LOL. Okay Rachel, we love you. But John Edwards is completely a ZERO!

[banned from Kos]

He will never run for shit again.


LOVE you, Rachel.

[MichiganVote]

1. What a con man. Sad that we as voters merit such little consideration.

[DURHAM D]

2. She just explained that the prosecutor who brought these novel charges

has stepped down to run for the U.S. Senate. His campaign is based on the Edward's indictment.


I hope you kept watching.

[TheWraith]

3. So? That doesn't mean Edwards didn't do it.

It also doesn't change the fact that he was a lying sack of shit, who tried to deny fathering a child that was his.

[DURHAM D]

4. Please read again -

I did not defend Edwards. The story is about a senate race in NC.

So "So" yourself.

[banned from Kos]

5. It doesn't matter. Edwards is past tense.

He is finished and not worth a news bite.

[DURHAM D]

7. I see you missed the point.

Cheers

[banned from Kos]

9. So Edwards has a future in the Democratic Party?

No, I did not "miss the point". I don't care if Edwards skates. Run free John!

[DURHAM D]

10. Huh?

[JHB]

37. /Edwards/ is past tense. The GOP prosecutor running for senate...

...and touting his politically-motivated prosecution is present tense.

[TheWraith]

52. My point is, the prosecutor running for something doesn't invalidate the charges against Edwards. nt

[Octafish]

6. Edwards is a good man.

Who's to say they're better?

[banned from Kos]

8. No one here wants to condemn John Edwards.

We just don't want him in the news 24/7.

His star has dimmed.

[customerserviceguy]

11. I'm more than happy to condemn him

He asked for (and way too often got) our support in both money and votes, all while pretending to be this good family man who was standing by his cancer-stricken wife as a prop. He didn't have the brains in the post-Bill Clinton era to:

1) Keep his pants zipped.
2) If he couldn't do that, at least not find a nutjob to have his fun with.
3) If he couldn't do that, at least wear a freaking rubber.

Incredibly stupid decisions by a man who pretended he was qualified to lead this nation. If Barack Obama had decided that it was not yet his time to run, we might well have seen Edwards get the 2008 nomination, and then all this crap would have hit the fan. You'd be reading about the natterings of Vice-President Palin just about every day.

[Logical]

13. Wow, you hate Kennedy also????

[customerserviceguy]

14. Would Ted Kennedy have become President

if Chappaquiddick had not happened? I think he stood a good chance of it, and would have run in 1976.

However, Ted saw how the media ignored his brother John's behaviors, and figured he could get away with it, too. What excuse did John Edwards have after watching the Clinton impeachment and how the press went into a feeding frenzy over it?

[JDPriestly]

21. Being human. That is an excuse.

Be careful about judging other people.

Unless you are very young and have lived a life of utmost virtue, you never know what trouble you might find yourself in some day.

[Fawke Em]

34. It's human to humiliate someone you allegedly love?

I agree that making mistakes is human, but deliberately cheating on a spouse - and a very sick one at that - is not a mistake. It's a choice and a poor one at that. His dick didn't accidentally fall into Rielle's vagina.

[customerserviceguy]

47. And I have not lived that life

But I didn't run for public office and lie like a rug about my life, either.

[2ndAmForComputers]

28. I'll take that as a yes.

[Cleita]

15. It was a different time. Back then unfaithful wives were whores who

deserved to be stoned, if it weren't illegal, but unfaithful husbands were just being naughty. After all famous and powerful men have needs.

[dionysus]

18. don't recall them cheating on a dying spouse. try harder. smoove johhny is

a piece o crap.

[Logical]

20. OK, cheating on a healthy spouse is OK? LOL!

[dionysus]

26. never said that either.. keep trying. nt

[Logical]

36. LOL.....I love the double standard! Emotions <> Logic.

[WinniSkipper]

50. Heck I'll say it

Yes I believe cheating on a dying spouse is in fact worse than cheating on one that is not dying.

