A commentary at HuffPo by Lee Stranahan moved me to post.

I agree with Stranahan.  I think he overestimates the importance of this story, given that he's not talking about a current candidate.  However, a person's lack of personal morality is relevant to their ability to lead.  That's the single biggest problem I had with The Clintons: Episode Two.  It matters to me, for instance, that McCain dumped his disabled wife in favor of a rich woman two decades younger.  It matters to me that Gingrich divorced his wife while she had cancer, and is on his third go-around, while continuing to spout off about "family values."  It matters to me that a mom can't send her young son into a public restroom without getting nervous about creeps like Larry Craig.

I don't think Democrats should cede the moral high ground to Republicans, of all people, just because an occasional shameless philanderer creeps in.  It's easier, and makes more sense, just to dump that person.

The difference here is the wife, whom we all love and respect, and kids.  Unfortunately, we can't spare them that pain by insisting on privacy.  The pain was caused by the behavior.

If this is true, it would be better just to come clean and get it over with.  If we learned anything from the Clintons, it's that.

Larry Craig is at best a closeted-homosexual, which is not the same as a pederast.  It is offensive to equate the two.

Past that, I'll agree that these scandals impair these particular individuals ability to serve (because of the attention diversion, not because of the acts themselves).  Well, except Gingrich and McCain, no one really holds those divorces against them.  It doesn't seem to be a real stigma to drop your earlier wives when you become a star.  

trolling public restrooms is offensive, because of the act itself, not just the attention diversion.

Is it the homosexual aspect or the public lewdness you are offended by?  We're clear on the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, right?

yea, I think I was pretty clear on that. Is public lewdness okay with you as long as it's homosexual public lewdness?  I don't want my kid going into a restroom where some creep, heterosexual or homosexual, is soliciting sex.  Got a problem with that?  Seems pretty basic to me.

What I find curious is that I said these acts do not impair the individual's ability to serve; rather it is the distraction they cause that is the impairment.  You replied with the acts itself is offensive, which was not related to my statement.  I didn't say that Larry Craig's acts were not offensive either.  I was making the point that homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia, as you implied in your statement about worrying about sending your child into a restroom.

My questions were mere curiosity on whether you have an issue with homosexuality.  As it appeared that you do.  And also clarify whether you think homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing or correlated.

Clinton was President at the time he got himself in the middle of a controversy.  Larry Craig is still a United States Senator.

This is a clear cut case of a blogger behaving abominably.  If you go to his website(s) and find out that whle he home schools his children, he also promotes and sells pornography, is engaged in other efforts to sell stuff online, I think it will be apparent that he is busily trying to get us to hand over our dollar bills to him........Larry Stranahan, the blogging version of Jerry Springer.

I don't think it is helpful to frame this issue in terms of personal morality; I would prefer to just say that a politician who creates a sex scandal should resign or retire to avoid embarrassing his supporters and his office, and leave it at that.  No need to drag morality into it.  

Often we learn too late that political leaders who took the moral high ground, and used it for political advantage, had personal morality problems of their own.  I think the truth is that we usually have little idea of the personal morality of the political leaders we elect.  To put it another way, the real measuring stick here is not personal morality, but rather cleverness and influence and plain old luck in not getting caught and exposed at the wrong time in a career.

Further, the political consequences of such misbehavior seem random to me.  Gary Hart's political career ended; Barney Frank's didn't.  Bill Clinton's didn't.  Chuck Robb's career seems like it ended with a back rub.  Spitzer resigned; Patterson did not.  The list could go on.  Add to that the dilemma how to treat divorces or even multiple divorces in the calculus of personal morality, or if the politician is old, how to figure in his "youthful indiscretions."  I think the answer is: you can't, and it's silly to try.

I for one would prefer not to be manipulated based on anyone's claims to the moral high ground, which nobody should believe anyway.

 

Edwards has nothing to resign from.

Holy mother of god or whatever.

This is about a sleazeball named Larry Stranahan and how in every walk of life there are low life scum who want to make a buck off the mistakes or misfortune of other people.

Yo Lee.  I agree that elected officials and other political leaders ought to have some areas of their lives that are strictly private and off-limits.  I don't think reporters should be trailing them through hotels.

