POS John Edwards

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's fair game, but ya gotta leave the personal sex crap out of it, if possible. Hard to draw that line, I guess.

I see your point. IMO, it isn't so much the SEX that is the issue here...but the COVERUP. The cheating is one level of dishonesty...then the coverup is another level.

When you are running for the most powerful position in the nation, I think it is fair that just about everything is on the table in relation to your honesty and trustworthiness.

If the cheating involves some sorta thing that relates to campaign finance or laws broken..that is fair game.

But, covering up an affair? C'mon..that is basic human nature. He could have done that to protect himself or to protect his wife from the hurt (of course not cheating woulda done that as well).

Men and women cheat. Pols cheat. That is life.

And, if we are going to look at their trustworthiness...then i guess we can only keep obama since we KNOW mccain cheated. We also know his wife abused prescription drugs..and we are pretty sure Mccain helped cover it up.

[texaspackerbacker]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

Tyrone, you dipshit, not only did the leftist mainstream media only jump on the bandwagon when it was dead obvious that there was a veritable plethora of Clinton bimbos. They did their level best to discredit and make life miserable for the women, as well actually to try and paint Clinton as a victim of his accusers or at least as someone who was good naturedly and forgiveably compulsive.

Also, giving coverage to the sex aspect tended to minimize the more sinister and downright criminal lying about it--including under oath.

Also, Clinton had three distinct categories of scandalous behavior: sexual, financial, and political.

Grudgingly joining in and acknowledging the obvious philandering allowed them to ignore or cover up the more serious stuff--nuclear applicable computer technology to China in return for campaign financing, giving the anthracite coal monopoly to Indonesia--again in return for campaign financing, the suspicious death of Ron Brown, the criminal indictment of literally more than half of his cabinet, etc.

On top of everything else, the bit of coverage given to a few of the many Clinton sex scandals allowed the leftist media to carry the "moral equivalence" scenario to a ridiculous extent both in quantity and quality with regard to Republican misdeeds, in comparison to Clinton. .

[Scott Campbell]

I don't condone this horse shit from either party. Neither the act itself, or any of the political exploitation of the unfortunate outcome.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

Tyrone, you dipshit, not only did the leftist mainstream media only jump on the bandwagon when it was dead obvious that there was a veritable plethora of Clinton bimbos. They did their level best to discredit and make life miserable for the women, as well actually to try and paint Clinton as a victim of his accusers or at least as someone who was good naturedly and forgiveably compulsive.

Also, giving coverage to the sex aspect tended to minimize the more sinister and downright criminal lying about it--including under oath.

Also, Clinton had three distinct categories of scandalous behavior: sexual, financial, and political.

Grudgingly joining in and acknowledging the obvious philandering allowed them to ignore or cover up the more serious stuff--nuclear applicable computer technology to China in return for campaign financing, giving the anthracite coal monopoly to Indonesia--again in return for campaign financing, the suspicious death of Ron Brown, the criminal indictment of literally more than half of his cabinet, etc.

On top of everything else, the bit of coverage given to a few of the many Clinton sex scandals allowed the leftist media to carry the "moral equivalence" scenario to a ridiculous extent both in quantity and quality with regard to Republican misdeeds, in comparison to Clinton. .

You are as always changing your tune. You stated that they did it when, "when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious."

Quite clearly, the bimbo eruptions were prior to clinton being elected. Quite clearly the situation was far from hopeless and obvious.

the rest of the stuff you bring up isn't relevant..it is a different timeframe.

Too easy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't condone this horse shit from either party. Neither the act itself, or any of the political exploitation of the unfortunate outcome.

Agreed.

[mraynrand]

The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

I have to say that I actually think Bill liked it. I think he enjoys attention - good and bad.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

I have to say that I actually think Bill liked it. I think he enjoys attention - good and bad.

That is a wholely separate issue.

Bill may have...but, you and every man that has been married knows that HC didn't.

