The "corporate media" ignored both Roosevelt's and Kennedy's infirmities and infidelities, thought they were well known.

The ignored Newt Gingrich's egregiously amoral behavior toward his wives, and are currently giving McCain the Reagan treatment by blowing of the fact that McCain got married to Cindy McCain one month after he divorced his previous wife.

What's amazing is that you think ignoring sexual indiscretions is a sign that the mainstream media is dead, but ignoring the abject lies of the Bush administration leading us to war wasn't.

I could care less what Edwards does with his personal life. The man was going to likelt be AG in the Obama cabinet, now he will be rememered with Kefauver, Shriver, and Ferraro as a Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee that lost and was never heard from again

The fact that they had affairs does not preclude them from public office. What they do behind closed doors is none of anyones business. Spitzer broke the law, McGreevy was corrupt, Edwards cheated on his wife and while thats not commendable its not illegal. Furthermore, Spitzer paying a prostitute and Edwards cheating on his wife are problems that nearly 60% of the country could be considered guilty of. Lastly, Spitzer paying for sex and Edwards having an affair gives no indication that they were corrupt public officials. THis is a non-story

Where was John McCain banished to after admitting that he cheated on his sick wife, then divorced her, then married "the other woman", his rich trophy wife?

How do I get banished like that?

SJBlue,

John Edwards was very vigorous in his denials, having lied repeatedly about it all along. He still is vigorous in his denials with respect to the "love child" portion of the story, yet he has absolutely no credible explanation for what he was doing secretly visiting her and the child at that hotel recently.

Even posters on left-wing Huffington Post are pointing out the blatant inconsistencies in his version of the timeline (when the affair started and ended) as he somewhat vaguely related in his recent interview with ABC's Bob Woodruff.

The Andrew Young story absolutely reeks, looking and smelling like a very badly conceived cover-up, with evidence of both hush money and expensive housing accomodations zooming around like mosquitos at a blood donor's picnic.

In short, the whole thing is quite risible, at least it is now that we -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have dogged the bullet of having this popinjay of a man end up in a position of real power.

It is not what he did behind closed doors that got him into trouble, and that continues to make this a story. It is the serial lying about it, and the pathetically lame cover story. 

You say it doesn't matter what he does behind closed doors? I say nuts to that!

The point is that he obviously has someone (or more than one) close to him who finally decided to drop a dime on him to the National Enquirer, and I say thank heavens they did!

That way, he and his little circle of diehard supporters are the losers -- not us. In his utter (and now admitted) narcissism, he was positioning himself to be vulnerable to extortion and dozens of other bad influences that could have caused real damage to the public. No more!

Most of the Press in this state concluded that it didn't matter what Jim McGreevey was doing behind closed doors either. They knew.  Oh, they ALL knew.  But they kept quiet. As it turned out, it sure did matter!

For just one thing, that clown was trying to appoint his utterly unqualified boy bimbo -- who could not even get an F.B.I. security clearance -- as the head of the state's Homeland security office -- beginning a mere four months after 9/11!

None of us know for certain if the child is John's or not, but the sudden and very convenient (for John Edwards) refusal of Rielle Hunter to take a "paternity test" has all the trappings of a very wealthy John Edwards, and his very wealthy supporters -- who want lots of things -- trying to salvage some tiny sliver of his rapidly disintegrating political career.

Rielle could easily justify it in her own mind, based on his commitments to always take care of her and the child.

Rob Tornoe has hit on an uncomfortable truth about the MSM. He's right.  Looks like he stepped into Debbie Holtz territory. 

Frankly, it's beginninng to look like John Edwards is probably accurate about one thing: We're close to being down to two Americas -- those who only think he is continuing to lie . . . and then there are the rest of us!

by Trochilus

Note the posts on this topic by the Dems keep saying this is a private matter, no big deal, etc. They all ignore the press double-standard: go after Republicans but give Democrats a free ride as long as they can.

SJ, that is a typical dopey liberal comment. If most of America is cheating on their spouse, that makes it ok. Gee, let me inform my wife of that. I'm sure the lumps that I will receive on my head will go away after a while. Any persons private life does matter - it speaks to that persons character; that persons integrity, honesty, and fortitude. Look up the word character. I would never hire a person like Edwards, Gingrich, Sptitzer, or McGreevy, or for that matter Bill Clinton. I just wouldn't be able to trust them or depend on them, period. I don't care how talented they are. I know I can't convince you and the other liberals out there- you people know everything and know whats good for the rest of us knucledraggers.

