Besides being a rather tabloid report with sensation deeply written into it by Robinson, whose writing I often admire, he presents a perfect opportunity to publicly discuss the issue of morality, which is just as big an issue as anything since it is one of the things that drives our lives.  The essence of this article is morality.  It is not about the views of the nation, for the nation is an abstraction that only speaks in the voting booth.  However, it is demonstrated here how these forums are used to present the views of those who write to these forums, and often who fallaciously try to speak for the Americans as a whole.  It is the most common way people argue to fictionalize support for their views.  Moreover, it is a travesty offensively or defensively to turn this forum into an Obama issue, a Pakistan Issue, a McCain issue, or anything other than what it is about, John Edwards and his morals.  The verbal tour de force on any issue other than that belongs elsewhere regardless how articulate the arguments are, and I agree that they are wonderfully articulate from many speakers here.  All that notwithstanding, the issue is the morality of John Edwards when it comes to marriage not about his politics since his political messages have not changed.

And of course he is not “all” bad, isn’t that the vulgar defense of all such men, as many of you as there are?  Sorry Mr. Robinson, Edwards does not get a pass for lying to the public because of Elizabeth.  If anything, his confession places him squarely in the “washed up” politician farm.  Does his infidelity have anything to do with politics?  Well, it would if he was running for office, but he isn’t.

Even though Thomas Billis makes the best and most succinct sense, contrary to his view, I think that a person’s, and especially a public figure’s, sex life is important to the degree it deviates from the set of morals acceptable by the society as it tells about that person’s character, but since we do not have a definitive set and until we do, it is and always will be irrelevant.  Furthermore, as Reubenesque put it quite mildly, John Edwards killed his own political career and no doubt he will now sink into the walls of society to become much later once the heat of the moment passes just another commenter on the political scene of the day.

I completely agree that there are more important and dire things happening in the world with which to be utterly concerned and on which I could also wax unendingly.  But those things are better discussed not on this forum.  However, I will lament once again, there are those who will use any and all forums to provide their personal views on other particular political issues then debate interminably and that is why the TD forums always sound the same and the same issues rehashed over and over.  It gets to be pablum and white noise to the mind.

Reply to omniadeo, August 12 at 5:35
Part 1 of 3

•  “The point of the “how could he?” remark is that sites like Truthdig continue to give Obama a pass on his war rhetoric while zeroing in on non-news like the Edwards affair. Others have made the latter part of this same point over and over, but I am particularly upset at how “Progressives” will allow US leaders to send US troops into other nations without a declaration of war, and lie about the rationale, as long as they spout humanitarian rhetoric—and don’t get caught lying about extra-marital sex.”

Ok omniadeo,

Let’s break this down a little, and I’ll try to get to other parts later. In reality, you are indulging in the same thing that you accuse this site (and probably others) of engaging in, and it is SUPERFICIAL RHETORIC, because you jump at any and all of it, without breaking the thing open, (WHATEVER it may be) and following it to the root, and then to the logical conclusion. First however, let me say this: you and I have NO quarrel or other disagreement on the issue of media coverage of extra-marital sex by John Edwards, OR ANYBODY ELSE. Got that? I agree with you on that entirely. It is bullshit. But, you’re mixing issues here, and using your genuine and legitimate rage at the bullshit of this coverage, to launch your argument against Obama, and “Progressives” (which is it?)  and that is disingenuous.

For instance, right here…you claim that sites like this continue to give Obama ‘a pass’. That statement is ludicrous on its face. In reality, absolutely EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth, is under scrutiny, and there are more lies, innuendos, distortions, and on and on then any one person can keep track of. (And I work at it, if only because I’ve been able to incorporate it into my own studies and teaching)

Your complaint here is that “Progressives”—- and we’ll make the point that you’re talking about Obama here, ‘will allow US leaders..send US troops into other nations without declaration of war…and lie…blah, blah, blah.

OK. WHEN and WHERE, and specifically HOW, (we’ll need details here) has Barack Obama ‘allowed’ this? Let’s admit that he has not, and establish that first. OK? That’s a fundamental right there. The man did not authorize and was not part of the body in Congress that DID authorize the illegal aggression against Iraq. Let’s be really, really, really, clear on that.

On Afghanistan..the jury is still out, because Americans are, by and large, CONFUSED. Scholars, academics, experts in international law, ‘terrorism’ domestic law, and on and on, are still at odds about the initial decision to go into Afghanistan, but MOST AMERICANS, still believe that the Afghanistan action was a legitimate action, AS A RESULT OF 9/11. As an aside, I will say that I have SINCE then, changed my OWN opinion on that, based on what is a COLLECTION of ‘new information’ that I did *not* have at the time, and let me be clear that it is a COLLECTION of information, all of which is interconnected. 

