I hope we don't forget that Edwards' campaign was not torpedoed by this affair. Edwards was a totally legitimate candidate with a message that differed from both Hillary and Obama who was basically pushed out of contention by a media that for whatever reason didn't like him.

Agreed, 'commended.

I was an Edwards supporter up until the last moment.

Edwards was ignored and marginalized when it became clear that "change" under an Edwards administration, unlike an Obama or Clinton one, would cut into every CEO's profits/"bonuses."

When Joe Biden dropped out, I *wanted* to switch to Edwards, because I too liked his message and emphasis on the things that really matter. And he was personally appealing, his wife is someone I would have loved to see in the White House (in any role), and there was strong energy and committment by both of them.

But .... it was just hard to picture him, well, "running things", doing the day-to-day tasks, gathering the teams (of rivals or whoever), responding in all the variety of ways that a good leader does. I guess what I'm saying is that it was hard to imagine him 'doing a job' rather than 'campaigning.' Not that I thought he couldn't do it, I just couldn't picture it. With Obama, in contrast, I have no problem picturing it and have the strong sense that he's eager to tackle the real work and stop campagining. (And I have similar ease picturing Clinton *being* President - or Biden, or Richardson, or Dodd.)

That said, like you destor, I was very much looking forward to seeing him actually tackle something specific -- as Attorney General, as 'czar' for Katrina recovery -- in an Obama administration. *That* I could picture well and wanted to see him do. How sad - in so many ways. But, how particularly sad for the young people, like my children, who were venturing into the world of truly caring about politics and who our leaders are. (Fortunately they too became Obama supporters.)

Hmmmm and bluesplasy -- At least for this voter, it's not the sex thing or the morality/role model thing that is the problem here. It's the risk-taking -- the lack of concern for consequences -- the lack of responsibility to both the goals they are supposedly pursuing and the effort, money and hearts of millions of supporters who invest in them because of those goals.

I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, that he should have been impeached for almost criminal bad judgment. That was our country, our government, our future, that was being ham-strung because of his sexual proclivities ... and his willingness to act on them "because he could."

John Edwards knows what our society is like: knew that irresponsible sexuality is going to be found out and how it can derail everything, knew that rather casual liasions with rather empty-headed young women (the more one finds out, the shallower she seems) can lead to the worst kind of publicity, and knew at the point that it came out either, his campaign would be over in an instant or his presidency derailed ..... and yet he chose to run anyway.

It's not the sex -- it's the stupidity, the irresponsibility, and the badly flawed judgment. Those things are relevant in how we evaluate the people we choose, or don't choose, to lead us.

Destor,

I was really dismayed to see the banner headlines on my local Portland newspaper, the Oregonian, yesterday.

It was two-inch (or more) typefacing with a picture (uncomplementary) of Edwards.

LIAR

CHEAT

I haven't seen such a typeface since 911 and I have never seen the staid Oregonian descend to such gutter name-calling. It was simply unprecedented.

It is amazing the rollcall of Democrat reform politicians being cleanly and surgically terminated by sex scandal revelations.

First Spitzer in NY just when he was about to get the legislature to pass some legislation inimical to GOP interests. That was the investigation where significant DOJ/Federal resources were deployed.

Now, the most economically populist of the "electable" Democratic candidates, Edwards.

I wonder, just wonder whether the DOJ was involved in this one as well.

why would he make a great attorney general? The guy is empty fluff. I thought that from day one. Never ever got what the draw was. Never saw what he brought to the table. And talk about inexperience, what did this guy ever do that was executive?

Edwards made a great spokesman for a populist message that reminded me of the great tradition of 20th-century populism. When I listened to him speak, the ghosts of Frank Capra and John Steinbeck and Bob Shrum seemed to hover over the podium.

But the message never really caught fire. I don't think it's because Edwards was a philandering phony. I also don't think it's because some sinister MSM cabal suppressed him.

I think it's because, today, that sort of populist message leaves most lower- and lower-middle-class voters cold. They don't want to think of themselves as poor, and they don't want to make the problem of poverty central to their politics. The powerful emotions that were once evoked by the figure of the "little guy," the "common man" -- no longer have the same punch. People don't see themselves in Jimmy Stewart anymore.

The Democratic party can still take poverty seriously, and pursue an economically populist agenda. But it needs to frame that agenda in a different language -- language that focuses less on poverty as such, than on aspiration, community, and pragmatic problem-solving.

In short, I think HRC and BO better understood the state of 21st-century politics. JE's campaign seemed to me an appealing exercise in nostalgia.

I should concede, though, that he had a very good influence on the race, by pushing the other two candidates to adopt bolder policy proposals (especially about healthcare).

The notion of a multimillionaire populist was always hard to swallow; when you present the persona of a snake-oil salesman, it becomes impossible. Edwards was always a phony, and he is done with publoic life. His future influence is even less than Hillary Clinton's.

Speaking as one who thinks the personal aspects of what Edwards did should be off our radar screens, I can't get past the fact that both he and Elizabeth, who I tend to admire, decided to proceed with the full understanding that if the news came out it would not only undermine his candidacy (perhaps, while not likely, his presidency) by plunging us back into Hart/Clinton redux, but raise questions I've not seen answered about the use of campaign funds:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/47038.html

Knowing how these things have gone down (no pun intended) in the past, was it not reckless and irresponsible for both John and Elizabeth Edwards to think they could conceal this and to risk it blowing up? I know donors to his campaign who are wondering whether their money went to helping out with the problems wrought by "the two Americas" or to Rielle Hunter and I don't see anyone yet assuring them on this point.

I don't dislike John Edwards, but I can't get how some of you were able to gaze into the crystal ball and see the "sincerity" of his anti-poverty crusade. Sure, he was saying the things that a lot of us think need to be said, but what did he ever do? I don't recall his one term in elective office as a personal crusade against poverty - in fact, I don't recall him ever saying anything at all about it until running for president this time. Certainly it wasn't part of his campaign back in 2004.

That doesn't prove that he was insincere, of course, but actions do speak louder than words, and on that front, he had absolutely nothing to back up his words.

I think the folks that got the "phony" impression from him are picking up on the same thing I did - he was never my first choice because I always thought he seemed too slick by half. Dude reminded me of a soap actor with pre-rehearsed lines, etc. I put that down to his career as a trial lawyer, and like I said, I didn't dislike the guy, but I was never very comfortable with him either as a result of his style. Just never could understand why everyone else didn't see the same things I was seeing.

Which is too bad because he'd make a great attorney general, affair or no.

Except that there was a time when an affair fell under the "crime of moral turpitude" provision in the Rules of Conduct for lawyers - in other words, he could have been disbarred and even now he could be suspended for lying - though I doubt he will be.

And except for the stunningly narcissistic and arrogant cluelessness that made him think it was OK for him to run knowing this was out there and could bite US - you and me - in the ass so damn bad we'd never get up again.

And except for the unbelieveable lack of judgment and maturity his whining about this has shown and his cowardice in sending his wife out to plead for them - yeah, he'd be one hell of an AG.

There's a lot more going on here than his sticking his dick in someone he wasn't married to.