never used illegal drugs" with "that we know of?" I chose this example because most statistics put the rate of illegal drug use beyond the rates of affairs, although you can find statistics that disagree with this.

More directly, I think that applying frequentist logic to human behavior is a flawed way to derive conclusions. Not only do humans have free will, which allows them to break frequentist patterns a priori, but also in practice the frequentist misapply there own system by comparing two situations that are essentially different. You might counter this by saying that frequentist reasoning works well "in practice", but I would argue that this is not a scientific claim because it cannot be falsified.
You can say "McCain has never had an affair that we know of."

You can say it, but then you would be contradicting public facts e.g. McCain's biography that was linked to by Gokul above:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html

"McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs. "

McCain wrote: "But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

Ex-wife Carol wrote: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

"McCain was generous with Carol, the mother of their daughter Sidney and two sons, whom McCain had adopted."

but saying anything about pedophilia is a bit far.

Again, what standard are you applying? At what point does a societal pathology become statistically large enough for you to suspect all people of possessing it without any direct evidence?
 
  • #19
1,250
2
Is Edwards' name still being kicked-around as a VP candidate?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/ap-edwards-makes-obamas-vp-list/" [Broken]

This could kill him

I agree, I think he hardly had a chance to begin with and now he is very unlikely.

because I suspect the Dems are holding this issue in reserve for Sep/Oct.

This might be true, but you should also consider that the democrats might be ignoring McCain's infidelity because it is frivolous and irrelevant. Only time will tell, but I hope that the democrats take the high road.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
WarPhalange
Again, what standard are you applying? At what point does a societal pathology become statistically large enough for you to suspect all people of possessing it without any direct evidence?

My point was saying "XXX never had an extra-marital affair... that we know of" is low, but saying "XXX is not a pedophile... that we know of." is just stupid.
 
  • #21
1,250
2
My point was saying "XXX never had an extra-marital affair... that we know of" is low, but saying "XXX is not a pedophile... that we know of." is just stupid.

I asked you what criterion you are using to make this distinction, and you said that my example is "just stupid." I think that it is wrong to distinguish some kinds of unfounded speculative fear mongering from others, the entire method of inference, if you can even call it that, is too flawed. By drawing a distinction you are giving legitimacy to this misinformation tactic.
 
  • #22
WarPhalange
How many people have extra-marital affairs? How "acceptable" is it?

Now, how many people are pedophiles? How "acceptable" is that?

Statistically speaking, either candidate is more likely to cheat on his wife than molest some kid.
 
  • #23
WheelsRCool
I don't like politicians cheating on their wives, but it's ultimately no one's business I'd think.

I don't like that the media has kept so quiet about it though. If this was Mitt Romney, or Giuliani, I would bet it would be headlines in the all the major news media publications and news channels.
 
  • #24
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
5
It's more likely that someone has had an extra-marital affair than that they are a ...

I think this line of argument is counterproductive and your choice of "worse than" an extramarital affair more than unfortunate. Without careful reading you are creating by association a potentially salacious libel juxtaposing Edwards' name (or anyone's name save maybe Michael Jackson's for that matter) and I think it is something to be avoided.

As to the OP, I wouldn't have voted for Edwards against most other Democrats, but certainly this revelation throws a shroud of hypocrisy over his ads about standing by Elizabeth and the 2 of them vowing to defend the common person. I am disappointed in his supposed values and the demonstrated selfishness at the very time that he was trying to advance himself on the wings of selflessness.
 
  • #25
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
5
If this was Mitt Romney, or Giuliani, I would bet it would be headlines in the all the major news media publications and news channels.

Not for Guiliani. He's a been there done that guy already. Squeaky clean Mitt the Mormon on the other hand would surely be more than explosive news in the context of his moral rectitude posturing.
 

Related Threads on John Edwards Admits to Affair

Replies
88
Views
13K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
102
Views
54K
Replies
3
Views
3K
S
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
56
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Replies
49
Views
5K
I
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Top