Why Isn’t This Mainstream Media News?

Simple answer.

A Democrat involved in a sex-related scandal is dog-bites-man, i.e., not news. Now, if he was a Republican...

Edwards apparently hasn’t assaulted, raped or sexually harassed anyone.

He hasn’t lied about this under oath or encouraged others to lie under oath on his behalf.

So, who cares?

Yah, who cares. Martial infidelity tells us nothing about the character of a person.

Concern about that is SOOO pre-Clinton.

Because the MSM = Liberal media.

Shaun,

The reactions to your post are hilarious. I see Mccain's desperation politics are catching on.
As, for example: "Yah, who cares. Martial infidelity tells us nothing about the character of a person."

That would depend on how you define 'character'.

A) character (superficial variety) = marital fidelity, but embracing torture, equating war with patriotism, using power for the benefit of a party instead of the ocuntry, etc, etc.

B) character (substantive variety) = embracing policies that benefit the powerless and the nation as whole, eschewing torture and other attributes of morlal decay, and etc. etc.

It's a question of priorities.

There are also various definitions of marital fidelity around.
A Character X has an extra-marital dalliance, eventullay gets around to divorcing the wife and marries the dalliance (Gongrich, Giuliani, McCain) sometimes repeatedly.
B. Character Y has a dalliance, eventually drops the dalliance and returns to supporitng his wife.

It's a question of priorities.

And character C pretends he dropped the girlfriend (that he said didn't exist), but continues to meet secretly with her, while his wife struggles with cancer.

AR,
Thanks for proving my point.
Even for character C, you are not in the least interested in what ELSE the character has done or what issues he highlights.

Whether or not keeping tabs on other people's bedrooms is a priority is one way I judge character in politics, negatively.

runi - so, you would vote for a pedophile, I presume, if you agreed with his politics and he had not been convicted. Sexual morals have no place in politics, right?

AR-

You should consider a career as a stand up comic.

My line: So. AR, you would vote for a serial killer if he was faithful to his wife?
(Sorry, for breaking into your act.)

I can't fathom why the concept of priorities should prove to be so impossible to master.

Character? Sexual morals in politics?

Um, everyone knows John McCain cheated on his first wife (the one who waited for him while he was a prisoner of war) with a younger, prettier, wealthier woman, don't they?

IOKIYAR!!

I was willing to define what would disqualify a candidate in my view. You intimated that that my reasoning was flawed, because "you are not in the least interested in what ELSE the character has done or what issues he highlights. Whether or not keeping tabs on other people's bedrooms is a priority is one way I judge character in politics, negatively."

I never said that faithfulness is or isn't a sole criteria, but I did say and imply that fucking around on your wife while she is suffering from cancer, having a child with that mistress, using friends to lie for you by claiming that the child is their child, not his, and continuing the affair after said denials and while you are being vetted as a potential VP candidate all add up to someone who does has character flaws that would prevent me from voting for them.

You said/implied that was not true for you. I am just trying to determine what, if any, limit on personal conduct you do have.

So, do you have a limit, or does anything go for you as long as they tow the line of liberal orthodoxy?

AR-

Oh, come on, there are obvious limits to what anyone can overlook. I say that before you queery me about cannibalism.
In marriages, though, there are two people. If one trangresses, the other is responsible for her/his choice in reacting.
McCain's first wife is being portrayed as the pitiful, abandoned wife, but I note that she is not the one complaining. Relationships are complicated, and not being privy to the intimate details of it should disqualify others from pronouncing judgment.

JFK was a notorious womanizer, as was his father. Apparently both Jackie and Rose found ways to lead meaningful lives in spite of it. That was THEIR choice, and it's quite possible they found compensatory elements in their marriages.
What if FDR had been faithful but never allowed Eleanor to appear in public?
Which would she choose then?
Would their lives have been better had they never marrried these men is a question to which no one has the answer, not even the betrayed wives. .

And what does all that imply about a man's public life and use of power, anyway? How is GWB's monogamous marriage related to his policies? If such a relationahip exists, the Democrats should have sent him a Playboy bunny.

I actually agree that simply being unfaithful or a womanizer is not a disqualifier, as I tried to point out at the beginning of my second paragraph.

However, it also is not a matter to always be overlooked and dismissed. I made the case as to why I think Edwards is being particularly scummy about this, and why his conduct, as a whole in this affair, does in my mind make him someone I would not vote for.

I reacted with my snideness because I for one am sick of the counter-argument that NOTHING a man (or woman) does in their 'private' life should be considered when making the judgment of whether or not you feel that person is trustworthy and deserving of your vote.

That to me is a ridiculous position, and I tried to use a ridiculous example to make the point.

AR-
I see i've been overly subtle.

My point is that we're judging people we know next to nothing about. Headlines, even an outline of facts, tells you very little about a complex thing like a private relationship. Worst of all, we impose our own priorities on other people.

Let private people decide for themselves where the boundary lies for their version of the 'unacceptable".
It's my concern only if it affects me, Otherwise, MYOB,

i especially resist overarching principles or definions of the unacceptable. While we all have limits, it's a matter to be seen on a case by case basis and in the context of the rest of his/her life. This is paritucarly so, because there are no established causaiton rules involved. One unfaithful man might murder to cover up his error. Another might lead an otherwise exemplary life, and even cure cancer.

Considering all the different ways there are to judge character, marital fidelity is highly overrated as an indicator. In fact, it's often a seriously misleading distraction from what's much more important and, most importantly, directly related. .

My personal suspicion; this has more to do with our national hangups about sex than with a true search for 'character'.
It's also telling that criticism is so partisan. Infidelity only matters if the accused belongs to the wrong party.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but cannot. While both of us have become decidedly more reasonable as this exchange has gone on, let's be honest here.

You now say "Let private people decide for themselves where the boundary lies for their version of the 'unacceptable".
It's my concern only if it affects me, Otherwise, MYOB, "

OK, so I , as a private person, expressed my opinion. It didn't really affect you, but you didn't MYOB. You decided to try and make a point, insinuating my shallowness and the shallowness of anyone who would use such a situation as Edwards has put himself in to make a judgment about him.

That is what I objected to and responded back you.

Nuf' said.

A simple answer:

Does anyone actually trust the National Enquirer?