John Edwards Admits to Affair

  • #51
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
50
None of us can know what McCain and his first wife were going through, nor what Edwards and his wife were going through. That's not the point. The point is that neither do the PUMAs, and they say that they are willing to throw Obama over (who seems to have a great family), and support McCain simply because Obama "stole" the nomination that Clinton was "entitled" to. Clinton surrogates are now pumping up her activist base by claiming that if the truth had been known about Edwards' infidelity earlier, she would now be the Democratic nominee. Denver is going to be messy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1
 
  • #52
Evo
Mentor
23,192
2,992
None of us can know what McCain and his first wife were going through, nor what Edwards and his wife were going through. That's not the point. The point is that neither do the PUMAs, and they say that they are willing to throw Obama over (who seems to have a great family), and support McCain simply because Obama "stole" the nomination that Clinton was "entitled" to. Clinton surrogates are now pumping up her activist base by claiming that if the truth had been known about Edwards' infidelity earlier, she would now be the Democratic nominee. Denver is going to be messy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1
Do you have a link to back up your claims about Clinton's female supporters? That article is about a comment made by one person, FORMER Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson. Sorry, but if you are going to make such a claim, you have to back it up. I think Howard is a man.

Since no one can say for sure how much of Edward's votes would have gone to Clinton, it's idle speculation on his part, but he could be right. We will never know.
 
  • #53
Jordan Joab
Politicians should be asexual.
 
  • #54
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
50
Do you have a link to back up your claims about Clinton's female supporters? That article is about a comment made by one person, FORMER Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson. Sorry, but if you are going to make such a claim, you have to back it up. I think Howard is a man.

Since no one can say for sure how much of Edward's votes would have gone to Clinton, it's idle speculation on his part, but he could be right. We will never know.
PUMA stands for Party Unity My ***, and there are groups of these Clinton activists raising money to disrupt the convention and try to force a floor-vote on a Clinton candidacy. Here are a few links. I have tried to avoid the rather extensive coverage on Huffington Post, since you don't think that is a a reliable source (even though much/most of their content is linked from other media outlets.) As you might guess, the threat to abandon party unity is not exactly a threat to vote for Ralph Nader...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/preston.puma/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/23/pumas/
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gnrBjSOKH7qsEc1-ccoQMtO4QRpg [Broken]
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23840402-5012572,00.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Evo
Mentor
23,192
2,992
PUMA stands for Party Unity My ***, and there are groups of these Clinton activists raising money to disrupt the convention and try to force a floor-vote on a Clinton candidacy. Here are a few links. I have tried to avoid the rather extensive coverage on Huffington Post, since you don't think that is a a reliable source (even though much/most of their content is linked from other media outlets.) As you might guess, the threat to abandon party unity is not exactly a threat to vote for Ralph Nader...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/preston.puma/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/23/pumas/
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gnrBjSOKH7qsEc1-ccoQMtO4QRpg [Broken]
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23840402-5012572,00.html [Broken]
No, I'm talking about your saying that they are all blaming Edwards for Clinton losing to Obama. Do you have links to valid news sources backing that up?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
50
No, I'm talking about your saying that they are all blaming Edwards for Clinton losing to Obama. Do you have links to valid news sources backing that up?
I did not say that all the PUMAs were blaming Edwards for Clinton losing to Obama, and you can scroll back a couple of posts to see this:

turbo-1 said:
Clinton surrogates are now pumping up her activist base by claiming that if the truth had been known about Edwards' infidelity earlier, she would now be the Democratic nominee. Denver is going to be messy.

Wolfson is throwing gas on the PUMA fire just a week or so before the convention. That is not accidental. Nothing that the Clintons and their surrogates do in this campaign is accidental. These people are quite calculating and deliberate. Wolfson would never have floated this without the expressed consent of the Clintons - they still have millions of dollars in campaign debts to pay off, including a $13M loan that they made to the campaign, and they have to tread lightly to not be considered spoilers by rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons are very powerful people, and Wolfson would not have done anything to cross them, IMO.
 
  • #57
Evo
Mentor
23,192
2,992
Not to nit pick, ok, to nitpick, you did say
The point is that neither do the PUMAs, and they say
That's a sweeping remark that includes all of them.

