99 to 1 ain't bad.

As usual the press is all over a story for the wrong reasons. No one is listening to John Edwards and his plausible explanation. Math. Read his statement, it screams with truth.

• "Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough."

Come on! How many of us can say we are "99 percent honest?" Even on my most honest day, I cannot say I am successful at being honest 99% of the time. But Edwards was. That's the point. I think he should be praised for hitting such a high percentage in this gut wrenching case.

Now, I wish I had all the facts, but:

1. he has admitted to not being honest about the core of the story -- whether he had the extra-marital affair or not.
2. He also was not totally honest when he accused the Enquirer, essentially, of being trailer trash.
3. And he fell somewhat short of honesty by parading his wife through a campaign in which they both supposedly knew that he was lying and in which the Democratic party would have been screwed if he won!

So that's three concededly dishonest things.

But taking him at his word, there were 99 times more facts than these, regarding the story, that he was truthful about. That makes for about 297 facts that Enquirer got wrong!

I hope this tabloid newspaper has the integrity to print those 297 omitted details so we can all see that honest John was 99% truthful.

And even if it turns out there aren't 297 other facts, what does that prove? So he has a math problem? Lots of people are bad at math. Give the guy a break.

Why media/public care for someone's personal life and preach morality when the whole society is immoral anyway?

Many politicians believe that this will win votes from the "little old lady" demographic.

LOL!!!

optical;

I am not interested in or feel entitled to know about the private lives of anyone except those whose private lives are relevant to the public good. For example, a member of Congress who strays from his or her personal duties should normally be allowed to work out the problem privately.

I also don't think we should pick and choose who to expose on the basis of political ideology. My outrage against Edwards is not political at all. Although he was not my first choice in the primary, I gave him money in 2004, and admired his politics. I especially admire[d] Elizabeth Edwards, perhaps the most impressive political spouse ever.

But sometimes it just pisses me off when someone manipulates me and the public, not only by the sheer dishonesty of the actions aimed at the public, but also by the real dangers posed to the country.

In Edwards' case, he lied directly to his supporters and potential supporters. I understand the motivation to lie, but I cannot forgive the thoughtful, menacing decision to continue his campaign knowing that he had to keep lying and that the lie could eventually be exposed, doing great damage to the party. What if he had been nominated?

I feel the same way about Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. Since he would not be up for re-election again, one could argue that it did not matter if the affair was reported. Nonsense! The greatest misconduct in the Lewisnky affair was not the sex. It was not even the lying. It was the utterly irresponsible act of placing the well being of the country into the path of possible blackmail by a young woman he hardly knew. What if she had blackmailed him? Would he have revealed the truth or compromised his office? His behavior following revelation of the affair indicates the latter.

his wife, anyone who believed in him or sent him money and of course, "that woman," what's her name. The tabloid press got this one RIGHT -- why can't you just accept that? You know what's funniest of all? Reading the diehard professional Democrats on here (mostly pro-Obama, formerly pro-Edwards) trying to spin the issue & cover up Edwards' LIES by turning the attention to McCain's YEARS-OLD infidelity. Sorry, but people are not going to fall for that. EDWARDS LIED, beginning & end of story. This is NOT about John McCain.

p.s. Of course, you are aware that your Top Post directly contradicts your later post, within the thread, no?

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Thanks.

Who cares about Edwards? Although I have to admit all this crap aside I am fascinated by people who ever beleived a word the man said to begin with. Had he not been an attorney he could have made a killing in used cars.

Nobama;

You wrote:

p.s. Of course, you are aware that your Top Post directly contradicts your later post, within the thread, no?

My original post was facetious. I think most people got that.

John you are a hypocrite liberal... you jumped on McCain's affair an event that happened about 30 years ago.... "not political at all" - yeah! right!!!