« Quantum Mechanics | Main | Weekly Review - Daily Show »

Links With Your Coffee - Saturday




Who cares indeed? I was writing about this last night in the context of Andrea Mitchell's lowball condemnation of Edwards:

John Edwards got my vote in the New York Democratic primary because he had policies, ideas, and plans for restoring America’s place in the world as a geopolitical partner in progress and in making government once again serve the poor and middle classes of this nation. If I had known that he had stuck his pecker into another consenting adult a year earlier, he still would have had my vote. It goes the other way, too: I couldn’t care less if John McCain’s dick was enjoying the sweet meat of a lobbyist; it is his political vapidity and fantasy-based policy ideas that repel me.

From the article posted by Donahue:

But to condemn a man and his work with moralistic slander, based on a personal revelation, is to take a massive step over a line that most ordinary people never cross.

And yet, Obama is trashed over and over and over again for personal revelations.. Personal revelations as trivial as he eats arugala.

Trashing Obama on what Reverend Wright said... that is "moralistic slander"

And if Barack Obama gave a blowjob to someone other than his wife, if he had an affair with someone other than his wife, if he had offered up Michelle to bikers at a biker rally as "Miss Buffalo Chip", he would have been raked over the coals much more harshly than the others, I'm certain of that.

Oops... if someone else gave a blowjob to Obama other than his wife... whatever.. you get the picture..

if he had an affair with someone other than his wife,

I meant if he had sex with... etc etc..

oh, forget it...

I am imagining Barack Obama at a biker rally, barely able to speak, making one stupid error after the other, and offering up his wife in the "Miss Buffalo Chip" contest. I am imagining Barack Obama fucking some other woman. His political career would be over. Over and done with.

Anyway, Bill Clinton has been exonerated for what he did, and so will John Edwards. As for Obama, he better watch his ass, because he would never ever be pardoned.

And it's not that I am in love with Obama. I was disappointed with his vote on FISA and other votes. But if he makes any little mistake, he is roasted by the right and the left.

It's a fucking miracle that he his still ahead in the polls by a few points. Apparently those who hate Obama are more likely to blog. Still, this race is too close for comfort, and every single blog that I ever enjoyed going to has expressed undying love for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and at the same time a certain disdain for Obama. Why? Why? Hell, there isn't a whole hell of a lot of difference between the three of them. So why do those on the left (lefties.. I include myself in that category) hate Obama so much.


Why so much love for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards by leftie bloggers (except for Huffington and DailyKos)?

Sure, anyone can point to specific votes, but even on specific votes, it remains that the three of them are more or less conservative. So what's the real difference? MANDATES MANDATES? Is that it? Is this the reason for all of the viturperative hate for Obama?

I feel seriously dismayed and confused

Joann and Brian, I agree.

What I find extraordinary and disgusting is the moralisitic furor these kinds of absurd episodes create. And yet, that the U.S. government tortures "enemy combatants"; that it deprives suspects, many of whom were detained by bounty hunters rather than the U.S. Army, of habeas corpus rights and keeps them imprisoned without charge indefinitely; that it started a war in Iraq, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers have died, and on a conservative estimate, at least 100 thousand Iraqi civilians, without justification; that it has not been providing adequate medical care to injured soldiers; that it sat by for 5 days during Katrina as thousands were left helpless...none of this really provokes much comment, not to mention outrage. Which shows that this is not about morality at all but prurience, and is a perfect illustration that the media is more interested in selling us soap opera, than informing us about the hard issues and often horrifying facts of our present situation.

This is just a distraction--to cheat on your wife, while she has cancer, is obviously wrong. But of what concern is that, given the many other issues of vastly greater importance, to the U.S. voting public?


This is just a distraction--to cheat on your wife, while she has cancer, is obviously wrong. But of what concern is that, given the many other issues of vastly greater importance, to the U.S. voting public?

