Something that needs to be cleared up, in regard to Edwards.

[Lyric]

There appear to be two sides--those who are outraged that Edwards could cheat on Elizabeth, and those who are outraged that their fellow Dems won't STFU about it. That conflict seems to imply that this is all just a big argument about whether or not it's any of our business--but that is not the case at all.

What he did has political ramifications and undertones. At least in regard to the political aspects, this IS our business.

I have no problem with where any particular politician chooses to "wet his noodle", so to speak. It doesn't have anything to do with his ability to lead. I also don't believe that someone who would lie about an affair would necessarily lie about other things, too. There's an enormous difference between your career and your personal life. Someone who lies in one sphere is not automatically suspect (to me) as a liar in the other. I realize that others feel differently, and I respect that.

However, there are a couple of nuances to this mess that ARE "our business", and the people affected by them deserve to speak their minds without being nailed to the floor for it.

1. When you base your opposition to marriage equality upon a set of "morals", you have chosen to willingly allow your "morals" to be examined. We ride Republican hypocrites hard around here for their "do as I say, not as I do" actions, do we not? How many Republicans have been subject to our outrage because they pontificated on the "sanctity of marriage", while carrying on affairs? When it came down to the wire, Edwards chose to oppose gay marriage because he claimed to believe that marriage is something special, something sacred. His affair provides rather damning evidence that he doesn't REALLY believe that marriage is all that sacred after all. Why then, the opposition to gay marriage? If he doesn't even believe in the sanctity of his OWN marriage, what reason could he possibly have for opposing gay marriage? It's not about expecting him to be "perfect", it's about expecting him to be honest, consistent, and to uphold his own word. That is not an unreasonable expectation for a Democratic politician. I expect Republicans to be liars and hypocrites, but it hurts like hell to see that kind of behavior from Democrats, especially when you hold some of the power needed to honor (or withhold) my *personal* civil rights. I think that people deserve an explanation for this. Edwards doesn't have to be perfect, but he DOES have to be held accountable, as all politicians should be. That's part of the job.

2. When the people who support you send you money, they do so in trust and expectation that you will use the money to help yourself win an election. Since carrying on an affair and paying your unqualified mistress to produce "videos" for you is NOT necessary for any politician to get elected, the people who invested money and time toward his campaigns, the ones who now feel violated and used, deserve an explanation. Again, it's not about expecting "perfection." It's about expecting accountability and honesty, and it is NOT unreasonable or unfair to expect those things from a politician. John Edwards is a grown man, capable of making his own decisions, and he's more than intelligent enough to understand that decisions have consequences. Accountability is one of those consequences, even when it's uncomfortable.

Some would ask, "Well what do you WANT? What do you expect him to DO?" The answer to that is quite simple (at least for my family.)

We want John Edwards to really THINK about how many people he hurt by opposing gay marriage, and then to ask himself if he can still claim a "moral" reason for maintaining such opposition. Ideally, we (my partner and I) would like to see him realize that passing moral judgment on GLBT Americans is not an appropriate or constitutional thing to do. Then we'd like to see him open his heart to supporting marriage equality for all citizens.

Secondly, my partner (who is a North Carolina native) would like to see him donate the equivalent amount of what he spent on Rielle to a good charity, like America's Second Harvest, so that people like my partner, who donated money to him, will have the balm of knowing that their money has been spent toward something worthy and good for society.

I don't think either of those "wants" are unreasonable or unfair. They are part of being held to account.

[saltpoint]

1. If there are strains in any marriage or relationship the two folks involved

need to sit their asses down over the kitchen table and decide what their next step is.

You and I should not be invited.

We should not be listening in from the front porch screen.

It doesn't matter whether the breakfast table folks are from Washington or North Carolina or Hollywood or gay or straight.

[Lyric]

3. I don't understand your comment, because

I don't particularly care about the details of John and Elizabeth. That's their business. What I care about are the things that Senator John Edwards (D-NC) says and does, while in the course of pursuing his public office, and making decisions about MY life. Those things are my business, and your business, and every other American's business.

Some around here cannot seem to separate John Edwards the husband/father/man from John Edwards the United States Senator. We have no right to know the details of his marriage, but we have every right to call to account the hypocrisies and wrongs of a United States Senator, in regard to how they affect national legislation and public money.

[saltpoint]

7. Almost by reflex, the negative press on Democrats in trouble avalanches

negative press about Republicans.

That is the element of concern, IMO.

