I have a lot of conflicting feelings about this situation, and you have voiced some of my frustration. Ethical lapses that affect the lives of thousands or millions of people are not career-enders, but an extramarital affair is supposed to be--if you're a Democrat. Once again, IOKIYAR.

On the other hand, I feel that politicians need to acknowledge the rules of the game, however unfair they may be. The Facebook generation won't care if someone has a bunch of tattoos or piercings, but for now, candidates for public office will do well  to adorn their bodies in more socially acceptable ways.

Regarding John Edwards, there is no conceivable way this affair could have remained a secret throughout a long campaign. Once revealed, the story would have reinforced the single most damaging narrative for Edwards: he's a phony who talks about one set of values in public and lives a different set of values.

I know how damaging this narrative was, because I spent nine months hearing about big houses and haircuts from innumerable Iowa Democrats. I heard people ask this question at town hall meetings and house parties.

Knowing this time bomb was out there, I think John Edwards should have done more than hope for the best (that Rielle Hunter wouldn't tell anyone, or that journalists would cover for him). Either don't run for president or find some way to make this story old news. I understand the desire to avoid a media circus, but it simply wasn't realistic to expect that no one would ever report on this two-year-old affair.

Natasha Chart, you are my favorite poster on MyDD.  You should have a book deal and I wish I owned a publishing agency to give you one.  If only you could replace Bill O'Reilly.  I hope attrition happens soon.

I think that we HAVE seen a trend in the past two presidencies toward the more socially accepting electorate.  While Clinton "didn't inhale" and Bush had "repented," they both had the Facebook demons to haunt them well before the internet.  And if Obama wins, he'll have won in spite of the fact that he is a black man who sides (at least in rhetoric) with women, poor people, black people, and other opressed minorities --- and he's ADMITTED to using cocaine!  Again, the sin is behind him, so it's okay, but think about how many presidents before Reagan could have admitted to any of this stuff (even if they did it).  My point is that we're already in the future in some ways.  I think you could probably run for city council or mayor or representative and win in some parts of Colorado, New Mexico, or Alaska and have an active and public habit of marijuana.  Getting elected in that capacity will be a first step and I'm keen to see someone like Willie Nelson or Snoop Dogg get elected to some local level position because it will signal a shift toward what you're talking about.

But if you're running for a federal office and you're a Democrat, stick to that "moral high ground."  For now anyway.

I only hope you're right.

However, I remember way back 40 or so years ago, "Hey, when all the law students who smoked pot become politicians, grass will be legal!"

American Puritanism runs deep in the cut.

And as they get older a certain number of hypocrites get religion: which gives 'em the go ahead to condemn those currently doin' what they did in the past.

And the middle-aged have memory lapses about their own previous behavior, tut tuting the same thing in the young.

Forty years of personal drug use later, and we got more, better, expanded, fascist drug wars than evah.

How do you explain Rudy Giuliani?

Morality for these types is about correct belief, not correct behavior.  Behavior can always be excused if one has the right beliefs.  Challenging the belief system is the only unforgivable sin.  

Interesting and thoughtful diary. I just happen to disagree with a large bit of it.

The media as vast controllers of American politics and political discourse is nearing "tin foil hat" levels. I happen to think that the media is driven by money, which is driven by ratings and ratings is driven by viewership. As such, the media then gives the "people" what they want. Is the media, which is a for-profit corporate institution, responsible for saving us from ourselves (Assuming of course that we need saving)? No. I place the blame not on the media, but on Americans and American myopic, instant-gratification, ADD, consumerist culture. Numerous studies have shown that people (liberal or conservative) seek at news/blogs/media (data) that confirms their preconceived notions. Its part of human nature and probably has been for the past 150,000 years. There's enough correct, unbiased information out there if we're motivated to look. Unfortunately most of us are lazy.

