Rather than try to work out a refinement of my previous words, I'll just post my previous words, from this thread -
Let's assume for argument purposes that she wouldn't have been for the affair in the first place, say as a concept. Though some marriages are different, I'll propose that as a given.
But given the reality of a child - if the child being his is a reality and we still don't know that, do we? - she might be for a) his responsibility to care for the child, or, b) his need to make payments to mollify the situation, re the child's care and the woman's support.
All pretty nightmarish for any couple, and in particular for them, given her health situation and his fame, with privacy hard to obtain. Not to even get into the probably multiple emotions.
Let's say I think he was a cad, if all true, re the affair. I still don't know that this meeting, assuming the meeting is true as well, was a so-called assignation. I'd think of it as equally likely to be taking care of business and visitation of child.
Most of us have been cads at one or another time in our lives, in some way or another. It's too bad, I think, for all involved except the Enquirer to have it play on the world stage.
Re Edwards possible career as AG, that seems like no dice, but it might have been no dice anyway.
If true, it reminds me a little of Spitzer, the NY Governor. And to some extent Bill Clinton. And others across party lines. Some playing with fire for fun. I think that penchant will always be with us, whatever the decrying. It might even make the world go round part of its route.
So? You'll vote for X horrible if he (usually he, re who is the nominee) is the one of the two possible electable nominees who hasn't had an affair that you know of at the time of the election? Will sixteen affairs in younger days fall to three significant ones over time? Want to work up charts?
That's an old crutch, re homosexuality or bisexuality or marital affairs. Consider the book Advise and Consent by Allen Drury.
Blackmail is, thank goodness, growing passe re at least those aspects of life.. Ok, maybe not, but should be passe any time now.
A lot of people would have been better off if they just said, yes, and so? It's all the hidey hidey routine that is goofy. And yes, I'll say that about Edwards as well, based only on the conjecture flume. I don't pretend to understand him or know his personal moves.
Transgression and repentence, a longtime Washington dance. How about 'some things are none of your business'?
Please elucidate on my shortsightedness.
I see no relevance re affairs and government and politics except for citizen hysteria.
But blackmail is interesting. I've toyed with the idea for a bit that blackmail may be part of this, whatever This is, but it seems unlikely.. But that scenario would fit with a society which cares about these matters so strongly, so freakily, re its leaders.
(after the explanatory speech)
I remain confused - re the hotel visit, for one thing.
On his telling the truth now, possible. I understand not thinking he is; I presently think it is some of the truth.
I still think it's none of our business, though I get the hypocrisy charge. It's a kind of catch 22 for politicians in this american puritan culture. They say "no, I didn't" in instinctive self defense to a question that shouldn't be asked in the first place.. kind of like we're all four years old, and sometimes I think we are. We "feed" the tabloid culture, the scandal hunger/thrill.
I'm sorry we in the US care so very much about marital fidelity in the face of all the other matters of import re who would be our president. This is not to say that I don't generally regard marital fidelity well. But not all great men and women stay within the hopscotch lines. Lie detector tests for all candidates about everything ever?
On Gary Hart, I brought him up in this regard a long time ago. I think we lost a good man over that rigamarole, although it's been a while, and I'd have to review to make sure I mean that.
I see what you're saying, Cyclo. But blackmail about things like homosexual activity, extramarital activity, is in itself a retrograde system.
On his knowing this and running anyway, given it is none of our business, and probably in many other countries, no one would give a damn:- That he puts such a good family picture out there, as most people running for president simply have to make part of their show, accompanied by what could be taken as hypocritical word - I get your point of resentment. But I still maintain it is not our nosy business.
Yes, I admit a made a conjecture about money passing hands, a few pages ago, because I am now curious re the hooplah and hooplah's meaning.