Posted by fayeroe on August 10, 2008, at 13:22:46
In reply to Re: Edwards, posted by caraher on August 10, 2008, at 12:24:31
> I understand ABC did a fair amount of editing on the interview, and that Edwards spent considerable time discussing McCain's own affair. See, for instance, the discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6615093
I don't see how McCain's affairs could affect Edwards having one and I sure don't understand why he brought it up. Served no purpose with me.
>
> So a lot of apparent non-sequiturs (like the comment about Elizabeth's cancer being in remission) may have made more sense in the context of his comparing what he did to what McCain did while married to his first wife.Her being in remission means what? That would be like a cheating husband saying "well, the baby had been born" to justify his having an affair while his wife was hospitalized for the delivery.
>
> Edwards seems most concerned with answering the question, "How could you have run for President with this affair in your past when you saw what political damage resulted from Clinton's actions?"Maybe he felt as if he is smarter than Clinton.
>
> None of this makes Edwards' actions OK; I'm just glad he's not the nominee, even though when the Democratic race was down to three he was probably my first choice. But this is a good reminder that politicians of all persuasions are usually highly ambitious and routinely behave in self-serving ways.Yes, I still maintain if we paid more attention to a politician, we could prevent some of them getting into office.
I will go to the site for the discussions now.
Pat
poster:fayeroe
thread:845335
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20080728/msgs/845353.html