Quoting nikkibong: a question for david frum?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/133...3:51&out=03:55

But who could bear to sit through the answer? Again, I mean. But seriously, the really creepy thing about that question is that it asks the candidate about serving George Bush. Not about serving the country, not about serving so as to uphold the Constitution, or the principles of justice, or the rule of law, but about serving the man, as though he's a monarch. (This thought is not original to me, but I forget where I read it. Sorry.) It's also disturbing to realize, assuming Emily and Kerry were right about this, that there really is no way to hold Monica Goodling accountable. Not that I particularly care about wreaking vengeance on her, specifically (unless she was way more responsible than the CW would have it), but without any leverage, there's no way to get to use her to get to those higher up.

Great to see Emily finally make it onto BH.tv. I've been listening to The Gabfest for some time now, and she's the biggest reason why. I hope she comes back soon, and is paired with someone she can mix it up with a little. No diss to Kerry, of course. It's just that I'm sure that Emily doesn't need to be Goodlinged. Uh, coddled is what I mean to say.

Emily and Kerry seem to be implying by their support for investigating the Edwards "scandal" that the sex lives of public figures should be investigated and reported on to the extent that they stray from heterosexual monogamy. Since they fault the mainstream media for not devoting resources to the "fair game" Edwards story, they seem to be suggesting that no public figure should have any privacy at all. Kerry observed that she would be interested in knowing what candidates hired undocumented workers and/or used banned substances (though she personally might approve of such behavior). So what, if anything, would be off limits? If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama rented a porn video, for example, would Emily and Kerry want the NYT to do a story on it? Should the MSM be interviewing all the people who ever slept with a candidate or his/her spouse and reporting on all the particulars? Should we know if anyone who runs for office was ever treated for an STD? Should we investigate when John McCain or Michelle Obama lost their virginity? Wouldn't early promiscuity be a "fair game" element for assessing character? There

Quoting Wonderment: Emily and Kerry seem to be implying by their support for investigating the Edwards "scandal" that the sex lives of public figures should be investigated and reported on to the extent that they stray from heterosexual monogamy.

Since they fault the mainstream media for not devoting resources to the "fair game" Edwards story, they seem to be suggesting that no public figure should have any privacy at all.

Kerry observed that she would be interested in knowing what candidates hired undocumented workers and/or used banned substances (though she personally might approve of such behavior). So what, if anything, would be off limits?

If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama rented a porn video, for example, would Emily and Kerry want the NYT to do a story on it? Should the MSM be interviewing all the people who ever slept with a candidate or his/her spouse and reporting on all the particulars?

Should we know if anyone who runs for office was ever treated for an STD? Should we investigate when John McCain or Michelle Obama lost their virginity? Wouldn't early promiscuity be a "fair game" element for assessing character?

There

Since that isn't going to happen, partly because it's hard to say about a lot of things whether they would have such an effect, partly because we have no superior class of being to make those calls, this criterion can only be partially applied, and the rest of the decision has to be driven by, yeah, the marketplace.

Let's say the Enquirer found out that Michelle Obama had a white boyfriend (or three) in high school who had tell-all stories about wild parties. The Enquirer would love to print the story because it's salacious and perfect for the supermarket tabloid demographic. Then Mickey Kaus would out-sleaze himself and write 600 columns about the non-story, daring the MSM to publish it. Kerry would defend the public's right to know and make up their own minds on whether the information was enhanced Michelle's image or damaged it. And we'd end up debating it on Bheads. Journalism? Fair game?

Anyone here have any insight into the reason the Vietnam war was the exception to the military's ability to control the propaganda machine, if indeed it actually was? I'm too young to have any direct experience of Vietnam but old enough that when I went to film school, most of the professors were way out on the left. I was taught that Vietnam was an exception caused in part by technology--small handheld 16mm film cameras, ubiquitous televisions--and in part by a miscalculation by the people in power on the effects pictures of the war and especially dead American soldiers would have on the populace--what Kerry said about FDR using blood to stir up support for WW2.

I think your example is implausible. Michelle Obama Parties in High School--With White Men!!!! wouldn't play anywhere outside of the KKK. Mickey Kaus wouldn't touch it.

I've not quite listened to ten minutes of this diavlog, but kudos to the girls for tackling domestic issues other than elections, like the Goodling testimony. But, now, they're moving into Obama...aaaarggghhh!

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't see him as a significant figure anymore, and I think it's mostly that the ratf... (sorry, harkin) ... the GOP operatives would like to tarnish anyone they think they can hypothetically connect to Obama.

Hey! Progress (maybe Althouse's win won't be so lopsided). If you think you hurt your credibility by refraining from using profanity (once again) to describe a conservative/republican, you need to think again. I can only add that if you replace 'GOP' and 'Obama' with 'Dem' and 'McCain', you would end up with the same truism.

Quoting themightypuck: Anyone here have any insight into the reason the Vietnam war was the exception to the military's ability to control the propaganda machine, if indeed it actually was? I'm too young to have any direct experience of Vietnam but old enough that when I went to film school, most of the professors were way out on the left. I was taught that Vietnam was an exception caused in part by technology--small handheld 16mm film cameras, ubiquitous televisions--and in part by a miscalculation by the people in power on the effects pictures of the war and especially dead American soldiers would have on the populace--what Kerry said

Quoting Wonderment: Journalism? Fair game?

I'd love to see the "media" having the balls to stop the ridiculous meme that legitimizes that someone's sexual life is somehow connected with their capacity to govern.
What about a first page reading: WE HAVE DECIDED TO STOP REPORTING ON POLITICAL FIGURES' SEXUAL LIFE, PAST USE OF SUBSTANCES, OR ANY OTHER PERSONAL MATTER IRRELEVANT FOR GOVERNMENT. OUT POSITION IS THAT THESE ISSUES ARE NOT IMPORTANT. MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS THAT. WAKE UP! Alternatively, I propose that it is mandatory that any person that reports, disseminates or wants to investigate these matters, is required to issue a complete detailed report on their own personal life. And the same for the editors, publishers, producers, etc. And the same for all the other politicians, from all parties. And then shut up and don't waste any more time on nonsense. It would only be fair, right?