[Withywindle]

53. I think so too. Absolutely.

Someone who is terminally ill needs the full love and support of their spouse then more than ever before. Someone fighting a very dangerous illness does not need to be subjected to ADDITIONAL--and totally unnecessary--stress and anxiety and pain. Someone who only has a few years or months left should not have to spend that precious time dealing with the grief and anger and humiliation of a publicly collapsing marriage.

It's way worse. It's SO much worse. It's one of the worst forms imaginable of kicking someone when they're down.

[karynnj]

58. Not to mention the potential of JRE passing something to Elizabeth

when her immune system was down. He had unprotected sex - and the danger was not just pregnancy.

[progressoid]

27. Um...LOTS of people here want to condemn him.

And do so regularly.

[Octafish]

38. You want him banned from DU.

I got it. His ideas, too, right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. His "ideas" were as legitimate as the last child he fathered. In other words, not at all.

He was just another good looking huckster, with a cute southern drawl, who got caught with his pants down. It amazes me how some people get every "benefit of the doubt" but others who actually keep it in their pants, only deserve scorn & constant derision from some corners. Go figure.

[XanaDUer]

12. Yes. Nt

[Octafish]

39. Edwards was the only candidate in '08 talking about economic justice for ALL Americans.

That's foreign policy to the ones who got the financial backing needed to remain competitive. Look at who got to harvest the rewards of winning the election: Wall Street and the swells who own the Corporations. The middle class and poor? LOL. We got evicted and kicked to the curb.

[customerserviceguy]

48. Yes, he talked the talk

But he also did a lot of other talking, and it was out of the other side of his mouth. It was the fact that he was willing to say such truly hopeful things to so many people who desperately needed a champion that made what he did even worse. I expect that sort of thing from a John Ensign or a Mark Sanford, they support that world of double standards from fifty years ago. I don't expect it from someone on our side, especially when it is absolutely obvious that the press is not going to "let it go".

It was John Edwards' facade of righteousness that kept everybody except the National Enquirer away from this story, and even though the cat was out of the bag, he continued to boldly lie his ass off about the allegations, even though he knew fully that they were 100% true. He denied the daughter who was of his own DNA, she's going to have to grow up and learn that truth some day, maybe it will be a bit easier for her if we as a society (through the justice system) said it was wrong.

[cali]

16. I dunno. He's certainly done his share of truly shitty things

[Octafish]

40. True. Who hasn't?

I like how he helped people out in most of what he did in his professional and public lives.

[customerserviceguy]

49. He became a multi-millionaire off of other people's suffering

That gives him at least one thing in common with the "health" insurance executives who we oppose.

[sabrina 1]

69. Did he commit any war crimes? Did he commit Economic Crimes that helped collapse the World's

Economy?

For the record, I never supported him, but get back to me when the War and Economic criminals are being prosecuted. Until then, an affair pales no matter how despicable it was, by comparison to the torture and the hundreds of thousands of lost lives, and the destruction of the millions of lives caused by the Wall Street Criminals.

We are not a country of laws. So until the law is applied equally to those whose crimes have destroyed the lives of millions, I really can't get too excited about a politician having an affair anymore.

Cheney got a new heart. How nice and what an indictment of our so-called judicial process that only Democrats appear to be get indicted.

Since we're 'looking forward' regarding these major crimes, seems to me that equal justice under the law would require 'looking forward' when it comes to extra-marital affairs even if they were paid for as alleged, something he denies btw. Considering the trillions spent on Wall St and the illegal wars, I simply don't get the outrage over this relatively, please note the word 'relatively' minor 'crime'.

[appal_jack]

72. Drug warior, Patriot Act Supporter, IWR supporter

Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution / AUMF.

Edwards supported the failed and insane Drug War, and all the misery it creates for the poor, with the profits going to prisons.