My second disagreement is that traditional values will become extinct when the Facebook generation become the parents/elders. Our current elders (the ones rejecting people for their facebook exploits) grew up in arguably the most free, liberal, sexually open period in American history. Those even older grew up listening to the Devil's music (the dawn of Rock and Roll) and THEIR parents were SURE that we are all going to hell-and-a-hand basket. Each generation laments the youth and their attitudes, then those youth become parents, have a mortgage and 401K and suddenly they find themselves aghast at the children of today. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

My third disagreement is regarding Republicans and their attitude towards infidelity. You are making the erroneous assumption that Republicans by-and-large, particularly the "base", actually like John McCain. They don't. They hate him. They just hate Democrats even more. I spent about 3 years knee-deep as a "regular" on a popular conservative forum and let me tell you that with few exceptions they can't stand McCain. Republicans haven't really rallied around McCain either, rather they have rallied behind McCain attacking Obama. Ask yourself this question: If Edwards was our Nominee and this story broke you'd be rightly pissed, but would you stay home or vote for a Republican? I think the vast majority of Dems would pinch their nose and cast that ballot for the cheatin' Edwards. It takes a whole lot for people to get over their partisan orthodoxy. Oh and for the (anecdotal) record, almost every conservative/Republican I crossed paths with was anywhere from disappointed to outraged at the recent Republican sex scandals. (They couldn't stand Rudy either)

The final point I'll make is that there's an obvious difference between the Edwards affair and McCain affair: McCain's is old news. Its hard to muster up outrage or front page op/ed's or half-hour long cable segments on a decades old scandal. Was McCain's transgressions worse that Edwards? Yeah I think so, but Americans have a fairly short attention span and will forgive over time. Edwards affair is "news," McCain's isn't. Even so, I bet the overwhelming majority of Republicans are unhappy about McCain's past, but that anger/disappointment/disgust is easily trumped by the specter of an Obama presidency.

I think these things are like tectonic plates ... nothing happens for a long time and then all of a sudden it's a totally different world.

I just got back from spending a week with my children's godfather, an openly gay man. While there we spent some time with one of his friends, who is an FTM transsexual, and got to meet this guy's father and young daughter who were in town, too.

At one point I flashed back on a conversation I'd once had with my mother when my father, after the divorce, wanted my sister and me to come stay with him during the summer, but she refused because he was "living in sin" with a woman. I must've been about eleven or twelve. I asked her "Why do you not want us to go, do you think we don't know such things exist? Because we do." And she said something like, "It's one thing to know they exist, it's another to be face to face with them. How would you like it if I had a friends who was a lesbian?" Even at that age I could only think, "wow."

Even though this thread is mostly about JRE and how the media reacts to scandals such as his, but I just wanted to clear up some discrepancies I saw at the top of the post.  

The case of the education student at Millersville University not receiving her teaching certificate has a lot more to it than a "tame" MySpace photo.  There was even a federal lawsuit filed by the student against Dr. Bray and the university.  The case was dismissed with prejudice.

The student was not denied her certificate because of the MySpace photo, but because of a host of reasons, led by the fact that she failed her student teaching.  She also directed the students that she was teaching (minors) to go and view her MySpace photos, which included the image in question.

All of the documents filed in the dismissed lawsuit can be found at http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pe nnsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv01660/228127/

I'd like to have some kind of defiant comeback when it comes to Edwards, but bringing up GOP adulterers just isn't relevant nor does it cut it. All of these candidates, as you wrote, were admitted, rehabilitated offenders when it came to adultery -- Giuliani and McCain were both married to their respective former mistresses. This was in the distant (relative in Rudy's case) past and had been aired already. They were not carrying on like this while they were preparing to run for the presidency in the most crucially important election of our time. That Edwards thought  that his personal ambition was worth risking his entire party's chances in the election if he won the nomination over a stupid personal failing that could easily be discovered is so blatantly disloyal to the very people who supported him the most makes his crime a different level of scandal entirely. Edwards deserves the lumps on this and we should be the ones giving it to him -- not some spin to place this in the GOPs court. That's the kind of thing they would do.

One other thing about the GOP comparison -- Giuliani's affair actually ended up being the nail in the coffin on his campaign. The shag fund story that Ben Smith broke gained a lot of traction.