Interesting piece by Howard Kurtz in the WaPo today . . . more regrets about the MSM failure.  The whole story is interesting, but here are the first few grafs:

The whispered allegations about John Edwards were an open secret that was debated in every newsroom and reported by almost none.

The story of Edwards's affair with a former campaign aide became so widely known -- what a Slate blogger called "undernews" -- that by last week there seemed little point in the mainstream media gatekeepers' keeping it isolated outside their moat. And yet, even as some national news organizations tried halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale, they ignored it in public -- wary of the National Enquirer, of Edwards's dismissal of "tabloid trash," of wading once again into the swamp of sexual scandal without definitive proof.

By early last week, journalists were in the awkward position of refusing to report on explosive allegations that were almost certain to knock the former North Carolina senator out of the Democratic convention. They were in a box of their own making, one that came to feel airtight and uncomfortable.

When critics, especially on the right, accused the media of protecting a Democrat because of liberal bias, journalists were unable to respond, because to do so would be to acknowledge the very thing they were declining to report. At the same time, in an area of financial cutbacks and shrinking staffs, news organizations have fewer reporters to dig into what most considered a less-than-pressing priority.

As the political fallout came to be openly debated in the North Carolina papers, I pursued the matter with my colleague Lois Romano and was struck by Edwards's refusal to talk about whether he had a relationship with Rielle Hunter, his former campaign aide, or to even issue a statement. Edwards's actions did not seem to be those of a man with nothing to hide. I came to believe that we should publish a story. But I don't get paid to make those decisions.

Only Edwards's belated confession Friday to ABC's Bob Woodruff allowed news organizations to jump on what most people already knew.

. . . .

That says a mouthful about why people do not trust the MSM. 

Again, we had the same situation here in NJ, only worse during the McGreevey Administration.  And there was a conspiracy of silence from the MSM, even though there were many substantive reasons to bring it up, including the attempted appointment of Cipel, and, later, considerable taxpayer expenditures made at Drumthwacket in order to get the State Police security unit out of the house.  But the dance around the story was the only story anyone ever read until he "'fessed up," and quit.

by Trochilus

He held himself to the higher standard when he ran for President.

Edwards vision for America included: "Restoring America's moral leadership in the world"

He is a hypocrite, pure and simple. Now it is time for him to be a man, and take responsibility for his actions. We are talking about a little girl here.

Nick - you just don't get it. First, McCain was not making himself to be the moral guardian of our Nation. John Edwards did. Edwards made it very clear that he was going to deliver us to a higher moral ground while he was banging some tramp on the campaign trail. Ok ok maybe she isn't a tramp, but she too cannot claim to be the princess of morality because she clearly knew he was a married man. Moreover, he was continuing this affair while his wife was sick. Lastly, while I do not condone either of their adulterous affairs, McCain was not a public servant. Edwards was. And this goes back to his platform which stated: "Restoring America's moral leadership in the world"

No one is talking about it? I guess you only read the NY Times? Because other newspapers and news outlets are running with the story. See today's NY Post for example and well as Fox News. I am sure you will complain that they are "right wing" propaganda machines but they are in fact mainstream whether you like it or not. Additionally, John Edwards certainly DID proclaim he was going to restore morality back into our lives. Read his campaign material and speeches. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to go over his material and decipher the material.

I know what you said - but you are wrong. read and listen to what HE said. Figures. And the NY Times isn't a left wing mouthpiece? Hypocrisy at its finest.

...if the standards applied to Democrats were ever applied to McCain; he would be ground into the dirt of political obscurity and have to drop out of the presidential race.  Hell, he wouldn't even win back his Senate seat.

This isn't to diminish my own sense of betrayal and disgust with John Edwards' dishonesty to his supporters and to his own family.   He screwed up big time.  He knows it and he admits it.   His political career is dead.

McCain has about a HUNDRED times as many gapingly obvious flaws and faults as Edwards. 

I give McCain credit for being able to persevere and survive his experience in the "Hanoi Hilton"; but lots of Americans suffered as much and were even better pilots.  

McCain's bravery and courage under those circumstances don't meant he gets to be president. General Wesley Clark was 100% right, getting shot down and surviving don't qualify anyone to be handed the presidency.

McCain's public and personal life is rife with hypocrisy and corruption.  His mental stability is questionable.

McCain wins this election IF Americans become afraid and IF Americans become divided along racial lines.   That's the only winning scenario for McCain (and a few points will surely go to him because the damn voting machines are "fixed").
 
I pray Mr Obama has the will and the capacity to look this beast straight in the eye and to call him out for exactly what he is.....if he can't/won't do that it will be a close election....and if it's close:  McCain/Rove will steal it.