Edwards voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

Edwards cynically used the office of Senator from NC as a stepping stone on a rushed (& failed) journey toward the presidency. During his two years in the Senate, he earned his title as "Senator Gone." His constituent services and accountability were basically nil.

I despised Edwards long before the adultery scandal, and had good reason to do so.

We don't need any more Democrats in the Edwards mold, thank you.

-app

[sabrina 1]

75. How many Democrats did not support:

The AUMF

The Patriot Act

The Drug War???

I can think of only a few, and I completely agree with you, we do not need any more Democrats like these who did not have the guts to stand up when it was necessary to do so.

Charge all of them with those 'crimes' which did far more to harm this country and a few others, than an affair.

My point was not to defend Edwards as a Democrat, I never supported him, nor did I support Hillary, Gephardt or any of the other Dems who voted for the Patriot Act, the AUMF, the Drug Wars, Hillary eg, was even willing to consider torture. I do not consider these to be Democratic principles.

I would like to see every Democrat who voted for that list you provided, replaced by real Progressive Democrats.

I knew Edwards' political history which is why I did not even consider supporting him, or Hillary, or anyone else who voted for that list you provided.

[appal_jack]

78. Right on, sabrina 1

Sounds like we are seeking some similar leadership qualities and principles in our party.

And yes, I agree that going after the architects of the Iraq War (Bushco) and the financial collapse (basically every president since Nixon, with Clinton {re NAFTA & the Glass-Steagal repeal} and B*sh {for everything} deserving particular scorn) would be more far important than continuing to harangue Edwards about his failures of personal integrity.



-app

[cali]

82. he was one of the primary hawkers of the Iraq war.

so YOU decide.

[sabrina 1]

83. 'One' of.

I did decide, and supported no one in the 2008 election who were 'hawkers' of that illegal atrocity.

If that is what is driving the support for 'getting' him now, then there is a long, long list of others who need to be held accountable.

Better to stick to what he is being prosecuted for, because that other list merely reminds us of how so many Democrats went along with it.

[cali]

84. I have no idea what's driving support for getting him. I'm not interested in that

and I think the prosecution is politically motivated. As to the pols I support and who represent me and represented me then, no of them supported the war so I don't have to hold them accountable. How about you?

do try not to make so many assumptions.

[sabrina 1]

85. I think Rachel explained what's driving it.

It's not as if he's the only one who had an affair while his wife was sick. Gingrich comes to mind. Or who may or may not have used campaign funds to support their lovers, who knows, no one after all, really goes after Republicans.

As for my position on anyone who supported Bush Policies, I've made that clear going all the way back to the vote on the Patriot Act right up to the present. I did, however, give some slack to those who were targeted with Anthrax, but like all the other crimes committed during the Bush years, that too has been forgotten.

[dionysus]

17. "Edwards is a good man."

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Happyhippychick]

19. Yes a good man who took money under false pretenses, humiliated his wife, gravely disappointed his

Children, and destroyed his family in the process.

I sure am lucky my husband has zero in common with that "good man".

[JDPriestly]

22. I haven't heard that he ordered torture or the killing of someone with a drone or

the wholesale reading of everybody's e-mails, the universal tapping of phones, or the destruction of the economy.

You would think he had done at least one of those things to deserve all this outrage from DUers.

[Kaleva]

30. I think it more odd that anyone would even try to defend Edwards.

[Happyhippychick]

32. +1

[geek tragedy]

55. He was an Iraq war cheerleader. nt

[JDPriestly]

23. Actually, Edwards didn't order the drone-murders of anyone, not that I have heard.

[Octafish]

41. You act like the phrase is an alien concept to you.

I'm not surprised.

[dionysus]

44. i'm just laughing at the people who, when it becomes obvious they got suckered by a con man,

actually double down on their defense of said con man.

[Octafish]

45. Now THAT's funny.

Please add it to your journal so dupes like me can access it in the future.