I'm not a PoliSci major, but I took an Intl politics class and my professor told us that much of the restriction of the press during war time is a result of the time when Vietnam war journalists were allowed to roam around mostly free and were flooding the American evening news with images of the carnage of the war. This daily barrage of violence was too unsettling and was one of the reasons the war became so unpopular. Of course, this is his opinion and I have no idea since I wasn't even born then.

Quoting harkin: Hey! Progress (maybe Althouse's win won't be so lopsided).

Good grief, have you ever actually read her comment section?

All these young people - they need history lessons. I would recommend that they read Once Upon a Distant War by William Prochnau. The NY Times review is here. A couple of follow up letters from people named in the book, Malcolm Browne and Robert Manning. Early in the Vietnam conflict (the book focuses on 1963 - up to the assassination of Diem), there were basically seven reporters in Vietnam. At that time, the US did not have combat troops - just advisors, 800 when Kennedy took office, about 16,000 when Diem was killed on Nov 2 , 1963. The reporters were David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, Malcolm Browne, Peter Arnett, Horst Fass (a German photographer), Charley Mohr, and Prochnau. They were not embedded - they were foreign bureaus based in Saigon. They would simply report - cajoling helicopter rides when they could. Word got out through teletype - which charged by the word so dispatches were short. No video - film was mailed out back to the US. Even then, the US government and others were not happy with the press - from the NY Times review:

For another thing, Mr. Prochnau writes, Americans were involved in the fighting when by law they were only supposed to be acting as advisers. So the journalists, being independent-minded as well

Quoting bjkeefe: Great to see Emily finally make it onto BH.tv. I've been listening to The Gabfest for some time now, and she's the biggest reason why. I hope she comes back soon, and is paired with someone she can mix it up with a little. No diss to Kerry, of course. It's just that I'm sure that Emily doesn't need to be Goodlinged. Uh, coddled is what I mean to say.

Yes; It is nice to see her unencumbered by the presence of the utterly insufferable David Plotz. On the Gabfest Plotz treats her like his little pet - it's downright abusive. (Lamentably, she plays along.) And the man, might I add, is single-handedly driving Slate into the ground.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Republicans use partisan criteria to select judges etc., but I find it equally hard to believe that Democrats don't do the same thing when selecting judges, civil servants etc.

Like when President Clinton dismissed all of the 93 federal prosecutors he surly replaced them with non partisan individuals because there were no politics involved. I got some acreage, in South Florida, for sale it's just north of Interstate 75. Anybody interested?

Quoting piscivorous: Like when President Clinton dismissed all of the 93 federal prosecutors he surly replaced them with non partisan individuals because there were no politics involved. I got some acreage, in South Florida, for sale it's just north of Interstate 75. Anybody interested?

Wasn't the timing of Clinton's dismissals much more normal and expected than the Goodling mess? I'm having trouble remembering where I read a comparison (google is no help either, sorry), but it was my understanding that cleaning house at the beginning of a term is business as usual and not the same thing as what Goodling was involved with.

If it was business as usual then why didn't President Bush do the same? My impression was that replacements have generally been done as the contract expires, which is basically what the Bush White House did. I would agree that the practice of hiring partisans was considerably more overt under President Bush than President Clinton but to try and sell there were no politics involved would be stretching credulity a far.

thprop - Good post. Alas, I am old enough to remember the images from Viet Nam. The press was certainly a different beast then, too. Reporters, as opposed to pundits, got famous. That meant there was some motivation to break news that did not fit into the propaganda stream. Because "reporters" today must be embedded they are simply tossed out if they break any unapproved news. Staying within the storyline created by the military and the government is the surest way to promotion today. (see Wolf Blitzer) Another often overlooked fact is that the people fighting and dying in Viet Nam were drafted. They weren't there because of overwhelming patriotism. There was no catastrophe like 9/11 that suddenly made fighting for your country glamorous. I can remember soldiers themselves telling reporters that the war was stupid and they were fighting for nothing. Those words beside the pictures of death and destruction were very powerful.

There is no requirement that reporters embed. There are many that don't but their ability to travel is severely limited; not by the U.S. Forces but by those that would like to cut there heads off. There are certain requirements that embedded reporters/photographers are made aware of, and if I not mistaken, sign a pledge to agree by. They may not like those rules, you may not like those rules, some of them are probably for CYA and narrative control and should be minimized if not eliminated. Others pertaining to mission and security considerations are valid.

Hey, Emily Bazelon, "What the he** is going on"? The lack of obscenities on this totally "f**ked up" discussion about the "f**king law" and the role of the f**king National Enquirer" in the Edwards scandal is totally "f**king embarrassing"" What the f**k else ... just wait for a "f**king second ".. oh yeah! ... never run for office, apply for a job in the Justice Department under a McCain presidency, or even join the PTA because I am keeping your Slate Slugfest recording to use at the appropriate moment! Anyway, have a nice day!

R-squared = -1 Department: When someone from your world tells me

Quoting harkin: ... you need to ...

I can be sure that I definitely don't. Thanks for your support.

Quoting piscivorous: There is no requirement that reporters embed.

In Vietnam it was much looser. If a reporter knew some troops were going somewhere, he could ask to tag along. It was up to the commander of the mission whether or not to let him come. He did not get approval from the chain of command and have a military minder come along. Reporters did not wander out and try to cover events on their own without US military protection. Bit there was no cumbersome procedure to "embed". A good example is the Battle of Ia Drang. Joe Galloway flew into a hot combat zone (and even got a Bronze Star for helping evacuate wounded US soldiers). Lt. Col. (later General) Hal Moore let Galloway come along. You can read about it in We Were Soldiers Once… And Young. My first boss out of college in 1978 was at Ia Drang. He never told anyone about it. I found out 15 years later when the book came out.

I wouldn't dispute that. My only point was that the claim that a reporter must be embedded is false. It wasn't true during the initial invasion nor is it true now.

Another often overlooked fact is that the people fighting and dying in Viet Nam were drafted. They weren't there because of overwhelming patriotism.

Absolutely right. The gruesome images on TV factor is overplayed. Domestic opposition to the Vietnam War was about the draft, the draft and the draft -- and particularly the inequities that let middle-class white kids opt out, while poor communities sacrificed everything.