If you lived in North Carolina when Edwards was a U.S. Senator representing that state, you didn't have to vote for hm if you didn't want to.

He is no longer in office.

[Lyric]

11. Yes, he is out of office, but he is still a powerful voice.

Publicly changing his mind about gay marriage can't hurt *him* and could help *us*.

I don't want to see him crucified, but he was dead-wrong about that issue, and this is an opportune moment for him to right that wrong.

[saltpoint]

12. He was wrong as you and I consider the issue, but the Constitution

permits him to say what he wants.

It took some many years to reach the point of visible gains in the movement for labor issues, women's rights, and civil rights.

It took a lot of brains and bravery, and mostly, it took many generations.

It's not a weekend project.

Neither is the issue that may be driving your post. You'll have agreement with many people and the agreement will be genuine, but there remains the slow pace of social reform in the United States. We are well behind most of Europe in most things. Gay marriage. Mass transit. The Long View generally.

[Joe Fields]

5. It really depends on who those two people are.

If they are average citizens who have chosen to lead private lives, then I would agree with you. If, however, one of the parties involved is a public figure, running for a public office, then an added set of ramifications come into play, and it then very much becomes our business.

[saltpoint]

9. Hi, Joe. We disagree.

If you are referencing Congressional hypocracy versus public example, then yes, I'm with you on the grounds that no representative should vote against others' rights and protections, or vote to withhold said rights and protections.

But political celebrity does not give "ordinary people" the right to sit at the breakfast table as two people, married or not, discuss the future of their relatioship.

[Joe Fields]

13. I think this is an issue that can be seen both ways by the public.

There can be valid arguments to be made on both sides of this issue. I feel that it is worthy of discussion, but definitely not worthy of dominating the airwaves. I hope this all blows over very soon. I do feel sorry for the pain and humiliation that Elizabeth and her children probably feel. They deserve better.

[searchingforlight]

2. Adultery is about lying

It is about character. If a person will lie to his/her spouse - the person who knows his/her most intimate secrets and be able to cheat on that person then he/she will have no compunctions about being dishonest in other areas of life. They may be competent, brilliant, charming. They may have many admirable qualities but they are liars and they don't see the harm in it.

[ginnyinWI]

4. yes--it's about hypocrisy and living a lie

I'm one who does believe in redemption and forgiveness. On a personal level, a guy could do this and regret it, change, and rebuild the trust he destroyed. It could have been an aberration on an othewise upright life.

But---this doesn't happen in the public arena. It would have been a disaster had he become our nominee. That's the real crime here, and he should be ashamed that he tried to run for President with that secret.

So in that way it was a greater offense to the people of the Democratic party than to his wife. Not that it didn't hurt her a lot, and that there obviously needs to be a lot of soul-searching on his part about why he did it and how he needs to change.

[napi21]

6. I agree with your Point 1. I certainly have slammed a LOT of Pubs

for preaching one thing then doing the opposite! I won't let a Dem off the hook for that either.

As to point 2. I'm willing to give John the benefit of the doubt on chosing this woman to video for his campaign. She may have been very new at doing it, but I remember, a long time ago, a VP where I worked gave ME a chance at a job everyone else thought was a very stupid move on his part. I excelled in that position, and it was MY first gian step in a successful career. He hired her to do a job, and she was DOING that job. If he was bonking her on the side, thats irrelevant.

[Lyric]

10. Perhaps if Edwards explained that, it would help

some of his former supporters feel better about it. What makes it difficult is that so much has gone unexplained. I understand not explaining the details of the personal stuff--that's his own business. But I don't think it's unreasonable for him to say, "I did/did not spend campaign money inappropriately." and if he says that he DID, then the donation to a charity would go a long way toward mollifying those who financially supported him and now feel betrayed.

This isn't a personal issue of mine, of course. I admired him and considered him something of a hero, but I'm from West Virginia--I didn't give him any money, save for the small amount we could afford to donate in 2004 toward Kerry/Edwards. My partner, on the other hand, is a North Carolina native; she's been supporting him with money and time for a lot longer than I have, so she feels a lot more strongly about this than I do.

[undeterred]

8. Marriage is one of the few times in life one takes a vow

to be faithful to a particular person in front of other people, and in front of God if you believe. If someone breaks that vow it does reveal something about their character, and how much their word means. John Edwards did not live up to his marriage vows, and he did not live up to the image of himself he presented to the American people. And he lied to try to cover it up, only coming out with as much truth as he had to, after being discovered. He is all about himself.