[JDPriestly]

24. Right.

[Octafish]

42. The guy didn't like all the warmongering.

He even admitted his vote supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake. The way Bush, Powell and the rest lied in their official capacities to Congreff and the American people, perhaps more than a few DUers would have voted for the thing. I wonder how many would've admitted the mistake?

[geek tragedy]

56. He 'admitted' that mistake to pander to

to anti-war voters. Part of his con.

[karynnj]

59. He said in 2003 that he never believed there were WMDs,

but thought other reasons justified the war. This was months after the war started.

His WP "apology" in fact lied about his 2002 motivations. It is pretty bad when you lie in a supposedly sincere apology - which he did in August 2008 on the affair as well.

[Fawke Em]

33. As a female who divorced a cheating husband

on those grounds, I can honestly say that, no, Edwards is NOT a good man.

I can say I'm better in that regard. I don't cheat on my spouse.

[Octafish]

43. Very sorry to read that.

My family, also, has been affected by infidelity. Of course I don't approve of lies between spouses, people or nations.

Please know I hope you find happiness and a good person worthy of sharing your life.

[Fawke Em]

70. Oh, just now saw this.

Please, know I'm happily remarried.

My son will be 13 in May. I divorced his father when he was 15 months old.

I was a single Mom for five, almost six, years. I did just fine.

[alphafemale]

51. A good man...How?

He was a good Use-this-shit-for-Soap salesman.

Gotta give him that I guess.

You still believe he cared about Poor people. He couldn't even give a shit about his dying wife.

Fuck John Edwards with a gravel embedded dick.

[Octafish]

60. How kind.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It makes clear for me the limitations of politics, which are, ultimately, people. I hope to never let you down, again.

[alphafemale]

62. He let his dying wife stand up and publicly humiliate herself for him.

He's the worst kind of scum.

on edit

Thankfully he never had a real shot at the nomination anyway.

We'd be looking at McCain Palin now and another hard right winger on the Supreme court.

Again fuck that creep.

[Octafish]

64. No, he is not 'the worst kind of scum.'

That would be a term to apply to a murderer or warmonger, George Bush 41 and 43, for example.

[alphafemale]

66. I stand by my statement.

He is worse because he tried to pass himself off as a decent human being.

[geek tragedy]

54. I'm a better man.

I have never betrayed my spouse.

I have never used the issue of poverty to promote myself.

I never lied to millions of voters.

I never broke federal campaign laws.

I never co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution.

[Octafish]

61. Please, let me know when you run for office.

I'll be sure to root for you. The only thing I ask is that you work to make ours a nation where the law applies equally to all, again.

Thanks in advance!

[karynnj]

57. Do you know him well enough to say this?

If you look at KNOWN actions, he really was not all that good a man. He was an egotistical vain person who took a lucky chance of getting the nomination for VP and apparently decided to not do much of what he was asked -especially defending Kerry or attacking Bush all that much.

His Senate record includes voting for the bankrupcy bill - something he knew a lot about as this was his wife's specialty. Then while running on poverty, he got $500,000 for 2 days a month work for a Hedge fund.

Edwards' words were great, but had to be taken on faith - when he lost that trust, there was nothing left.

[Octafish]

63. Excellent points, all.

I promise to remember them. Perhaps one day we'll again have a nation where more people remember, especially Democratic leaders. Who knows? We might use the powers of government to make life better for ALL Americans, as in the New Deal. Here in Detroit, I've come to doubt that, though.

[Throd]

65. If Edwards is a good man, I'm a freakin' saint.

I can be 100 different types of a shitty dickbag, but I do think I'm better than he.

[Octafish]

67. 100? Wow!

As a Democrat, I believe all people are created equal. As a human being, I try not to forget that.

[Nye Bevan]

68. (raises hand)

There are very, very few people that I can confidently say I am a better person than. But Edwards cheated on his cancer-stricken wife, increased enormously the heartbreak of his children, and did not hesitate to risk sabotaging the entire Democratic Presidential campaign and throwing the election to McCain/Palin.