If anything, Wolfson will turn people off to Clinton. It's ludicrous to make the statement he made. Hilllary is not a stupid woman, and I think she would see the folly in catering to such an extreme, not to mention small, group. Men outnumber women voters by a fairly wide margin, and I'd say that most women are not that extreme in their views. They certainly are not representative of the average female voter. Anyone that thinks that they can turn the decision away from Obama at this point has to be out of touch with reality, IMO.
 
  • #58
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
50
Not to nit pick, ok, to nitpick, you did say That's a sweeping remark that includes all of them.

If anything, Wolfson will turn people off to Clinton. It's ludicrous to make the statement he made. Hilllary is not a stupid woman, and I think she would see the folly in catering to such an extreme, not to mention small, group. Men outnumber women voters by a fairly wide margin, and I'd say that most women are not that extreme in their views. They certainly are not representative of the average female voter. Anyone that thinks that they can turn the decision away from Obama at this point has to be out of touch with reality, IMO.
Evo, you can ban me for being a realist if you wish. I am a rabid independent who is is quite alarmed about recent developments within the Democratic party that threaten to throw what is a well-earned (IMO) Republican drubbing into a "close" race. Wolfson's statement will not gather support for Obama. It will invigorate the radical "Hillary must win" wing of the Democratic party and fracture the party ahead of the general election. This is a calculated move that can kick the stool out of Obama's campaign.
 
  • #59
Evo
Mentor
23,192
2,992
Ban you? Are you kidding? Your food and gardening advice are too valuable to me. I *can* torture you though. :biggrin:

Wolfson's statement will not gather support for Obama. It will invigorate the radical "Hillary must win" wing of the Democratic party and fracture the party ahead of the general election. This is a calculated move that can kick the stool out of Obama's campaign.
I don't think his statement will hurt Obama, neither do I think it will help in any significant way.

I think most people don't care what he thinks.

It will only encourage a small fringe of extremists. I can't believe anyone sensible would be encouraged to rally behind Hillary over this. I think your fears are unfounded.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
9
0
It's pretty sad that this is an issue. After all, this man should not have had a viable political carreer after it came to light that he "channeled" a dead child in court. He should have been off the stage long ago.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
ranger
Gold Member
1,676
1
Man, this aint no news. Why the hell should we care who the man is tapping?! You people mix political and personal matters too much.
 
  • #63
918
16
In order to guarantee canditates haven't cheated on their wives, you should vote for women. Scratch that, now even that won't work.
 
  • #64
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
617
Politicians should be asexual.

We could ritually neuter them...just make it part of the swearing-in ceremony.
 
  • #65
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Was McCain's affair during his previous unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential candidacy? Serioulsy, I don't know, shows how much attention I paid to his career. :redface:
McCain's affair began in 1979, six years after his release from POW camp. He divorced in 80. Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Naval_training.2C_first_marriage.2C_and_Vietnam_assignment
which concurs w/ everything I'd read/heard.

...Edwards looks like a saint compared to McCain in the "infidelity race".

Evo said:
... he wasn't pretending to be a leader in moral values while cheating on his wife (did you see the video where Edwards is laughing about his moral values speech he was about to give?), I'd say Edwards is a bit slimier, just my opinion.
Exactly, _that_ is the point. In contrast to Edwards moral values laugh-a- lot, McCain had this to say about his marriage failure:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html
...Regarding his first marriage, McCain said that he "had not shown the same determination to rebuild (his) personal life" as he had shown in his military career, and that "marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite....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."
 
Last edited:
  • #66
WarPhalange
McCain didn't try running with a secret affair in his life. That would have completely ruined Edwards and the democrats, which is extremely risky, stupid, and selfish.

If he hadn't run, then the affair came out, then another 8 years from now he wanted to run, I'm sure it wouldn't be as big of a deal any more.
 
  • #67
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
5
We could ritually neuter them...just make it part of the swearing-in ceremony.

You would do that to Hilary if she should ascend? Or reserve that ritual only for not previously transgendered men?
 
  • #68
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
McCain's affair began in 1979, six years after his release from POW camp. He divorced in 80. Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Naval_training.2C_first_marriage.2C_and_Vietnam_assignment
which concurs w/ everything I'd read/heard.
That's only the last one. There were others before that. From your wiki link:
Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated, and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[53][56] He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[54] During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame.[57][58]
...
In April 1979,[54] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[58]
 

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