Here's one of hundreds of instances where McCain should have been disqualified from holding any office.....and this story is from 2005!!!!

 
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0309-35.htm
     
     
>>>>>>>>Published on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 by Doug Ireland
John McCain, Hypocrite
by Doug Ireland
 

John McCain, the media's darling, has found a clever way around his own campaign finance reform law to take big corporate bucks in furtherance of his political ambitions while carrying water for the corporate mammoth providing the dough. But the national press is ignoring the story.

The Associated Press first ran the story of John McCain's odorous but lucrative Senatorial service to the communications giant Cablevision on the afternoon of March 7. But, while some local papers in McCain's home state (like the East Valley Tribune) have run the story, nothing has as yet made it into the print editions of the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, or any of the half-dozen other big city dailies I checked (although, if one searches the hundreds of AP stories available on the Post's website on its Politics page by clicking on "Latest Wire Reports," one can find it there--but how many readers would bother to do that?) One notable exception: the Kansas City Star.

Here's what the AP's investigation found:

McCain repeatedly intervened on behalf of a policy Cablevision favored -- one which "congressional and private studies conclude  could make cable more expensive" -- while his chief political adviser, Rick Davis (who's masterminding McCain's probable '08 presidential rerun) solicited $200,000 in contributions from Cablevision to an institute that promotes McCain and pays Davis a $110,000 annual salary.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

...calling someone a "name" that they did not merit, I'll be happy to apologize. I too can become hyperbolic on occasion and welcome legitimate correction. None of us is perfect.

Meanwhile, your unqualified use of the word "hypocrite" is one more ad hominem.....make your case; then we'll see if it has any merit.

Meanwhile, that quibble aside, I take it you've run out of substantive arguments to  defend John McCain's record.

If McCain has commited the acts described above, he's a sleaze.  Period.

If he hasn't committed those acts; then let him publicly deny it.

And there is so so so much more in his public record that makes him out to be the ultimate self serving "flip flopper".

Here's what the guy who was McCain's lead advisor last year thinks of the new Karl Rovian tactics McCain is using....

http://www.newser.com/story/33776/ex-mccain-adviser-slams-britney-ad-as-...

Ex-McCain Adviser Slams Britney Ad as 'Childish'

Posted Jul 30, 08 7:00 PM CDT in Politics 

(Newser) – Former John McCain strategist and “Straight Talk Express" architect John Weaver blasted McCain's latest ad as "childish" today, the Atlantic reports. Breaking his silence about the campaign, Weaver said that the attack ad likening Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton “diminishes” and “reduces McCain on the stage.”

"There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn’t at Obama’s," Weaver added. "For McCain’s sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop. He needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us” if he wants to win. Weaver was close to McCain for years until he quit the campaign last year, and hasn't spoken to the presumptive nominee in months.<<<<<

You Republicans are all giddy about throwing John Edwards into the pits of political hell...while simultaneously supporting a candidate that makes Edwards look like a Saint in comparison.  Not that's real hypocrisy.

PS The ads are worse than "childish" they have an insideous perverse maleficent logic to them...but that's another discussion.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

Quote me where I have unfairly characterized someone with a "name".   If you can show me where what I said was wrong, and I agree with you, I'll admit the error.  I'm very very very far from perfect.

When I point out that my opponents here are using ad hominem arguments, it's so much because that bothers me personally......since it only reflect poorly on THEM.......but because I want to shed light onto the poverty of facts and rationale argumentation on the other side.

When I say McCain is a "sleaze" that's a truthful statement and the facts to back it are plentiful and many are listed/quoted above. (Which, by the way, no one here has disputed.)

One thing I don't believe I do is simply and stupidly call people I disagree with "names".   I bring forth facts, arguments, direct quotes and links to other sources.

Folks are free to disagree with me and believe that I'm dead wrong; I have no problem with that.   That's part of political discussion and a good thing!   All I ask is that folks do so intelligently and competently.  When they don't, I point it out.

This is a thread about the media has dealt with the Edwards affair.  Given that he ran third in the primary and is a loser; then how much MORE scrutiny and condemnation should be applied to John McCain who actually WON the primary and is THE Republican candidate for President?

McCain did, much the same thing as Edwards and much more...yet I see NO condemnation of him from the corporate press?

Again, if Obam ever decides to take the gloves off and start telling the AMeican people the truth about John McCain that the main stream media will keep deeply hidden from them; then McCain will lose big in November.   Not because he was "called named" but because the truth came out.

A rose is a rose and a fart is a fart.....by whatever names you call these things they still have a certain deireable, or undesireable smell.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.