[Kiwon]

The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

I have to say that I actually think Bill liked it. I think he enjoys attention - good and bad.

That is a wholely separate issue.

Bill may have...but, you and every man that has been married knows that HC didn't.

Revisionist BS.

Hillary knew about most of Bill's affairs (and certainly his character and past history) and the champion feminist looked the other way and kept silent. She was not going to do anything, including following through on her feminist rhetoric, to jeopardize her political future and a chance at becoming the first female POTUS.

People that aid and abet criminal acts, such as attempted rape, usually don't like the media glare.

The MSM was more than willing to accommodate the Clintons in every way.

Bigguns, name the time(s) when the MSM had an adversarial relationship with the Clintons 1992-2000.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

I have to say that I actually think Bill liked it. I think he enjoys attention - good and bad.

That is a wholely separate issue.

Bill may have...but, you and every man that has been married knows that HC didn't.

Revisionist BS.

Hillary knew about most of Bill's affairs (and certainly his character and past history) and the champion feminist looked the other way and kept silent. She was not going to do anything, including following through on her feminist rhetoric, to jeopardize her political future and a chance at becoming the first female POTUS.

People that aid and abet criminal acts, such as attempted rape, usually don't like the media glare.

The MSM was more than willing to accommodate the Clintons in every way.

Bigguns, name the time(s) when the MSM had an adversarial relationship with the Clintons 1992-2000.

What is revisionist? You are saying she enjoyed the media attention?

Try and follow along.

As for what she knew...if you don't have proof, don't act like you know. Many women stay with cheating spouses for many reasons. And, to think she stayed at that juncture..without any prior public office because she wanted to be prez..is beyond ridiculous.

But, how is staying with a cheating spouse going to help her? Prior to his election he had hardly been a national figure. And, staying with her "man" doesn't give feminist voters the warm and fuzzies.

You just come across as another limbaugh acolyte. Try thinking for yourself sometime.

MSM: Again, who said anything about adversarial. But, perhaps i should take page from your playbook...go look it up. Why should i do the work.

You love to switch the argument. The issue was the MSM covering sex scandals as defined by Tex. The msm was all over them prior to his election. The proof is in the pudding...they wouldn't have gone on 60 minutes if the scrutiny hadn't been so intense.

What is for sure is the MSM loves conserv/repub scandals because they pull out the moral/family values issue...everybody loves watching a hypocrite go down.

You love to do that with Gore and his non enviro policies..yet, i don't see you posting other green advocates blunders.

The dems don't put that out as a major platform. Hence, when Newt, craig, the florida pedo get caught..you guys scream about the coverage.

[falco]

this kind of shit occurs across party lines

lots of hypocrites on both sides

[Tyrone Bigguns]

this kind of shit occurs across party lines

lots of hypocrites on both sides

Yes, men cheat regardless of political stances.

[BallHawk]

Any chance in hell Edwards still gets Attorney General if Obama gets elected? He was almost a lock to get it before this, any chance he still sneaks in and regains some credibility?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Edwards seems like a total fake job. I think his self-analysis came off as smarmy. I think he is as done as Elliot Spitzer.

[HowardRoark]

Schadenfreude!!!

[Kiwon]

What is for sure is the MSM loves conserv/repub scandals because they pull out the moral/family values issue...

1. So you admit that the MSM is largely hostile toward "conserv/repub" issues?

...everybody loves watching a hypocrite go down.

2. My problem with this phrase is how subjectively "hypocrite" is defined. On a personal level, it's inconsequential. However, absent the presence of the new media, academia and the MSM are left to not only inform but indoctrinate with impunity on what constitutes hypocrisy.

I know you probably don't agree, but in the real world liberals are only truly liberally-minded when others agree with their positions. True freedom of thought isn't permitted or even encouraged.

It's ironic that the most intolerant people among us are those screaming for diversity and tolerance. And that's the Left.