There was no catastrophe like 9/11 that suddenly made fighting for your country glamorous.

I would only dispute the implication here -- that many of our current troops find the cause glamorous. Some do, and I've met several kids who enlisted after 9/11. But the large majority just ended up in the Army for non-patriotic reasons -- a string of failures in civil society, a temporary move to get some job training and college money, a con job from an overzealous recruiter, a poorly thought out high school impulse, and so on.

I can remember soldiers themselves telling reporters that the war was stupid and they were fighting for nothing.

They still do.

You should look at the actual statistics of those who spent time in country. It may surprise you that the conventional wisdom is not really in sink with reality. I believe I have supplied them once so wont bother again, as it obviously does no good, but they are freely available on the WEB if you goo look.

Quoting Wonderment: Let's say the Enquirer found out that Michelle Obama had a white boyfriend (or three) in high school who had tell-all stories about wild parties. The Enquirer would love to print the story because it's salacious and perfect for the supermarket tabloid demographic.

Then Mickey Kaus would out-sleaze himself and write 600 columns about the non-story, daring the MSM to publish it.

Kerry would defend the public's right to know and make up their own minds on whether the information was enhanced Michelle's image or damaged it.

And we'd end up debating it on Bheads. Journalism? Fair game?

I won't argue the example too much, except to say two things. First, I agree that this would be ridiculous if it played out as you describe, though sadly, I can imagine it happening just that way (though, as TMP rightly points out, probably not specifically via Mickey). Second, it strikes me as quite different from the Edwards situation. You're talking about the distant past versus the present and very near past. You're also talking about the politician himself, as opposed to someone one step removed. Ultimately, I agree with Ocean, as least as far as sharing her wish. But the reality is, we have

I agree that the media should show the public more reality in the form of pictures and videos. Including the carnage caused by vehicle accidents. While pictures of dead soldiers may impact public opinion and indirectly the lives involved, pictures and videos of humans destroyed in car accidents very well may save lives right now.

Quoting themightypuck: Anyone here have any insight into the reason the Vietnam war was the exception to the military's ability to control the propaganda machine, if indeed it actually was? I'm too young to have any direct experience of Vietnam but old enough that when I went to film school, most of the professors were way out on the left. I was taught that Vietnam was an exception caused in part by technology--small handheld 16mm film cameras, ubiquitous televisions--and in part by a miscalculation by the people in power on the effects pictures of the war and especially dead American soldiers would have on the populace--what Kerry said about FDR using blood to stir up support for WW2.

I think there is a lot to that -- that the military didn't really think about how much faster and easier it would be for journalists to get their work out, and did not anticipate how this might affect the people back home. I am less sure how much of an absolute effect it actually had, since as either Kerry or Emily noted, it took years after the harsh realities

Ultimately, I agree with Ocean, as least as far as sharing her wish. But the reality is, we have many blue noses in this country. We also have many people who actually don't care, but who are eager to play to them. Like it or not, instances of marital infidelity count for a lot to some people when evaluating a politician's fitness for office. I am convinced that in almost all cases, getting a little on the side has nothing to do with the ability to do one's job (it may even improve it), and that almost all of the problems that are caused by this (sneaking around, lying, etc.) arise only in response to the instinct to scold present in of many of our fellow citizens' minds.

Well, I think this is Kerry's point of view too: None of us would want sleazebag "reporters" like Mickey outing our most private behavior; however, some of us would view such outings as either no big deal or even suggesting virtue. For example, if I learned that Obama had a boyfriend in college I'd be more inclined to vote for him. However, such a revelation would immediately vaporize his political aspirations

Quoting piscivorous: I wouldn't dispute that. My only point was that the claim that a reporter must be embedded is false. It wasn't true during the initial invasion nor is it true now.

I agree. As I understand it, embedding is/was often the only realistic option for an American reporter who hopes/hoped to live for any length of time. There are, and have been, though, reporters who didn't work as embeds, or at least not all the time. I think Dexter Filkins would fall into this category, as would some of the NPR reporters like Jamie Tarabay and Anne Garrels, and I'm sure there are and have been others. Too many of the media, particularly the TV-based reporters, took the easy way out, though, and acted as though embedding was absolutely the only option. There is probably a little bit of a qualifier here, though. Isn't it true, piscivorous, that the military can "control the battlespace" and quite literally exclude or banish a reporter from it, even if that reporter did not previously agree to embedding ground rules?

Wonderment:

The Edwards story is just another in a long line of Enquirer-type sex-and-drugs exposés that have the toxic effect on political society of deterring anyone who is not a squeaky-clean monogamous heterosexual from aspiring to high office.

You left out the most important part: Person Of Faith (tm). I quite agree, and I think that at some point, this collective sanctimoniousness is counterproductive. You end up getting a lot of people in office who are either really good at sneaking around and covering up, or who have absolutely no clue about what normal people go through in the course of their lives. But, we are making progress. We do have a few openly gay people in high office, we have quite a few people who have divorced and remarried, and admissions about college drug use are no longer automatic disqualifiers. All three of these would have been unthinkable until fairly recently. Long road, little wheel, and so forth.

Of course, we expect the Enquirer to race to the salacious scandal, but self-righteously (!!!!) leading the intellectual race to crucify Edwards and his family, as Mickey Kaus has done, is truly despicable.

As much as I try

I think Dr$ is right about this -- it is SOP for a new president to appoint a fresh slate of top prosecutors upon taking office. (And sure, politics is never not involved at all.) What made the Bush DOJ shenanigans stand out is that they took place during the middle of the term. What compounded them was the extreme nature of the ideological and loyalty filtering. And, depending on who you want to believe, it could be that some of the fired U.S. Attorneys suffered their fates for one reason only -- because they wouldn't use strictly partisan criteria and engage in witch hunts, but instead, tried to do their jobs as professionals.

You left out the most important part: Person Of Faith (tm).

Yes, American politicians are actually required to be more devout than Mother Teresa on faith issues. Teresita came out (posthumously) as a closet agnostic and AFAIK no religious person criticized her for it. Similar statements by a US presidential candidate would be suicidal.

Oh, and for the record?

