News What were the consequences of John McCain's affair on his political career?

[Jordan Joab]

So, what was the crime here?

 

[MeJennifer]

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

- Warren

Wasn't he the guy who was on his high family morals horse before?

I find people who preach about morals this and morals that and then act the opposite way the worst kind of hypocrites.

 

[turbo]

Wasn't he the guy who was on his high family morals horse before?

I find people who preach about morals this and morals that and then act the opposite way the worst kind of hypocrites.

Quite. Leveraging his "family values" and his wife's cancer for the campaign after having an affair on her during her illness. Even worse, she knew about the affair and the near-certainty that it would become public knowledge as the candidates are scrutinized, and she "went along". What if he had wrapped up the nomination, and then the truth came out (or even unproved allegations)? They were both willing to risk their party's 2008 presidential race and the party's congressional coat-tails for a chance to live in the White House. Such selfishness and arrogance does not reflect well on either of them.

 

[WarPhalange]

To be fair, she was probably doing it for her husband more than for herself.

 

[Astronuc]

Some interesting comments from two columnists at NY Times.

Keeping It Rielle by Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?em

. . . .
The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct.
. . . .

Ken Doll in Lust by Gail Collins
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09collins.html?em

When it comes to politicians and sex, our expectations are not all that great. Human nature being what it is, there will continue to be adultery no matter how many instructive scandals they’re exposed to. But you really would think that by now they’d know how to make a decent public confession.

Yet there was John Edwards, ignoring the many, many previous examples of why it is so important to admit the truth quickly and keep it simple. Unable to deny any longer that he had had an affair with a campaign worker, he insisted on parsing. It was all a mistake. If she was paid off, it wasn’t my money. And, in what may be a new high in the annals of weaseldom: my wife’s cancer was in remission.
. . . .

 

[sketchtrack]

It is an interesting twist that is for sure. I mean, I'm not sure who it will hurt more, the democrats or the republicans? I think what will happen is that the liberal media is planning a counter attack that will work in there favor. We will see weeks of news media demonizing Edwards for doing this, and then at some point they will turn the light onto McCain. People will already be all worked up about this hot topic, and then McCain will be placed in the view of a conditioned public.

 

[Alfi]

all it means to me is that Kerry is getting more sex than I am :(

 

[WarPhalange]

It is an interesting twist that is for sure. I mean, I'm not sure who it will hurt more, the democrats or the republicans? I think what will happen is that the liberal media is planning a counter attack that will work in there favor. We will see weeks of news media demonizing Edwards for doing this, and then at some point they will turn the light onto McCain. People will already be all worked up about this hot topic, and then McCain will be placed in the view of a conditioned public.

Are you honestly claiming the public is stupid enough to fall for something like that?

 

[Crosson]

Are you honestly claiming the public is stupid enough to fall for something like that?

Have you been to America recently? Have you seen the John McCain ad that compares Barrack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Our political discourse is already at rock bottom, and has been for quite some time.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you honestly claiming the public is stupid enough to fall for something like that?

Fall for what exactly?

 

[mheslep]

...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.

Where do you get your news? The Edwards story is making the headlines/front page at CNN, NY Times, BBC, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and NPR.

Yes, but they all supposedly had wind of this 10 months ago during the campaign and sat on it because Sen. Edward's people told them it was crap; in contrast, the NY Times put four correspondents on the bogus lobbyist affair w/ McCain and then ran a story on the front page.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/media/09media.html?ref=us

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but they all supposedly had wind of this 10 months ago during the campaign and sat on it because Sen. Edward's people told them it was crap; in contrast, the NY Times put four correspondents on the bogus lobbyist affair w/ McCain and then ran a story on the front page.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/media/09media.html?ref=us

Why are you comparing all of the media with the NYT?

Or here's another question...

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.

Why is the media going crazy about Edwards when McCain has proven to be almost exactly the same. Why is it ridiculous that Edwards may be considered for a VP position (which he isn't) but it's absolutely fine that McCain be the Presidential nominee from the "family values" party? Why has the obviously and blatantly biased liberal media been giving McCain a free ride on his affairs?

Maybe the answer is this: the media didn't say anything about Edwards' affair (or McCain's affairs), because that is what McCain wants!
fqOHJwj-lgw[/youtube]

 

[russ_watters]

Or here's another question...

Why is the media going crazy about Edwards when McCain has proven to be almost exactly the same. Why is it ridiculous that Edwards may be considered for a VP position (which he isn't) but it's absolutely fine that McCain be the Presidential nominee from the "family values" party? Why has the obviously and blatantly biased liberal media been giving McCain a free ride on his affairs?

News.

 

[Gokul43201]

Point taken...though I think my own answer is more entertaining.

Still, it may just be that there wasn't any solid evidence to be had, couldn't it?

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Crosson]

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.

No, McCain's affair was the way he started over his life as a politician with a new marriage. His ex-wife attributed the divorce to "John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again."

Also, Edward's affair was in 2006, which I wouldn't call "during his candidacy."

 

[Evo]

No, McCain's affair was the way he started over his life as a politician with a new marriage. His ex-wife attributed the divorce to "John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again."

Also, Edward's affair was in 2006, which I wouldn't call "during his candidacy."

It's close enough. That would be a major difference though in why McCain's affair isn't getting as much press, right? Mccain's affair is old news.

 

[turbo]

It's close enough. That would be a major difference though in why McCain's affair isn't getting as much press, right? Mccain's affair is old news.

It's the details of McCain's affair that make me wonder how the PUMA Hillary-zealots can say they'll vote for him. McCain's first wife was a beautiful fashion model. While he was in prison-camp, she was in a car accident. Her face was disfigured because she went through the windshield, and the doctors had to remove a lot of shattered leg-bone to put her legs back together, leaving a formerly tall, beautiful woman short and disfigured with a pained, awkward gait and legs that are quite short and out-of-proportion to her body. McCain took out a marriage license to marry Cindy while he was still married to his first wife. Edwards looks like a saint compared to McCain in the "infidelity race".

 

[Evo]

It's the details of McCain's affair that make me wonder how the PUMA Hillary-zealots can say they'll vote for him. McCain's first wife was a beautiful fashion model. While he was in prison-camp, she was in a car accident. Her face was disfigured because she went through the windshield, and the doctors had to remove a lot of shattered leg-bone to put her legs back together, leaving a formerly tall, beautiful woman short and disfigured with a pained, awkward gait and legs that are quite short and out-of-proportion to her body. McCain took out a marriage license to marry Cindy while he was still married to his first wife. Edwards looks like a saint compared to McCain in the "infidelity race".

Since we don't know the details of McCain's relationship with his first wife at the time of the wreck, (you shouldn't make idle speculations) and 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.

If I wasn't getting along with my spouse, I wouldn't stay with them just because they had a disfiguring accident. I'd feel sorry for them, but it wouldn't and shouldn't make me feel compelled to not divorce them.

 

[sketchtrack]

Maybe his disfigure wife game him flashbacks of the POW camp?

 

[turbo]

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

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Politicians should be asexual.

 

[turbo]

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
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23840402-5012572,00.html

 

[Evo]

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
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23840402-5012572,00.html

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?

 

[turbo]

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:

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Evo]

Ban you? Are you kidding? Your food and gardening advice are too valuable to me. I *can* torture you though.

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

Men outnumber women voters by a fairly wide margin...

Not true. Women outnumbered men by 10-20% in nearly every single primary this year.

A couple examples:

New Hampshire, Dem: Women =57%, Men =43%

Oregon, Dem: Women =55%, Men =45%

Look up more primary demographics here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D