[bobblehead]

All men are hypocrites...except gay men. we all think lesbianism is cool, or a three way with two hot chics, but try and get any of us to watch male gay porn or do a threeway with a hottie and another man....don't wanna speak for all of you, but I'm a hypocrit on this stuff.

[texaspackerbacker]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

Tyrone, you dipshit, not only did the leftist mainstream media only jump on the bandwagon when it was dead obvious that there was a veritable plethora of Clinton bimbos. They did their level best to discredit and make life miserable for the women, as well actually to try and paint Clinton as a victim of his accusers or at least as someone who was good naturedly and forgiveably compulsive.

Also, giving coverage to the sex aspect tended to minimize the more sinister and downright criminal lying about it--including under oath.

Also, Clinton had three distinct categories of scandalous behavior: sexual, financial, and political.

Grudgingly joining in and acknowledging the obvious philandering allowed them to ignore or cover up the more serious stuff--nuclear applicable computer technology to China in return for campaign financing, giving the anthracite coal monopoly to Indonesia--again in return for campaign financing, the suspicious death of Ron Brown, the criminal indictment of literally more than half of his cabinet, etc.

On top of everything else, the bit of coverage given to a few of the many Clinton sex scandals allowed the leftist media to carry the "moral equivalence" scenario to a ridiculous extent both in quantity and quality with regard to Republican misdeeds, in comparison to Clinton. .

You are as always changing your tune. You stated that they did it when, "when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious."

Quite clearly, the bimbo eruptions were prior to clinton being elected. Quite clearly the situation was far from hopeless and obvious.

the rest of the stuff you bring up isn't relevant..it is a different timeframe.

Too easy.

Changing what tune? Hell yeah, the leftist media only joined in when it became "hopeless and obvious", and your own line just proves that. The mitigation that the leftist media tried unsuccessfully to pull off was exactly what you said--that Clinton's bimbo eruptions were BEFORE he was elected president. A cum-stained blue dress, however, made that tactic "hopeless and obvious".

The facts are all against you, Tyrone, and repeating the worn out leftist line, as you love to do, ain't enough to counter those facts.

I see you, also like the leftist media, avoided discussing the other more serious categories of Clinton scandals, the political and financial. You seem to be deviating from the leftist line slightly, though, Tyrone. You're supposed to be saying something like, "Oh, all that sex stuff is not worth complaining about anyway". That would be true to a great extent ....... it's just the cover-up and lying under oath that is worthy of discussion.

[mngolf19]

A politician that lies, cmon. And that goes for both sides. Not that the "liberal" media mentioned this much when Newt got caught. Must have been a "liberal" conspiracy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Changing what tune? Hell yeah, the leftist media only joined in when it became "hopeless and obvious", and your own line just proves that. The mitigation that the leftist media tried unsuccessfully to pull off was exactly what you said--that Clinton's bimbo eruptions were BEFORE he was elected president. A cum-stained blue dress, however, made that tactic "hopeless and obvious".

The facts are all against you, Tyrone, and repeating the worn out leftist line, as you love to do, ain't enough to counter those facts.

I see you, also like the leftist media, avoided discussing the other more serious categories of Clinton scandals, the political and financial. You seem to be deviating from the leftist line slightly, though, Tyrone. You're supposed to be saying something like, "Oh, all that sex stuff is not worth complaining about anyway". That would be true to a great extent ....... it's just the cover-up and lying under oath that is worthy of discussion.

dude, you just aren't even close with the facts. The MSM was all over clinton prior to his election. Or was Gennifer Flowers and Paula whats her name and all the other chicks that were in the papers part of my imagination.

The clintons went on 60 minutes because this was a big issue. face that fact, you dipshit. You dont' go on a national news magazine and talk about your marriage unless you have to...my god, are you that dense?

You stated that the MSM only goes after things when it is hopeless..well, the mSM was certainly after clinton in the year preceding his election..and it was far from hopeless. The msm was there to cover gary hart and ruin a potential run for prez...long before it was hopeless. Stop being blind.