Quoting harkin: ... using profanity ...

Ratfuckers is a vulgarity, and if taken literally, possibly an obscenity. To be profane, I'd have had to say goddam ratfuckers. You're welcome.

Quoting piscivorous: If it was business as usual then why didn't President Bush do the same?

Because even some of the appointees were not sufficiently loyal to America, apparently. Hiring prosecutors based in part on their politics is normal and accepted. Firing them when they're in the middle of casework because you're not getting the answers you like is apparently a standard Bush move.

And one final thought:

Quoting harkin: ... to describe a conservative/republican ...

I know how solidly attached those victim goggles are, and consequently, how hard it is for you to read anything for what it actually says, but I do not say that someone is a ratfucker just because he or she is a conservative or a republican. Or a Republican, even. I use the term solely to describe a particular type of political operative, one who specializes in dirty tricks and has an amoral, win-at-all-costs mentality. That is all.

That is the same thing, with some exceptions, in Vietnam. There is also a connection to the assassination of President Diem, (if I get the characters wrong it is through the ravages of time) David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan and a Vietnamese's stringer, that turned out to be a North Vietnamese agent; not through direct action but through their writings convincing the Administration that Diem, because of the corruption, had to go.

Emily Bazelon, my favorite. She's really smart and, if I can be so sexist, really lovely.

Fire all the attorneys at once. Standard practice Not true

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

You will also notice if you read the article there were several ongoing investigations, that President Clinton would not have enjoyed going on and were dropped with the firings.

while the pile of articles to search through is thick it is may recollection that all but one of the "firings" came at the end of the attorneys contract. I shall endeavor to find to find the information to confirm what I remember but it may take some time.

Quoting piscivorous: Fire all the attorneys at once. Standard practice Not true You will also notice if you read the article there were several ongoing investigations, that President Clinton would not have enjoyed going on and were dropped with the firings.

You and the WSJ could be right. I am mostly operating on what other people said at the time the Bush DOJ scandal broke. Considering your source here, though, I'm not accepting it as a full refutation. After all, we've only heard about 50 million times over the past 8 years, in response to any criticism of Bush, "Oh, yeah? Clinton was worse!!!" and it doesn't always turn out to be true. But, for now, I'll concede the point.

This is as much effort as I will put into it. It is a Congressional Research Report titled U.S. Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006. It is only 14 pages. Read it make up your own mind.

My instincts suggest that the reality of the Vietnam war (it seems like it must have been a hard sell to a homo economicus American) and the fact that Americans, from what I understand, got at least some legitimate news about the reality of said war, had some serious impact on the populace. Of course the draft would have had a major impact. I might have reservations about various wars from the sidelines (say Iraq), but I would have some wicked reservations if I was about to get drafted to fight in a war that I thought was bullshit.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ultimately, I agree with Ocean, as least as far as sharing her wish.

It would have been wise to stop your post right here. But, no, you had to go on...

But the reality is, we have many blue noses in this country. We also have many people who actually don't care, but who are eager to play to them. Like it or not, instances of marital infidelity count for a lot to some people when evaluating a politician's fitness for office. I am convinced that in almost all cases, getting a little on the side has nothing to do with the ability to do one's job (it may even improve it), and that almost all of the problems that are caused by this (sneaking around, lying, etc.) arise only in response to the instinct to scold present in of many of our fellow citizens' minds. But wishing it would just stop won't do any good.

And, of course, I disagree with your disagreement (I know: circular). The point is that you throw your arms and hopelessly dismiss the possibility of change. I don't see this American puritanism as having such a strong hold anymore. If you look at other countries, a change

Quoting Ocean: It would have been wise to stop your post right here. But, no, you had to go on...

And, of course, I disagree with your disagreement (I know: circular). The point is that you throw your arms and hopelessly dismiss the possibility of change. I don't see this American puritanism as having such a strong hold anymore. If you look at other countries, a change in government made whole cultures make huge jumps in a few years. Let's not forget, that in many respects, America has been going backwards for the last couple of decades, with a marked acceleration in the past eight years. The pendulum has to swing back. During the same period of time the most conservative pockets in Europe and Latin America have become more liberal. Why not expect that the U.S., once the current nightmare ends, would do the same? And for the record, I am only talking about being able to look at a person's ability to govern as separate from the intimate aspects of their private lives. I'm not talking about institutionalizing prostitution. You may though, if you so choose. I don't care one way or the other. I'm not a politician and I'm not planning

Quoting bjkeefe: Very well said. Keep it up. I, and the rest of the world-weary cynics, need the more idealist of you to keep us all pushing.

In actuality, I think you're right about the eventual progression. You'll recall that I did point out how we now have some openly gay and divorced politicians holding office, a fairly big change. I was just focusing, perhaps too much, on the current election.

OK, OK. Now we are all happy. I'm so impressed...

Didn't see this prior to my earlier post . It doesn't supply any breakdown of the deaths but it does give you an idea of relative casualty rates, if you do the math, for most conflicts since the revolution. American War and Military operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics I realize that this will have no affect on your underlying pacifist philosophy but it does put things in a factual perspective for those that don't follow that particular belief system.

Shall these ladies be commenting upon the lack of aborted fetuses frontpage?

Shall they be volunteering photos of their own contributions to the fetal carnage?

Forgetting for a moment the argument about whether or not we care about a politician's personal infidelities, I can't help but experience the gut reaction of "Ewwww..." when it comes to someone who publicly dotes on his cancer-stricken spouse and uses her as a political prop while sneaking around behind her back. I know to some that may sound narrow-minded and preachy, but it doesn't sit well with me. I mean, the emotional upset that Elizabeth must feel right now cannot be doing her much good in keeping the disease at bay. The widespread reaction to Newt Gingrich's callous disregard for his own cancer-stricken wife was well publicized and elicited a similar public revulsion. Of course, we don't know if the allegations are true, but if they are, I can't help but thinking much less of John Edwards. I do feel that the MSM's reluctance to go there is partly because no hard evidence has been presented so far and because they feel a real affection and sympathy towards Elizabeth Edwards who is well regarded.