The fact is he lied about it, and ran for president knowing full well about this "October surprise". It shows terrible judgment. What if he had been our nominee?

I’m with you JoAnn! Those of us that feel the fierce urgency of now and want to beat McCain and get our country back would be fucked if Edwards was our candidate. Seriously, imagine the world of shit us Dems would be in if he was our nominee. This is a political climate that raked Obama over the coals for saying some voters are “bitter”. He’d be quite literally done if he was caught lying about an affair. Hell, I’m still exhausted, 10 years later, from defending Bill Clinton and his happy penis. Who the hell wants to go through that again? This country desperately needs a president we can trust.

There are those of us who think it was sickening of McCain to dump his wife, who became disabled in a car accident, after she held down their home while he was a POW. But you think it’s no biggy that Edwards jeopardized the dignity of the Democratic Party by cheating on his wife who is suffering with breast cancer.

John Edwards is a selfish prick and we should all be grateful that he’s not our nominee.

Oh, and Joann, some of your comments about McCain's likely win have been resonating with me these last two weeks. Not that I wasn't already pretty cynical, but with tens of thousands being added to the unemployment rolls every month (the overall national total figure is now around 3.3 million according to the WSJ), with things out of control in Afghanistan, with the revelations about torture, spying, and much, I thought at first I'd be excessively cynical to believe that something like the Spears/Hilton ad, or revelations that Obama likes arugula, could really have any really effect on the polls. Shit, if that works, then we really do deserved incompetent tools George Bush, and will deserve doddering know-nothing codgers like John McCain, who has no real policies, and continually mixes shit up.

But--all that being said--a nugget of hope. A small margin in the popular vote has consistently translated into a huge electoral vote win in the past.

Despite Barack Obama's (D) amazingly consistent lead throughout the general election over John McCain (R), the talking heads on cable television returned to their incessant bloviating over whether Obama should be leading by more than just five points over McCain. It's really painful to watch these fools who don't bother to pay attention to history to understand how a five-point popular vote victory almost always translates when it comes to the only metric that matters -- the Electoral College. (Hint: landslide)

See the great graphs and data the author has put together. I think "landslide" is a little too optimistic, but I think the election is still in Obama's favor, and Obama will probably get a big bump following the convention (help, not only by the probably brilliant speech I expect him to give, but also by the fact that both Cheney and Bush speaking the Repiglican convention).

I don't care about Edwards could he think it wouldn't come out and be made a big deal of? It's like Spitzer. After the public was subjected to years of Monica, what did they think?

With the Democratic political position so shaky, I think any Democratic politician choosing to run has an obligation to be truthful about their own personal, private sex life because the right WILL find out any secrets and then try to use it against the whole party and to obfuscate the issues. Yes - it is their private life and irrelevant to their job and personally, I could care less but...c'mon - with the Clinton IMPEACHMENT, it's pretty clear the Republicans will wield this like a knife...

BTW - THANK GOODNESS Edwards didn't get the nomination!! I would've voted for him if I'd had the chance. I don't think I would have been able to bear the 24 hours coverage this would've initiated....

Lawrence Passmore on the Nation web site (and Jill) hit the nail on the head:

Rothberg may not care about the affair, but most voters do- had Edwards won the Democratic primary, this news would have all but guaranteed a McCain victory in November.

That's a fact, whether you like it or not. Given the extremely close Gore-Bush contest, is there any doubt that had Clinton not left a deposit on Monica's dress, we'd never have had Bush the Torturer as president? I was an Edwards supporter, but the first thing that went through my mind was, 'I.m glad he didn't get the nomination'. That McCain treated his first wife just as shabbily is of no consequence - Republicans are expected to be 'values hypocrites'.

ditto jill and tim

who (of us) really cares what Johnny does with his libidinous drives, but that he was so consumed by narcissism that he went ahead and ran for prez, deceived thousands if his hard-working supporters, and put the dem party at risk, THAT pisses me off.