He does, however, have better hair than me.

[Octafish]

71. Fair enough.

You are entitled to your opinion.

What I don't get is how I post my opinion and I get 11 responses. Yet, often -- edpecially on DU3 -- when I post facts that shed light on the treasonous warmongers working this nation into a feudal wasteland, I get no responses.

LOL.

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. No response? Perhaps it's because people disagree with you? I know that's shocking!

[Octafish]

76. You may be on to something. No biggie.

For what it's worth: I don't post to get people to agree with me. Usually, I post so people can learn and to help build a record of valuable information.

Feel free to go through my journal and point out where I'm wrong. It goes back to 2003 on DU2.

Going by what I've seen you post, Tarheel_Dem, I think you will learn a lot.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. I'll waive that invitation, but thanks anyhoo.

There's a thin line between "teaching" and "preaching". I have no desire to be preached at, so I'll forgo "your journal" and its doubtless magnificent magnificence. If the quality of your "journaling" bears any resemblance to your participation in this thread, and your shameless defense of a shyster, despite his being a lying sack o' doo-doo, then that just about says all I need to know.

"Two Americas" my ass.

[Octafish]

81. ''There's a thin line between 'teaching' and 'preaching'.''

Indeed.

[bluedigger]

25. Well, at least his shortcomings served to further another man's political career.

So he's got that going for him...

[dsc]

29. So it is perfectly OK for a GOP candidate wanna be to pervert the law for his own campaign

that is what her report was about. This is literally an unprecedented prosecution. No one in this history of the United States, not a single solitary soul, has been charged with this crime which literally hinges on why those two donors gave the money. I happen to live under the rule of this very US attorney. And I am quite concerned about just how laws in my neck of the woods are and are not enforced.

[karynnj]

86. I get your point - and given that Citizens United changed everything - it is unlikely that anyone

else will ever be charged. However, it might be that there was no other IDENTIFIED flagrant flouting of the campaign laws - assuming that this is taken as a campaign contribution.

The reason it could be considered a campaign contribution is that - if allowed to be a personal gift to Edwards, there is in fact absolutely NO restrictions on campaign contributions because the candidate is allowed to contribute as much as he/she chooses - either outright or as a loan.

One test of how the idea of large gifts to a candidate was viewed under the law was that the media and his Democratic rivals watched like hawks saying that Teresa Heinz Kerry could not give her husband more than the maximum credit because they had separate finances. Now, this is an extreme case. There is no way to claim that doing so would give Teresa more access or favors. The Kerrys opted not to test this - leading to Kerry mortgaging his half of the Boston house to get cash to lend to his campaign. Even then the media spoke of how Teresa would not have been allowed to pay off the debt - as that would be an illegal contribution. The other extreme would be someone wanting an Ambassadorship or some preferred legislative treatment. Giving his "best friend", the candidate, $1 million when the campaign could use it would be a powerful enticement.

JRE's donors would be between these two extremes. Had McCain/Feingold been upheld in the Citizen's United, this trial would be very significant as it would have created a loophole a truck could drive through in the law if it was deemed ok.

[hfojvt]

31. I miss being able to unrec

This OP oughta be <0

[GoCubsGo]

46. Me, too.

Talk about completely missing the point of what Rachel was saying,

[YellowRubberDuckie]

35. Are you talking about his girlfriend Rachel?

If so, I have no love for someone who knowingly has an affair with a married man, essentially breaks up a family, and then thinks she did nothing wrong. Elizabeth Edwards was an amazing woman. She deserved way better.

[DiverDave]

77. Man, oh, man- read the article

The DA or whatever the rethuglcan is is pushing trumped up charges.
RACHEL MADDOW is pointing that fact out.
She is not canonizing the guy, merely pointing out the charges are a grandstanding effort to get his Q rating up.

Basic reading comprehension.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

80. Didn't want to click on an article when I wasn't sure...

...about if they were praising a home wrecker or not. Jeez.