HBO did a good, graphic documentary about a combat support hospital in Baghdad.
Description: http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/baghdader/index.html
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...83717621633926

Quoting Clingon: Of course, we don't know if the allegations are true, but if they are, I can't help but thinking much less of John Edwards.

You would think much less about his ability to govern, or about his qualities as a husband? Do you have any evidence that men (well, people, I should say), that have affairs, tend to make poor political decisions? I frankly doubt that you would say you have evidence, since trying to establish that evidence would imply defining some outcome measure for "poor political decisions". And we already know how much disagreement there is on that, with or without affairs. It is irrational to make a judgment about a person's ability to perform his /her political function based on this kind of personal issue. In my opinion, it denotes prejudice. Now, if you want to comment on someone's qualities as a spouse, that's another story. But what kind of qualities do you look at when you decide on who would be a good political leader?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051301106.html Just some more background info and links. I'm not sure I feel tremendous outrage about the fates of well paid government lawyers, but it's another piece of 'loyalty over professionalism' in the Bush puzzle.

I have a bit of a problem with those that would take an oath to king instead of country and those that would require it but I can also understand the removal of individuals that work at will under the President can be replaced for any reason or no reason.

Ocean -- It is irrational to make a judgment about a person's ability to perform his /her political function based on this kind of personal issue. In my opinion, it denotes prejudice.

I believe that you might doubt his sincerity in what he espouses regarding his compassion for the poor for example since he has shown little compassion for his wife. Also the fact that Edwards doesn't have a long or distinguished record of accomplishment in the political sphere to help a voter make an informed decision this events looms larger than it might for others, For example, in the Clinton/Lewinsky case, we had some perspective regarding Clinton's governance skills so the affair was viewed from that perspective. I would say that any voter's judgment neither totally rational or emotional but some combination of the two. If all things were equal, I would rather choose the candidate who has shown the best judgment. While not necessarily lethal, I would have to make Edwards affair part of that mix.

Quoting Clingon: I believe that you might doubt his sincerity in what he espouses regarding his compassion for the poor for example since he has shown little compassion for his wife.

There have always been people who had the right instincts in the policy arena, even as they occasionally slipped in pursuit of their ideals in their private lives. I'd even say that we all show this dichotomy from time to time -- we steadfastly advocate things that we don't always live up to, no matter how much we might wish to. I don't think intermittent displays of human frailty undermine sincerity. I take the rest of your point, about candidate evaluation being a mix of intellectual and emotional processes, and that it works differently for different people.

Quoting Clingon: I believe that you might doubt his sincerity in what he espouses regarding his compassion for the poor for example since he has shown little compassion for his wife. Also the fact that Edwards doesn't have a long or distinguished record of accomplishment in the political sphere to help a voter make an informed decision this events looms larger than it might for others, For example, in the Clinton/Lewinsky case, we had some perspective regarding Clinton's governance skills so the affair was viewed from that perspective.

I would say that any voter's judgment neither totally rational or emotional but some combination of the two. If all things were equal, I would rather choose the candidate who has shown the best judgment. While not necessarily lethal, I would have to make Edwards affair part of that mix.

You make a good point that if you don't know the candidate well, and say there is another candidate that you also like about the same, every extra issue may count for or against. But take into account that any human relationship is complex. And you never know what is going on

John Edwards was a great candidate for President. He was my second choice after Dennis Kucinich, and I continue to hold him in the highest esteem. His penis is none of my business. Or anyone else's. Edwards was trapped by sleazebag "journalists" like the National Enquirer staff and Mickey Kaus. We have reached a point that the Patterson strategy is the only one available to anyone who has ever deviated from heterosexual monogamy. When Patterson replaced the disgraced Spitzer as gov. of NY, he immediately had to confess every sexual "sin" he had ever committed, as well as detail his consumption of psychotropic substances. Is that really the kind of political world we want to live in?

I found all of the responses to my Edwards comments to be very thought provoking. I do agree that we are all flawed in a variety of ways and politicians probably more so because of the trappings of power and egotism. Still, Mike Barnicle, this week's substitute host on Hardball, while admitting that your run of the mill "politician has an affair" story is nothing new, the circumstances surrounding this particular one were disturbing and unsettling to him and some of his commenters including: 1) Although most politicians utilize family members to round out their image, Edwards went out of his way to showcase his ideal family as an emotional selling point. He brought us into his wife's personal health struggles, we shared their anniversary celebrations at Wendys, and he constantly referred to Elizabeth as "the only love of his life". No other candidate -- Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Kuchinich or any Republicans (well maybe Romney) used their family in this way. I think that is why the aspects of betrayal and hypocrisy are more potent here than under other circumstances. 2) There are reports that the mistress was paid off by Edwards campaign staff but

Quoting Clingon: 3) Apparently he told Elizabeth about the affair in 2006 and that it was over after which they decided to go ahead with the race.

If this is true, then I think we should agree to stop entertaining "he was out tomcatting while his poor, sick wife lay at home" as a relevant part of the discussion. Can I get an amen?

Is anything he says about it from now on to be believed? That late night visit to the hotel room was what?

Quoting piscivorous: Is anything he says about it from now on to be believed? That late night visit to the hotel room was what?

A fair point, and I wouldn't bet more than a nickel on who the father of that child really is as it stands now, but I don't need to consider honor to fail to see the upside to him lying about his wife knowing about the affair. So, assuming that she did know, and sighed and said, "Let's move on," as sounds plausible for a politically-motivated couple (cf. Clintons, McCains), all I'm asking is that everyone stop playing the violins for "poor, poor Elizabeth, the helpless victim."

Quoting Wonderment: John Edwards was a great candidate for President. He was my second choice after Dennis Kucinich, and I continue to hold him in the highest esteem.

I don't. He should have handled this better. He should have either admitted it once he got caught, or just said, "None of your business." Lying is never honorable, even if what pushed him to that point was a sleazy invasion of privacy. He is to be further chastised for failing to learn from Bill Clinton. To the rest of your point, no. I don't like the way politicians are treated regarding matters of this sort. But that doesn't make lying okay, and it doesn't excuse his poor handling of the situation once the cat was out of the bag.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...I'm asking is that everyone stop playing the violins for "poor, poor Elizabeth, the helpless victim."