If this was France we wouldn't be having this conversation, but it aint. Apparently, according to HuffPo, he's still lying and covering up. I don't think folks will soon forget this. I think he's done for.

Given the extremely close Gore-Bush contest, is there any doubt that had Clinton not left a deposit on Monica's dress, we'd never have had Bush the Torturer as president? I

Ya know, this puts me in mind of another egregious political miscalculation on the part of the dems. Agit prop liberals like Cass Suntein say we should impeach Bush because it would "criminalize policy differences" (although this is incoherent--just because something is a "policy" doesn't mean it can't be illegal). The subtext here is that they are afraid of revenge by Republicans--like a future democratic president being unfairly impeached for policy differences with a Republican congressional majority. But that is ridiculous--the Republicans already tried to impeach Clinton for getting an extramarital BJ and lying about it. Meaning: revenge need not factor into it, and it's a spineless justification for not prosecuting crimes.

I'm still trying to get the image of a purple-lipped warrior giving a BJ to someone other than his wife - out of my mind.

Thanks, JoAnn. I think I need therapy now.

On the CJR health care proposal article... while I agree with much that ewas said there, I have to call BS on the way the article starts off when it implies that the major problem with runaway costs is the advanced technology we have.

Bullshit. The reason costs are out of control is the administrative overhead that supports our system of private insurance -- both on the side of the insuracnce companies, as well as on the side of the medical providers that need to fight tooth and nail with the insurance companies every step of the way.

The whole concept of health insurance is stupid. It is not an insurable product. Insuring things that carry a small but palpable risk makes sense; i.e. we need to insure our homes against fire, our cars against crashes, our mortages against losing our income (or lives). These are all bets that the insurance companies can win, en masse.

Eventually, though... nearly everyone gets sick, and barring catastrophic events, everyone gets old and dies. It's a stupid bet for an insurer, and hence should not be made. In fact, insuring such things should be illegal. Just do away with the whole goddamned industry, and force people that work in it to find other things to do besides denying patient care (and fighting to justify medical decisions).

But the forces are too great -- we will keep going the way we do, because - at least in our productive years, most people do not get catastrophic illnesses.

It's the number #1 reason I'm working like a bear to get myself the hell out of dodge.

Who cares?

here is my problem with this...

I don't care who people sleep with. I don't get in relationships with frequent cheaters and I think it is a fine reason to end a relationship, but I don't think that one flaw effects every part of ones reason. Conforming to the social construct of marriage is not a litmus test for good judgment.

That said, This guy was running to be our nominee.

If he had won, our party would now be spiraling down towards oblivion.


Poverty, and healthcare, and the war, and everything else Edwards campaigned on would be totally fucked.

Who cares? Apparently not John Edwards.

Exactly, good thing we didnt vote for that jackass like norm wanted :) republicans who are alive today will die with clinton getting a bj on their brain.

I'm still trying to get the image of a purple-lipped warrior giving a BJ to someone other than his wife - out of my mind.

Purple lips? what, was he applying purple lipstick?

February 12, 1999 John Edwards on Bill Clinton when he was caught cheating:

“I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen”.

How’s that steaming pile of hypocrisy taste John?

Here’s Edwards further explaining Clinton’s dilemma and in the process gives us insight into how his deceptive wheels were spinning during his own affair:

“We have a man who has just been confronted with this problem, who is political by nature. And do we really believe that the first thing he thought about is, “I’m going to go protect myself legally’”? I suspect the first thing he thought about is “I’m going to protect myself politically.” He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out”.

I agree with the many who say a person’s sex life should be private but when a person publicly vilifies an adulterer and then commits the very act they vilified then that person is the very definition of a hypocrite.

John Edwards is no different than Larry Craig who called Bill Clinton “A Nasty, Bad Naughty Boy” and then got caught being “A Nasty, Bad Naughty Boy”.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives