Page 1 of 1
John Edwards Speaks on Infidelity
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:47 pm
by silverscreenselect
From a December 2007 interview with Katie Couric (who asked the same question to all the presidential candidates at the time):
(CBS)
JOHN EDWARDS
Couric: Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?
Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with ... it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them.
Couric: Do you think ... what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts ...
Edwards: Right.
Couric: ... who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character ...
Edwards: Right.
Couric: ... when it comes to infidelity ...
Edwards: Right.
Couric: I guess is what I'm getting at.
Edwards: Yes.
Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?
Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.
Couric: So you think it's an appropriate way to judge a candidate?
Edwards: Yeah. But I don't think it's controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the ... stories we've all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don't think it controls the issue. But I think it's certain ... something reasonable for people to consider.
All this when his little bundle of joy was about six months along.
I venture it's safe to say that (1) John Edwards will not be speaking at the Democratic convention and (2) John Edwards will not have a cabinet position if Obama wins.
[/i]
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:51 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit
Edwards volunteers that at the time of the affair his wife's cancer was in remission prompting a pundit to invoke the ghost of Johnny Cochran
"If the wife's in remission, its time to do a little fishing"
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:01 pm
by silverscreenselect
I wonder if this had anything to do with Edwards' decision to drop out of the race. If he kept going through the primaries, due to the proportional representation rules, he could easily have gotten 200-300 delegates, not enough to win, but enough to broker a convention. I always thought it was odd his dropping out a week before Super Tuesday, which wouldn't have cost him that much more money (plus he could have appeared in the last debate) and would have let him see just where he stood in terms of longterm viability.
But if he knew this was going to hit the fan, the last thing he'd want would be to be involved in a scandal while he was still an active candidate (there's no way the media could cover it up as long as they did if he were still active).
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:07 pm
by dimmzy
For the life of me, I don't why these guys don't practice birth control.
Along with self-control.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:16 pm
by starfish1113
My favorite part of his statement:
I did not tell the public. 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 percent honest is no longer enough.
99 percent honest??? Wow, what a trooper.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:23 pm
by ghostjmf
Boy am I not a happy camper.
Men.
I hope gsabc doesn't see this.....
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:33 pm
by ulysses5019
wrong thread
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:35 pm
by Estonut
ghostjmf wrote:Men.
I understand his co-adulterer is a woman.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:50 pm
by 15QuestionsAway
silverscreenselect wrote:I wonder if this had anything to do with Edwards' decision to drop out of the race. If he kept going through the primaries, due to the proportional representation rules, he could easily have gotten 200-300 delegates, not enough to win, but enough to broker a convention. I always thought it was odd his dropping out a week before Super Tuesday, which wouldn't have cost him that much more money (plus he could have appeared in the last debate) and would have let him see just where he stood in terms of longterm viability.
But if he knew this was going to hit the fan, the last thing he'd want would be to be involved in a scandal while he was still an active candidate (there's no way the media could cover it up as long as they did if he were still active).
I'm thinking the same thing. He had my vote in California and I was surprised at his timing. It makes more sense in light of current events. I'll be looking forward to the Nightline interview tonight.
Referencing your other post, he's claiming the child isn't his and that the affair was over in 2006. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to Elizabeth to judge and/or forgive him. It's not really up to the rest of us to moralize. However, it's appropriate to be critical of his conduct because of the way disclosure of the affair would have affected the race. Edwards should have laid it on the table, especially as Elizabeth supposedly encouraged him to run even knowing about the affair.
For those that would moralize anyway, I invite you to look into the events surrounding McCain's divorce from his first wife. He's hardly a model of marital fidelity.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:53 pm
by dodgersteve182
I opened this thread because I thought that we were finally talking mutual funds on this bored!
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:00 am
by NellyLunatic1980
*sigh* John, John, John...
Well, it looks like John joins Newt Gingrich in that "Cheating on My Cancer-Stricken Wife Hall of Shame".
I don't believe that he's the father of the baby, though. The date of the affair doesn't quite line up with the conception. Maybe there will be a paternity test to confirm or deny.
Maury Povich, where are you?!
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:19 am
by silverscreenselect
NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Well, it looks like John joins Newt Gingrich in that "Cheating on My Cancer-Stricken Wife Hall of Shame".
I don't believe that he's the father of the baby, though. The date of the affair doesn't quite line up with the conception. Maybe there will be a paternity test to confirm or deny.
I thought it was interesting that Sean Hannity was on his high horse about this and when someone asked him why he wasn't equally tough on McCain, he said that while what McCain did was wrong, it happened right after he got back from Vietnam so it's more understandable because his brain was screwed up at the time (he didn't use that phraseology).
BTW, McCain returned to the US in 1973 and resumed commanding a squadron the next year. He also became Navy liaison to the Senate in 1977 and didn't meet Cindy until 1979. He had affairs with other women before meeting Cindy (and apparently at least until the mid-1990's after marrying her). So I'm not sure how long Sean Hannity's medical free pass extends. McCain was well enough to resume command responsibilities quite well but can still be excused in his personal life, according to Hannity, due to stress trauma.
I wonder how Hannity explains his good buddy Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani then.
As far as paternity, if this woman pushes the issue and it boils down to a matter of her word against his for possible paternity then there will probably be a paternity test. For Elizabeth's sake if nothing else, I hope he isn't the father at this stage since whatever shred of decency he has left will be gone if it's shown he's still lying about what he's done.
The 99% statement reminds me of Nixon at Watergate. Whenever Woodward and Bernstein published a story that had any inaccuracy whatsoever, Nixon's bunch pointedly denied it and claimed the whole thing was people out to get him. It was usually proved that the essence of the story was true though there might have been some details missed under pressure.
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:51 am
by hf_jai
silverscreenselect wrote:BTW, McCain returned to the US in 1973 and resumed commanding a squadron the next year.
This struck me as wrong because McCain was only a lieutenant when he was shot down, not near senior enough to command a squadron.
According to Wikipedia, he didn't take command until 1976.
But your main point is essentially correct. McCain cheated on his wife all thru this time, and didn't divorce her until after he met the heiress Cindy in 1979.
Of course, PTSD is an unpredictable ailment in the way it "screws up" someone's brain long after the trama that cause it... but surely that's not what Hannity meant to imply...?
Oh, btw, Hi everybody! Been back from vacation for about two weeks now and have dropped in a time or two, but didn't have time to log in and write about my trip. Not sure what to say now, but it sure was GREAT meeting Sprots! Maybe I'll post some photos in a different thread.