I agree with that because if she was told in 2006 about the affair doesn't that make her just a complicit in the lie?

Quoting piscivorous: I agree with that because if she was told in 2006 about the affair doesn't that make her just a complicit in the lie?

It's not that simple. Real life and the intersection of politics requires duplicity. And that is where the problem begins. While it is not our business, we believe it our right to know? Why is that? Is it really a measure of charachter and ability to lead. GW may have stayed faithful, but that didn't stop him from lying (I mean governance).

Quoting piscivorous: I agree with that because if she was told in 2006 about the affair doesn't that make her just a complicit in the lie?

Damn, Pisc. What could have possibly motivated you to go there?

Even if we were certain about what the "facts" are, we can build the story in different ways by adding adjectives and throwing in additional enhancing facts to create one effect or the other. If we want Edwards to look good, we can argument that all politicians lie, that they all have affairs, the his wife knew, etc, etc. If we want him to look bad, we can stress the hypocrisy, how he used his wife to campaign, his wife's illness, etc. The bottom line is that, these are complex sets of events and circumstances. Each of us will weigh the individual aspects more or less heavily depending on our own values and personal experiences. For some the affair while the wife was ill bears more weight. For others the important point is whether he lied or not, or whether he used his wife for his campaign. For others, his value as a political leader override the personal flaws and perhaps, mitigating factors can be identified. The story can be told in many ways. The facts are the same. Our opinions vary.

Quoting piscivorous: I agree with that because if she was told in 2006 about the affair doesn't that make her just a complicit in the lie?

Oh, stop. You're trying to make the Edwardses sound like the Bush Administration or the Nixon Administration now. "Complicit in the lie?" Please. It's not anything as serious as you'd like to spin it. This was a private matter that affected no one not directly involved in the affair. Elizabeth Edwards is not obliged to out her husband, nor is she required to disclose whatever personal arrangements they have come to in the course of their marriage. You want to be concerned about spousal cover-up? Start making some noise about Cindy McCain's tax returns.

He should have handled this better. He should have either admitted it once he got caught, or just said, "None of your business."

Well, he got ambushed and ensnared in the puritanical trap. As we know, there is no way to run for national office as anything but a monogamous heterosexual mainstream Christian. (Even Jews and Mormons are pushing the envelope and may be unelectable.) So as we say in Mexican, "Ley de Herodes: O te chingas o te jodes." Edwards was screwed no matter what. If he denied having sex with Ms. Hunter, he would be a liar. If he admitted it, he got the Scarlet Letter. Career over. If he didn't lie, as you suggest, and just said, "My sex life is none of your business," the Mickeys of the world would have continued to brutalize him and Elizabeth by saying, "See? He didn't deny it. There must be some truth to it."

Quoting Wonderment: Well, he got ambushed and ensnared in the puritanical trap.

As we know, there is no way to run for national office as anything but a monogamous heterosexual mainstream Christian. (Even Jews and Mormons are pushing the envelope and may be unelectable.)

So as we say in Mexican, "Ley de Herodes: O te chingas o te jodes." Edwards was screwed no matter what.

If he denied having sex with Ms. Hunter, he would be a liar.

If he admitted it, he got the Scarlet Letter. Career over.

If he didn't lie, as you suggest, and just said, "My sex life is none of your business," the Mickeys of the world would have continued to brutalize him and Elizabeth by saying, "See? He didn't deny it. There must be some truth to it."

Yes, once done, the only hope is to never get caught!

Elizabeth Shining: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...eth-confi.html

No the direct analogy is the Clinton Administration. After all doesn't "I did not have sex with that woman." sound very familiar.

Quoting piscivorous: No the direct analogy is the Clinton Administration.

I know you like to score points whenever possible, so I'll give you 0.000001 for this one. It's a little, how you say, obvious? Note that I mentioned this earlier, once or twice, partly hoping to forestall your panting partisan eagerness. Ah, well. I tried. Have your fun.

Actually it seems to me that you are the one that is concerned with scoring points and keeping score. I do0n't believe I have ever mentioned, in my comments, of who is triumphant over who but I can recall a post or two of your that do. Let me state it objectively. I am not particularly interest in who scores points, my primary interest here is to counter the leftist love fest, that passes for wisdom here, and challenging the destructive cocooning that is so prevalent on a site that I happen to enjoy.

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

I share your disgust for our nation's puritanical streak on this, Wonderment, which I hope you already know. But I don't agree that either telling the truth earlier or just saying, "It's none of your business," would have been career-killers. John McCain cheated on his first wife and eventually dumped her, went through a couple of years of non-stop Straight Talk Express: True Confessions Edition, and the MSM loved him for it. You can't get anyone to care about that story these days. George W. Bush played the "it's none of your business" card regarding his drinking problems and cocaine use, and skated, pitiful carping from a few lefty columnists aside. This in a country controlled by the liberal media, mind you. Oh, wait. Still, I don't think Edwards would have ended his career with an upfront admission. Adultery is adultery -- half the marriages in the country have to deal with it. Bill Clinton was able to sell a sniffling confession of this while in the thick of the primaries in 1992. He at least salvaged his campaign with one TV special; he may have even gotten a net gain from the whole thing. In any case, he won the whole shebang (perhaps

Quoting piscivorous: Let me state it objectively. I am not particularly interest in who scores points, my primary interest here is to counter the leftist love fest, that passes for wisdom here, and challenging the destructive cocooning that is so prevalent on a site that I happen to enjoy.

So, in other words, you're looking to score points. Don't get mad when I bust on your partisan tactics, pisc. We already had this fight. I'm a partisan, you're a partisan. We both look for our moments of zing.

Brendan, You make some good points about pols who survived sex and drug scandals. But....

I don't agree that either telling the truth earlier or just saying, "It's none of your business," would have been career-killers.

Let me rephrase: Presidential aspiration killer. The McCain case is not really comparable. His cheating was -- by the time he aspired to the presidency -- ancient history, like Obama's cocaine use as an undergraduate. When McCain dumped the first wife and cheated on her with Cindy, he was already a bullet-proof Senator. By the time he became an candidate for POTUS, another 20 years had passed.

