The Edwards Enigma

Would a Democrat or someone from the mainstream media (as if there is a difference) help me understand something?  Why are all of you picking on poor John Edwards?  By your standards, what exactly has he done wrong?

You cannot possibly be mad at him for his adulterous affair!  This was just about sex, or do you only use that excuse after the Democrat gets into the White House?

Was it because he lied about his affair?  Was not the first black president guilty of lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky?  Bill Clinton was found in contempt of court for lying in his January 1998 testimony.  President Clinton, the day before he left office, admitted to giving false testimony in the Paula Jones case, accepted a five-year suspension of his law license, and paid a $25,000 fine.

Also, how in the world can the mainstream media think that if John Edwards had won the nomination that the Democratic Party would be in a big mess right now?  The Philander-in-chief is going to be speaking at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, August 27th, the admitted adulterer himself, and yet the Democratic Party's mouthpiece, aka the mainstream media, think the party would have been in trouble if Edwards were the nominee!  In fact CNN's curmudgeon Jack Cafferty reported, "What if he (Edwards) had been the nominee?  The whole Democratic Party goes up in smoke."   

Am I the only one scratching my head over this?

Oh it only gets better...

Edwards' former campaign manager David Bonior, while answering the question of whether Edwards' political career is over, is quoted as saying, "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."

Is that not just the funniest thing you've ever heard?  Mr. Bonior, Hillary Clinton is a liar and she almost won your party's nomination. John Kerry is a well documented liar and yet he won your party's nomination in 2004. 

And speaking of the junior senator from Massachusetts, if you cannot have the people's confidence if you lie, then the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would need a waiver.  Three words for you Mr. Bonior...Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick, you know, the one who almost won the 1980 Democratic Party nomination.

Here another question: why is the mainstream media pursuing the purported love child between John Edwards and Reile Hunter when both say he is not the father, yet when Bill Clinton had numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape, the public relations wing of the Democratic Party all of the sudden forgot its journalistic duty to investigate?

Did I mention Bill Clinton has a speaking part at the Democratic Convention?

How come you Democrats will not invite John Edwards to speak, I mean you're letting Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper speak!  Edwards could easily replace Senator Jay Rockefeller who was denounced by the Obama campaign for insulting John McCain's military service.  I mean we're only talking adultery here folks!  It's only about sex!

Well, in my research I finally found my answer to the entire problem.  John Edwards got caught.  That was his major sin.  In the Miami Herald, a column titled "Ten years later, it's Clinton" by Leonard Pitts Jr. sheds some light on the conundrum.  Mr. Pitts writes:

Ten years later, Edwards is Clinton. Not just because he strayed, nor just because he lied, but because he chose to ignore the eminently foreseeable cost of doing so -- if not to himself, then to his wife and children, whose only sin was to love him and to believe.

Be thankful this man never became president. If he could not put his family's interests before himself, where do you think he would have put ours?

If Edwards is Clinton, shouldn't he have a speaking part at the convention?  Or should Bill Clinton be asked not to speak because it will only remind America of Edwards' dalliance.

I only make light of the situation to show the charade that the Democratic Party and mainstream media are trying to portray as reality. 

Does anyone actually believe that this would be a story if Edwards were the nominee?
Would a Democrat or someone from the mainstream media (as if there is a difference) help me understand something?  Why are all of you picking on poor John Edwards?  By your standards, what exactly has he done wrong?

You cannot possibly be mad at him for his adulterous affair!  This was just about sex, or do you only use that excuse after the Democrat gets into the White House?

Was it because he lied about his affair?  Was not the first black president guilty of lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky?  Bill Clinton was found in contempt of court for lying in his January 1998 testimony.  President Clinton, the day before he left office, admitted to giving false testimony in the Paula Jones case, accepted a five-year suspension of his law license, and paid a $25,000 fine.

Also, how in the world can the mainstream media think that if John Edwards had won the nomination that the Democratic Party would be in a big mess right now?  The Philander-in-chief is going to be speaking at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, August 27th, the admitted adulterer himself, and yet the Democratic Party's mouthpiece, aka the mainstream media, think the party would have been in trouble if Edwards were the nominee!  In fact CNN's curmudgeon Jack Cafferty reported, "What if he (Edwards) had been the nominee?  The whole Democratic Party goes up in smoke."   

Am I the only one scratching my head over this?

Oh it only gets better...

Edwards' former campaign manager David Bonior, while answering the question of whether Edwards' political career is over, is quoted as saying, "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."

Is that not just the funniest thing you've ever heard?  Mr. Bonior, Hillary Clinton is a liar and she almost won your party's nomination. John Kerry is a well documented liar and yet he won your party's nomination in 2004. 

And speaking of the junior senator from Massachusetts, if you cannot have the people's confidence if you lie, then the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would need a waiver.  Three words for you Mr. Bonior...Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick, you know, the one who almost won the 1980 Democratic Party nomination.

Here another question: why is the mainstream media pursuing the purported love child between John Edwards and Reile Hunter when both say he is not the father, yet when Bill Clinton had numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape, the public relations wing of the Democratic Party all of the sudden forgot its journalistic duty to investigate?

Did I mention Bill Clinton has a speaking part at the Democratic Convention?

How come you Democrats will not invite John Edwards to speak, I mean you're letting Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper speak!  Edwards could easily replace Senator Jay Rockefeller who was denounced by the Obama campaign for insulting John McCain's military service.  I mean we're only talking adultery here folks!  It's only about sex!

Well, in my research I finally found my answer to the entire problem.  John Edwards got caught.  That was his major sin.  In the Miami Herald, a column titled "Ten years later, it's Clinton" by Leonard Pitts Jr. sheds some light on the conundrum.  Mr. Pitts writes:

Ten years later, Edwards is Clinton. Not just because he strayed, nor just because he lied, but because he chose to ignore the eminently foreseeable cost of doing so -- if not to himself, then to his wife and children, whose only sin was to love him and to believe.

Be thankful this man never became president. If he could not put his family's interests before himself, where do you think he would have put ours?

If Edwards is Clinton, shouldn't he have a speaking part at the convention?  Or should Bill Clinton be asked not to speak because it will only remind America of Edwards' dalliance.

I only make light of the situation to show the charade that the Democratic Party and mainstream media are trying to portray as reality. 

Does anyone actually believe that this would be a story if Edwards were the nominee?