As far as I’m *now* concerned, the 9/11 attacks were generated from right here in Washington DC, specifically via connection between the VP’s office, the Office of Special Planning, the CIA, and any of the other secret apparatus they had already set up. I am basically alone in this thinking, (at least within my own particular ‘setting’) because while most scholars and other experts are willing to admit that there are some major discrepancies in the “Official Conspiracy”, as put forth by the 9/11 Commission, they espouse the primary theory of those attacks, and attribute it to BLOWBACK. In other words, the US has been enflaming the world, (and specifically the ME) for so damn long, that this was an extremist’s version of revenge.

Part 2 of 3 reply to omniadeo, August 12 at 5:35

The issue with this theory, is that it DOES hold incredible validity. Based on that, I cannot fault any of them for believing this to be true, because I’m sure that *it IS*. It just doesn’t necessarily follow that this gang of extremists actually did the deed. BE THAT AS IT MAY, Barack Obama, (along with millions of others) does NOT believe that Iraq EVER had anything to do with 9/11, (because they didn’t, and we knew that to begin with), but he DOES still recognize the existence of extremist groups that practice global terror. Now I don’t know how old you are, or how much time you’ve invested in researching or otherwise studying this field, but TERROR, as a weapon of political violence, is *NOT NEW*. It’s been happening since the beginning of time. It is WORSE now, for multiple reasons, but in part because of the US policy of global hegemony by force, over the past several decades. Yes, the Dick Bush regime has made it far worse.

So here’s the deal. al-Qaeda DOES exist. The Taliban DOES exist, whether you want to believe that or not. And, these groups operate freely, back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in those tribal areas where they always have. You ask, WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
Good question.

1.  For 7 years, the US has funneled billions, (yes BILLIONS) of tax payer dollars to Pakistan, for the alleged purpose of curtailing/monitoring/repelling/eliminating/whatever, whatever, this extremist presence in the area. Presumably the same presence that was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. (or so they would have us believe). These billions have been given to Pakistan under the control of a military dictatorship, Musharraf. Musharraf has failed to do anything to earn the billions, and has in fact protected this element. These are facts.

2.  Pakistan is in possession of nuclear weapons. Like Obama and many others, THAT concerns *me*. It concerns me that ANY nation is in possession of Nuclear weapons, including the USA. It concerns me EVEN MORE, that the same ‘extremist’ element that we know exists, happens to be in such close proximity to them in Pakistan. IF we are to believe that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other extremist group is in fact crazy enough to plan an attack such as 9/11, (and they did have it in their pipe dream bowl at least) then their very close proximity (and easy access) to the Pakistani regime, should make you just a tad bit nervous.

Now, even with those basic facts of reality, there can indeed be changes. What I happen to see as a huge (and promising change) is that after nine years, (and despite Bhutto’s assassination) the opposition in Pakistan has returned to power, and is in the process of removing Musharraff from the political apparatus entirely. Based on this new political landscape in Pakistan, they might very well take this task upon themselves. (keep in mind that the former Musharraf regime, whom GWB COURTED, was a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP). Now if the new regime in Pakistan actually DOES take this to task, and rids themselves of this element, then guess what? WE (including Obama) need do NOTHING aside from offering whatever diplomatic support we might offer, in conjunction with the rest of the international community.

THAT is what I mean about keeping track of things as they happen: hoping for the best, and planning for the worst. It is what any pragmatic PERSON does, and that is surely what one wants in a leader of people who would rather gossip about the extra-marital affairs of washed up politicians.

Part 3. of 3 reply to omniadeo

Back to Afghanistan. Yes, like so many other places in the world, the US has created even MORE instability in an already failed state, and there’s no getting around that. The Taliban is on the loose and stronger than ever, and the place has at least one suicide bombing every day. We can argue the legal particulars from now until the end of the year, on whether or not the US has an obligation (again, under international law) to intervene. Chances are, we wouldn’t agree, since my opinion is clearly on the side of Humanitarian Intervention, WITH UN approval *and* the support of the International Community. In fact, international law makes it an OBLIGATION. The US (and the international community) FAILED in that obligation in Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur.

But let’s cut back to your rhetoric about Obama getting ‘passes’ and the “Progressives” allowing their ‘leaders’ to wage war without the necessary declaration of war. Again, let us be clear. Obama hasn’t done any of that, because he isn’t a leader with THAT kind of power *yet*, and it was NOT ‘Progressives” that authorized the actions against Afghanistan in 2001, or Iraq in 2003. At least not those whom I call “Progressives”.

That said, your rhetoric is premature. When Obama becomes president, *IF* in fact he maintains his so far unchanged convictions regarding Afghanistan, I *personally* have NO DOUBT that he will abide by domestic/Constitutional law, international law, and the treaties and conventions to which we are committed.  If for some reason he fails to do that, then you can bitch all you want, and tear the house down. It’s only an unmitigated horror above all horrors, that most of us have failed to do that for the past 8 years, and that instead of pointing the fingers at those who ARE responsible for these horrors, we’re complaining about giving Obama a ‘pass’ on stuff he hasn’t even had the opportunity to actually execute yet.