George W. Bush played the "it's none of your business" card regarding his drinking problems and cocaine use, and skated, pitiful carping from a few lefty columnists aside.

Not really the none of your business card. More like the you-don't-need-to-know-all-the-details-and-anyway-I'm-reborn-now card. Plus, it's just another version of the Obama-coke story. Youthful indiscretion. He grew up, settled down, changed. Very different narrative than Edwards. Clinton did play the phony confession well, but I don't think of that as particularly virtuous behavior. Bill is a more complicated case, since there were serious allegations against him by the victims of his alleged harassment, abuse of power and even

Wonderment: I just inadvertently closed the window after coming near to the end of a long reply. Perhaps my subconscious is trying to tell me something. Short version: We don't agree, slightly, on most of your points. Basically, I see him as having had time to recover from a quick scandal and admission, if not this cycle, then in the future. I didn't see him as a major player in the Obama campaign, partly because of 2004, and partly because he hedged too long rather than endorsing Obama when it would have mattered. That is, I think he blew what clout he had. And ultimately, I just don't think lying was right (even in the political calculation sense). For a long while, I thought Clinton was right (in the political calculation sense) to lie about Lewinsky, thinking that it was a trivial matter that the puritans in this country nonetheless wouldn't be able to get past, so it made sense. Or, at least it made sense to roll the dice on the double-or-nothing bet. I changed my mind, especially in retrospect, because it seemed to me that even though his ratings went up during the impeachment time, it still was a Pyrrhic victory. He wasted a

Actually we don't know if Edwards is still fudging the truth -- it seems that he has come semi-clean but questions remain and they probably won't go away until the tabloids get their piece of flesh ala, Did he continue the affair beyond 2006? Why did he visit her in the hotel room then deny it? Did she receive money from his campaign funds? Is the baby's father really Edwards' close friend who is another married man (he and his wife apparently took her in during her pregnancy). Of course it's none of our business, but I don't think this saga is over by a long shot. As for Elizabeth's knowledge of the affair -- one possible question is did it contribute to her cancer relapse? I still feel a lot of sympathy for her and would like to say, "Oh, well...human nature" but that is difficult to do. After all, in a three way debate, John Edwards stated that his main flaw was that "he cared too much". I can think of a few others.

bj, Panting partisan eagerness? Pisc=Kettle bj=Pot

Quoting piscivorous: -- I am not particularly interest in who scores points, my primary interest here is to counter the leftist love fest, that passes for wisdom here, and challenging the destructive cocooning that is so prevalent on a site that I happen to enjoy.

I'm just curious. If this is a leftist love fest with all its destructive cocooning, how come you enjoy it?

One's preconceptions need to be challenged if one is to have any confidence in the validity of their preconceptions and what better place to do that than a site that is in general the converse of their preconceptions. The use of personal attack, invective and innuendo is relatively under control here, with a few notable exceptions, and when the individual diavlogers and commentators here offer substantive argumentation it is educational.

Quoting piscivorous: One's preconceptions need to be challenged if one is to have any confidence in the validity of their preconceptions and what better place to do that than a site that is in general the converse of their preconceptions. The use of personal attack, invective and innuendo is relatively under control here, with a few notable exceptions, and when the individual diavlogers and commentators here offer substantive argumentation it is educational.

That makes sense. Would you share what the general outcome has been so far? I mean, have you been able to change some preconceptions after discussing or reading a divergent argument? Or have you mostly confirmed and validated your preconceptions?
The reason I ask is that I sometimes question whether two very radical views can truly be reconciled by reasoning. Perhaps a small movement of a few degrees is likely, but 180 degrees?

Actually we don't know if Edwards is still fudging the truth -- it seems that he has come semi-clean but questions remain and they probably won't go away until the tabloids get their piece of flesh ala,

Naw. I think it's over. John Edwards is destroyed for fornicating, and his wife's work for universal healthcare is probably damaged beyond repair. The details have no legs. Even the sleazaball-in-chief, Mickey K, will move on now.

"Oh, well...human nature" but that is difficult to do. After all, in a three way debate, John Edwards stated that his main flaw was that "he cared too much".

You can't care and have a penis too?

Quoting Wonderment: Naw. I think it's over. John Edwards is destroyed for fornicating, and his wife's work for universal healthcare is probably damaged beyond repair.

The details have no legs. Even the sleazaball-in-chief, Mickey K, will move on now.

You can't care and have a penis too?

I think the problem is with the "too much" part of it...

Quoting jh in sd: bj, Panting partisan eagerness?

Pisc=Kettle bj=Pot

I am happy to admit my partisan nature. I have done so, particularly in response to pisc's attempts to use this same defense. Here's the difference: I do not post, off-topic, tabloid trash and op-eds from wingnuts sources that are filled with unfounded smears about McCain. I don't post every last little bit of negativity that I can find about McCain and then adopt a sanctimonious tone when called on it. And to the extent that I do indulge in partisan hackery, I don't pretend to have some sort of higher motivation for doing so.

I think the problem is with the "too much" part of it...

Well, Mickey was certainly smitten with Johnny. Only a scorned lover could have written the melacholic, turgid diary entries full of longing that obsessed MK over the past few weeks. Perhaps he met JE at a Hollywood cocktail party and was strangely intoxicated by the scent of the 500-dollar hairdo. Perhaps his leg tingled, like Chris Matthews' with Barack. One can only speculate. But I'll prepare a long list of questions about MK's sex life from age 13 to the present, just in case he tries to deny anything. If only I had the resources for 24-hour-a-day surveillance and harassment of his family members. The real break in the case would be to find someone close to MK who has a terminal disease. Tormenting that person would get Mickey talking!

Quoting Ocean: That makes sense. Would you share what the general outcome has been so far? I mean, have you been able to change some preconceptions after discussing or reading a divergent argument? Or have you mostly confirmed and validated your preconceptions?
The reason I ask is that I sometimes question whether two very radical views can truly be reconciled by reasoning. Perhaps a small movement of a few degrees is likely, but 180 degrees?

