Penetrating Insights into the Obvious
Posted on 08/10/2008 10:33:41 PM PDT by Kaslin
Through good luck or good sense, Democrats have managed to nominate their only top tier 2008 candidate who won’t bring the specter of a sex scandal (either their own or their spouse’s) into The White House. Over the past eight years, former President Bill Clinton’s personal life has been the subject of several press reports that suggest his post-Lewinsky reformation might have been something less than lasting. And now, everyone knows about the mistress and rumored love child that would have derailed John Edwards’ nomination – or presidency.
Certainly, Republicans have suffered their share of scandals over the past couple years. It’s instructive to recall the Democrat reaction to the news, breaking shortly before the 2006 election, that Congressman Mark Foley had sent inappropriate emails to a former congressional page. Immediately, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid called for an investigation to discover what GOP congressional leaders had known about the matter, and when. Will they now apply the same standards to their own party’s leader?
It isn’t a crime to cheat on one’s cancer-stricken wife. But certainly it is ethically dubious to direct campaign contributions to a slush fund of sorts for one’s mistress – which is exactly what Edwards did, using his political action committee to pay the woman in question $100,000 in a four-month span to create four Web videos of him (ironically, one including a public speech where he discussed morality). The payment was well in excess of market rates, especially given the recipient's lack of relevant experience.
Such an unsavory arrangement should certainly disqualify a politician from running as vice president – or serving as attorney general or accepting a Supreme Court nomination. That is, at least, if the president (or candidate) offering the post is aware of it. Given the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover the Edwards story until it exploded, Barack Obama might well have remained ignorant of it, had he been relying only on media outlets like The New York Times.
But was he? After all, John Edwards was an Obama opponent until he dropped out of the Democratic nominating contest right before Super Tuesday. That means that the Obama campaign must have been conducting opposition research on him. Because rumors about Edwards’ affair – and the allegations about a child resulting from it – were public as early as last December, only a monumentally incompetent opposition research team would have failed to learn of it, or bring it to the campaign’s attention.
Given all this, it’s fair to ask: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it? After all, if he was aware of the potential truth of the allegations, it’s revealing of his judgment that he was willing to continue publicly to consider Edwards as a running mate, or for some other high office – and to honor him with a keynote speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention (an offer that’s now been rescinded). Indeed, shouldn’t Obama be asked whether he continues to deem Edwards a viable contender for attorney general or another government post?
It’s far from certain that the mainstream media will, indeed, pose the tough questions to the Democrats’ putative presidential nominee. It’s even less likely that Democrats will seek the same kind of accountability they demanded from Republicans in the wake of the Foley scandal. Obama himself will hardly be eager to raise the subject, given its potential to alienate either the female voters who sympathize with Mrs. Edwards’ plight, or the Democrat partisans who still support her husband. Nevertheless, voters deserve to know where – and whether – Barack Obama draws the line when it comes to behavior like John Edwards’.
First tough question for BHO: Why did you whisper sweet nothings in a gay males ear and smoke crack in 1999?
Ask Michelle...she has the keys to Obambi's lock box.
“Democrats have managed to nominate their only top tier 2008 candidate who won’t bring the specter of a sex scandal (either their own or their spouse’s) into The White House.”
So far. Wait till it all comes out. He’s a Dim male, he must have been unfaithful.
Foley emails dumb notes to a page and Edwards lies and lies until he finally gets caught committing infidelity. Admits it, and then lies some more. The LA Time whines saying can't we all move on?
Hypocrisy knows no bounds with the media and Dems.
Furthermore, it’s not much of a comparison between Foley’s faux pas and Edwards intransigence.
I wonder about Obama. How many women are throwing themselves on him? Does he have the self-discipline to keep himself on the straight and narrow?
ROTFL!
It's not a scandal. That's the problem. If it was a scandal, we wouldn't use nonsense terms like "babbydaddy" which indicate it is considered rather routine.
And by the time we learn of Obama's infidelities, they will have been legitimized just that much more.
All the self-discipline in the world will not keep a man with fluid convictions on the straight and narrow.
“Nevertheless, voters deserve to know where – and whether – Barack Obama draws the line when it comes to behavior like John Edwards’.”
draw the line? BHO has no lines (ethically). (except the scripped and canned ones he uses in his non-town hall appearances to the masses).
BTW, P - you took the words right out of my mouth, and also must have been psychic, ‘cause I was just gonna bring up what you said - that OTHER “tabloid lie” article of the Enquirer. Do you think they’ll continue to research, and follow through with, that one as well, regarding BHO? Guess we’ll see.
I didn’t think Mark Foley was married!
I think the Page involved was also openly gay.
You are wrong about Obama not having any lines....I think he’s admitted knowing what a line of cocaine is.
Edwards does not hold public office at this point, so the Congress has no business doing any investigating.
OTOH, the FEC or someone should be investigating whether Edwards’ campaign funds were used to pay off Hunter. That will probably be hard to prove, because as a slick lawyer, Edwards would know how to cover his tracks and use others as front men/women.
Such an unsavory arrangement should certainly disqualify a politician from running as vice president – or serving as attorney general or accepting a Supreme Court nomination. That is, at least, if the president (or candidate) offering the post is aware of it. Given the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover the Edwards story until it exploded, Barack Obama might well have remained ignorant of it, had he been relying only on media outlets like The New York Times.
How about giving the FBI's suspect in the murder of your senator father's mistress a cabinet-level office in your administration while you're governor, then after you've taken over dad's old senate seat, making a pitch for the VP job, having kept the lid on daddy's little affair- while mom was dying of breast cancer- so everything stays nice and quiet.
Weren't we repeatedly told after Watergate that the coverup is worse than the underlying crime? So, what does that say when the underlying crime is the strangulation of a 29-year-old woman found dumped in a car trunk?
“You are wrong about Obama not having any lines....I think he’s admitted knowing what a line of cocaine is.”
very astute - how could I forget that?
Now, you want to hear a major barf alert? (or maybe you have by now) - last night, it was announced that BHO is having a new book published and out in September (hastily penned OR ghost-written, no doubt) about his “Dreams for America”.
This guy is so incredibly dangerous - but I do see signs daily that the majority of people have increasingly bad vibes/gut feelings about him which they’ll express in the voting booths in November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.