Elizabeth Edwards is a better woman than I am

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

How Is John McCain's Affair Different from John Edwards'?
. . . .

© 2008 Huffington Post All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/94550/

DS, John has said:

Do not post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have permission from the copyright owner. This has been part of the site rules since these forums were started.

If you are posting a news article it is fine to post an excerpt/summary along with a link to the full article on the news publication's website.

(Why the moderators never worry about this, when it could have legal implications, I simply do not understand.)

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I read somewhere that our preoccupation with infedility is a cultural thing.

I imagine that's the case. That's why the article's citations of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan are completely unpursuasive. They didn't live in cultures with the same understanding of marriage, much less marital infidelity by a monarch, that holds today in this country.

And I agree with KSigkid that (1) the atmosphere was different when JFk was president (and the public knew little if anything about his affairs because the press didn't report on those kinds of things) and when John McCain cheated on his first wife (though I find the parallels to his first wife's physical conditions and Elizabeth Edward's cancer interesting); and (2) the article showed a lack of real analysis.

And I don't think it should be a GOP vs. Dems thing. Thiough certainly campaigns on both sides have shown themselves more than willing to use these things to their advantage.

I think one reason these things get so much play now is the rise of the "social conservative/family values" voter. Then there's a whole segment of the press (if media like the National Enquirer and Extra can be called that) that won't turn a blind eye as was once the norm.

Bu I think the main reason affairs gets such play now is because of what they say about the candidate's character. And while I don't ignore McCain's "indiscretions," what he did 30 years ago could be said to indicate less about his character now than what he did two years ago.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

(Why the moderators never worry about this, when it could have legal implications, I simply do not understand.)

Come on - you know that stuff isn't as important as deleting posts about helicopter moms...

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think one reason these things get so much play now is the rise of the "social conservative/family values" voter. Then there's a whole segment of the press (if media like the National Enquirer and Extra can be called that) that won't turn a blind eye as was once the norm.

Bu I think the main reason affairs gets such play now is because of what they say about the candidate's character. And while I don't ignore McCain's "indiscretions," what he did 30 years ago could be said to indicate less about his character now than what he did two years ago.

I agree, and I think these ideas are one in the same. "Character" has become such a buzzword now, even though you get 100 different responses from 100 different people about what it means. If a candidate is good to his family, but goes back on campaign promises, does he have good character? How about one who goes to church every Sunday, but is a bad father/mother? One who cheats on his/her spouse, but has given significant amounts of their time and money to a charity?

I'm not saying that I expect the electorate to look that closely at things, but it's amazing how quickly the lines get blurred.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Come on - you know that stuff isn't as important as deleting posts about helicopter moms...

Oops. That trip out of reality made me a little woozy. Thanks for pulling me back down to earth.

And I agree with the rest of what you said.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

(Why the moderators never worry about this, when it could have legal implications, I simply do not understand.)

Actually, I have been trying to police this in the entertainment forum. Please report any posts you see like that and I will edit them. I actually edited and warned DS for just this earlier this week...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Actually, I have been trying to police this in the entertainment forum. Please report any posts you see like that and I will edit them. I actually edited and warned DS for just this earlier this week...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

DS, John has said:

Do not post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have permission from the copyright owner. This has been part of the site rules since these forums were started.

If you are posting a news article it is fine to post an excerpt/summary along with a link to the full article on the news publication's website.

(Why the moderators never worry about this, when it could have legal implications, I simply do not understand.)

Hell, I'd settle for a moratorium on posting any articles from sources like the Huffington Post, regardless of affiliation. Even if labeled "Opinion" clearly.