There is a lot to answer here in what appears, at first glance, to be a rather short and straight forward comment. I will take the second part first because it can be answered most directly, and the other, concerniong myself, I will take the time to bring the nuance to it that it deserves. In general a swing of 180 degrees while not a rare event is definitely possible. Even Mr. Wright speaks of his hopeful conversion of an unapologetic neo-con to his more "progressive" point of view on foreign policy. I personally believe that Mr. Wright, in the long run, will be the one to undergo conversion but only time will tell. Russia's and China's conversion to a capitalist market driven paradigm would be two significant

Quoting Wonderment: Well, Mickey was certainly smitten with Johnny.

Only a scorned lover could have written the melacholic, turgid diary entries full of longing that obsessed MK over the past few weeks.

Perhaps he met JE at a Hollywood cocktail party and was strangely intoxicated by the scent of the 500-dollar hairdo. Perhaps his leg tingled, like Chris Matthews' with Barack.

One can only speculate. But I'll prepare a long list of questions about MK's sex life from age 13 to the present, just in case he tries to deny anything.

If only I had the resources for 24-hour-a-day surveillance and harassment of his family members. The real break in the case would be to find someone close to MK who has a terminal disease. Tormenting that person would get Mickey talking!

Boy, you are all so crabby today! I'm not going to defend the indefensible, but aren't you overdoing this? Should I remind you? Busca la paz y síguela... I'm sorry for being intrusive in your fights. It's just hard to follow and say nothing.

bj. My statement was simply and observation, not a critique. j

Quoting jh in sd: bj. My statement was simply and observation, not a critique. j

If that was your intent, fine. I have a little trouble, however, buying the idea that you're unaware of how "pot, kettle" is likely to be heard.

You're right bj, it could be construed as a slam, but at the time I posted it, it was just an off-the-cuff remark. The pot calling the kettle black is something that most all of us do here ocassionally. So, sorry to single you out. j

Quoting jh in sd: You're right bj, it could be construed as a slam, but at the time I posted it, it was just an off-the-cuff remark. The pot calling the kettle black is something that most all of us do here ocassionally. So, sorry to single you out. j

No need to apologize. I didn't take it as a slam. I just wanted to make clear that I think there's a difference between expressing a strong partisan point of view and going another step beyond.

Quoting Clingon: I found all of the responses to my Edwards comments to be very thought provoking. I do agree that we are all flawed in a variety of ways and politicians probably more so because of the trappings of power and egotism. Still, Mike Barnicle, this week's substitute host on Hardball, while admitting that your run of the mill "politician has an affair" story is nothing new, the circumstances surrounding this particular one were disturbing and unsettling to him and some of his commenters including:

1) Although most politicians utilize family members to round out their image, Edwards went out of his way to showcase his ideal family as an emotional selling point. He brought us into his wife's personal health struggles, we shared their anniversary celebrations at Wendys, and he constantly referred to Elizabeth as "the only love of his life". No other candidate -- Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Kuchinich or any Republicans (well maybe Romney) used their family in this way. I think that is why the aspects of betrayal and hypocrisy are more potent here than under other circumstances.

2) There are reports that the mistress was paid off by Edwards campaign staff but

I'm not going to defend the indefensible, but aren't you overdoing this?

Yes. I am staggering toward closure. There. Done.

Quoting piscivorous: There is a lot to answer here in what appears, at first glance, to be a rather short and straight forward comment. I will take the second part first because it can be answered most directly, and the other, concerniong myself, I will take the time to bring the nuance to it that it deserves.

In general a swing of 180 degrees while not a rare event is definitely possible. Even Mr. Wright speaks of his hopeful conversion of an unapologetic neo-con to his more "progressive" point of view on foreign policy. I personally believe that Mr. Wright, in the long run, will be the one to undergo conversion but only time will tell.

Russia's and China's conversion to a capitalist market driven paradigm would be two significant examples of 180 degree turns. Although one could argue that Russia has moved through 180 degrees mark and is approaching the completion of the circle; but I don't really subscribe to this train of thought. In regards to Iraq there are numerous examples of individuals that have moved 180 degrees from there pre-conflict positions. This is also true for the majority public opinion about our involvement in Iraq. One could

I hope that this is the last time I have to think about this mess but just wanted to close with these thoughts: If political candidates did not set themselves up as iconic figures: Edwards - uber family man of rectitude, Obama - harmonic convergence guru, McCain - perpetual maverick, then their fall from grace would not be so dramatic. It's really not about where you put your penis or how much you want to help the poor, its not about how much you yearn for racial harmony and world peace or how you much buck the establishment for whatever reason -- its about authenticity. What I wouldn't give now for an unpretentious Presidential candidate -- maybe a Russ Feingold or a Michael Bloomberg, I would even opt for a Dick Lugar. Even though they're all kind of boring, what a breath of fresh air they would be right now! Where exactly is our Harry Truman? I can dream can't I?

Where is Mike Dukakis when his country needs him?

BJ Keefe -- Where is Mike Dukakis when his country needs him?

Cute comeback. Guess I'm not looking for someone to excite or inspire me right now. Just want someone who is trustworthy, has a depth of knowledge and experience, sees clearly and can get 'er done. By the way, I saw Dukakis on TV recently and he looks tan and rested. I seem to recall that he was ahead by 15 points about this time in his game and he still lost, so I guess anything can happen.

Ok, if it is fair game dears, then be prepared to change ALL the assignments of your current cadre of reporters to sex ALL the time, because that is the reality we are dealing with here. Men cheat. All the time. I think you are both wrong, and if we use your standards, we will have to re-write all American history. Second, you mention that the National Enquirer has a good reading of what the American people are interested in. Sex sells, all the time. Doesn't matter who it is, as long as they are or were moderately famous.

Quoting willmybasilgrow: --- Men cheat. All the time. --

I get your point and tend to agree. But, let's be fair, not all the time, and not all men... I would say it happens way more often that what the American people seem to acknowledge. By the way, isn't it interesting that one would talk about the American people, when in fact we know how equally divided opinions are? I wonder how one would go about deciding what the American people "think".

Second, you mention that the National Enquirer has a good reading of what the American people are interested in. Sex sells, all the time. Doesn't matter who it is, as long as they are or were moderately famous.

Agree with that too. It's that sick voyeurism!

Quoting Clingon: Cute comeback.

Hope you didn't take offense. I was just teasing you.