Half_Past_Can't_Read,

Oh yes I can. I can read the words “moral leadership” associated with the name “John Edwards”, who commanded $55,000 per speech about poverty. That's beyond hypocritical. Regulating the bedroom and marriages on the right? Well, I am a right-leaning libertarian, but if you are saying that the left has no interest in setting a standard for marriage, you might only be speaking for yourself.

The point is, John Edwards says he is representing moral standards by proclaiming leadership. Morality is not selective. He could have chosen to be a good example, but did not and admitted to being self-absorbed. (Don't be lazy, google it. It's common knowledge about Edwards who have read his quotes.)

Uh… exaggerate much?

John Edwards ~ Moral Leadership

http://www.johnedwards.com/moralleadership/

having affairs and children out of wedlock while proclaiming yourself the defender of modern morality

Uh… exaggerate much?

If a Left politician is involved, whether it is killing your pregnant girlfriend in river, getting blow-jobs and sticking cigars up a 19 year old intern's twat in the Oval Office, or having affairs and children out of wedlock while proclaiming yourself the defender of modern morality, then nothing bad really happened.

Because they are good people, as proven by the fact they are Leftist. Only Right-leaning people do bad things.

The point isn't about comparing him to conservative hypocrites (regardless of how legion they are), or about how much a persons sex life is their own business, or about the importance of advocating for the disadvantaged. It's (very simply) about the fact that had Edwards become the nominee, this lie would have thrown the election, and it would have been because Edwards deliberately misrepresented himself.

This isn't rocket science folks, it's about truth in advertising, integrity, and what constitutes betrayal. It's ultimately not even about partisanship… or at least it shouldn't be.

Pimp it baby, Pimp it.

You've now connected this story to Clinton, I see a Pulitzer in your horizon. Either that or a pair of binoculars.

A totally unnecessary reference . . . as most media commentators noted . . . except as a political smear against a GOP candidate by an openly Democratic newspaper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10pub…

The Edwards Affair is a “substantive issue” precisely because of the unprecedented American media embargo on this story. It reminds one of the famous “Edward and Mrs Simpson” British press embargo in the 30s.

Essentially, the liberal media were protecting their favorite – married to a woman they admired. Today, they are trying to pretend it was not liberal bias.

It is remarkable to read the logical twists and convolutions of the New York Times editor to justify why a rumor of McCain's affair justified front page coverage . . . AT PRECISELY THE SAME TIME that rumors of Edwards affair were circulating, and he was still a candidate, and the NYT absolutely refused to look into them.

Old liberal View: These are only rumors. More important stories out there – like John McCain's extramarital affair rumors. MoveOn MoveOn

New liberal View: Extramarital affairs are a private matter. MoveOn MoveOn

Edwards, slimeball to the end, referenced McCain's 30 year old affair in his TV appearance. An interesting bookend to his moral outrage in condemning Bill Clinton's betrayal of his “precious daughter” at the beginning of Edwards political career in Washington.

Progressives are chomping at the bit, demanding that McCain be asked questions about his affair 30 years ago. A mistake, for one reason/two words:
Obama. Cocaine.

(I can hear the NYT editor explaining that one in a month's time: “In the wake of the Edwards affair, we have revisited our policy, and decided that all presidential candidates must answer questions about their extramarital affairs, rumored or otherwise. Any history of illegal drug use, however, we regard as a personal matter.”)

It makes me question his judgement and his commitment to his family.