As for Edwards, I really don't know much about the allegations and didn't want to dignify them by mentioning him by name.  I would hate to see these rumors turn out to be true, and lose Edwards for public service. However, there is no avoiding the fact that he is a public figure, was a Senator, just finished a run for the nomination, etc.

My earlier comment was a reply to part of the discussion spawned by your post.  I realize you are more interested in talking about Stranahan's conduct than the issues others took up.  I've never heard of Stranahan before.  I went to Stranahan.com and didn't see anything about Edwards there.  Maybe I missed it.  Should the Huffington Post have taken down his piece?      

First of all, I can't believe we're even discussing a story broken by the Enquirer.  There's a credible source. Yes, that's snark!

Second, the subject of this story is not a candidate for public office.  He's a private citizen who happens to be well known

So, basically, this is a celebrity scandal about a non candidate, which was broken in a rag that has lost law suits to Carol Burnette, Kate Hudson and Shirley Jones.  They've had to make apologies to Cameron Diaz and Elizabeth Smart's family.  The Enquirer by the way had no pictures, no documentation, nothing to back it up but an unnamed source.  No doubt the same unnamed source that caused the paper to have to issue an apology to Gary Condit's wife too.

Repeat:  This is not a credible news source and its subject is not a candidate anymore.  He's a private citizen who has some celebrity status.

Oh, and Stranahan is not a citizen journalist.  He's free lance papparazzi scum.  That Huffington Post let him write for them makes them go down in my estimation.    

He (was) a potential VP candidate.  He's a potential member of the Cabinet.  He's a public figure.  This is the problem when you set your standards according to what Clinton-level excuse-making requires.  If this were a Republican, you would have no trouble at all seeing the moral discrepancy.  We expect, and deserve, better.

Clinton's act had nothing to do with his job.  What occurred was between him, Hillary, and Monica.  And it was really none of our business.  Being a public figure does not mean that the public owns you.  It does not mean that you are not entitled to a private life.  You are elected to do a job.  What you do outside of that job is your business.

And I'm sure you realize no one is perfect, whether they be Republican or Democrat.  If someone comes to work, does a great job, and goes home and cheats on their spouse, I'm not going to fire them or give them a bad performance review.  It has nothing to do with their job.  And I am not their religious official, nor am I in any place to judge them or their life or their marriage.

I don't think we should delve into the private lives of public officials.  Whether its celebrities or politicians, it is none of our business.

The bottom line is that he got caught and it disrupted his Presidency.  What we think about it, becomes irrelevant.

You cannot possibly expect most people to act as though it did not happen, lets just forget about it, etc.

I was actively trying to mobilize people to protest impeachment in 1998.....a fool's errand I have to admit, but even I think that what you are suggesting is kind of like ignoring the fact that you have a broken nose and you know, you are  just walking around with that situation.  Blarney.

people love to gossip.  People love to judge.  People eat other's private lives up.  It would be better if we just focus on the work we hired them to do and how they are performing that job.  

I guess I am saying ignore it.  I don't think it's like walking around with a bloody nose though.  When you know someone who has made a mistake, do you always look at them and associate that mistake with them?  It's not like these things affect our personal existence.  Why place any importance on them at all?  

Very true on your bottom line statement though.  It is what it is at this point.

I initiated this discussion with a post about Stranahan's article at HuffPo.  I deliberately avoided mentioning the individual Stranahan wanted to expose for what Stranahan deemed "inappropriate" behavior, but some people did not know what I was writing about.   As someone else pointed out, the facts are unknown.  I do not care.....actually I do....I find it objectionable that Larry Stranahan wants us to read his garbage about how a public figure was supposedly cornered in a bathroom by some a**h**e with a video camera.

This kind of stuff being blogged about is no better than the garbage at the grocery store check out counters.  Larry Stranahan is purely about self-promotion.

We should demand more from websites such as Huffington Post.  We should demand some degree of journalistic integrity and an absence of cynical capitalist behavior by people contributing to Huffington Post.  I am talking literally about someone who wrote a ridiculous article solely for the purpose of drawing attention to himself, driving people to his website and making money.

although I just watched Edwards' confession to the affair in an interview on ABC news.  I'm very sorry this has happened, and I don't think the Huffington Post should have been part of the exposure of this, as you pointed out, taking advantage of the destruction of another Democratic leader.