Educate yourself, so you can make the rhetoric mean something. Otherwise, it’s just rhetoric, and no different than the elements of any other disinformation propaganda campaign.

And now, having obsessed on nearly every word uttered by Barack Obama, why not check out John McCain? Doesn’t seem like anyone is much bothered with that. TALK ABOUT A ‘PASS’!! There’s WAY more shit to find there. Like I said, always hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. At the rate the anti-Obama rhetoric is flying, you’re gonna need some of that very worst preparation.

The other advice is the basic stuff. Think things through and connect some dots before you just LEAP. Accusations have consequences, and even in this era of NO ACCOUTABILITY, you may still be called upon to defend your own.
To sum this up, I’ll say the same thing that I mentioned before, in response to “How could he?” The reality is, HE HASN’T..at least not yet.
And, if you follow it to the root, (as I’ve suggested) and examined all of the other circumstances surrounding whatever it is that he’s said, carefully evaluating the context and the sub-context of the LANGUAGE, you might figure that out. And, always check ORIGINAL SOURCES. Don’t ever ‘settle’ for ONLY some other person or journalists’ or pundits view of anything. Those are helpful sources, but ONLY if you consult many, and and ALWAYS include the original, along with the text/language of whatever laws/policies actually apply.

cyrena,

The point of the “how could he?” remark is that sites like Truthdig continue to give Obama a pass on his war rhetoric while zeroing in on non-news like the Edwards affair. Others have made the latter part of this same point over and over, but I am particularly upset at how “Progressives” will allow US leaders to send US troops into other nations without a declaration of war, and lie about the rationale, as long as they spout humanitarian rhetoric—and don’t get caught lying about extra-marital sex.

Your “he forms his views based on facts on the ground as well as the reality of consequences” goes down like so much mush from the major networks. Say what you mean.

Please tell me what “facts on the ground” justify using US troops in Pakistan to quell “terrorists.” Are you threatened by “terrorists” in the Hindu Kush? Is that what you believe? That someone’s child (and a lot of innocent people) should die to protect you from them? Because that is what will happen.

You imply that it’s not an “attack” to put US forces on the ground for combat in non-hostile countries where they are not welcome. Is that what you think? If so, say so. If not, then recognize that Obama wants to use US military might in a very similar way to the neo-cons. To say that you “disagree” without an explicit recognition of that fact is more mush.

Please also tell me how Obama’s remarks to AIPAC could be interpreted in any way other than a commitment to attack Iran if it develops a nuclear weapon. (And of course, any country with a nuclear power program can always be said to be doing this.)

For someone who claims to read it all (I am interested in your source for the pro-Chinese bent in Pakistan, since this is very well hidden in the US media) and who claims to be against rhetoric, there is not a single fact in your post, just “rabbit hole” put-downs and unsupported claims.

Wake up. Obama is being used as the soft face of US power, but the goal is the same: to use US military might to control foreign countries for resources.

cyrena,
Obama made it very clear that he believes we should go into Pakistan to chase “Al Qaeda.”

~~~~~

I’ve read it all omniadeo. It’s what I *do*. So, I don’t need a journalistic review from you on how the people in Pakistan think, or a review of any of Obama’s speeches. I’ve read or watched them myself. I don’t agree with all of his views, but I’m overwhelmingly encouraged by the fact that he forms his views based on facts on the ground as well as the reality of consequences, and the total view. I also look at the totality in terms of what he has said over time, and in context, as opposed to isolating specific phrases out of context.

Be that as it may, the point was your very poor ‘how could he analogy’ which is what I was addressing in my post. It was a bad and disingenuous analogy when you wrote it, and it still is.

As for the other stuff you’ve gone on about in this post. I can only say that if you really wanna gag yourself with a spoon, I can’t stop you. But this is all simply YOUR interpretation/opinion of whatever ‘language’ you choose to selectively zero in on, for your own partisan entertainment.

All of the NWO stuff is rabbit hole stuff, for which I have little to no patience. No doubt there has been a global reorganization, and there’s no doubt that it has been manipulated by many forces. But, it’s obvious that you’re among the crowd barking up the wrong tree in trying to figure any of that out.

Still, if you wanna keep barking, *somebody* might listen. I’ve already heard it, and I’m not impressed.

By Rage..

•  “…Give readers some credit. We are not asleep on this. We just don’t care with whom these tools are screwing around. We’re too busy praying they’ll stop SCREWING US!!!

Ain’t it the truth!!

Thanks

Oh, does prayer really work? (that they’ll stop SCREWING US!!!) Maybe I’ll try it again. Never worked before, but hey…who knows, eh?

cyrena,

Obama made it very clear that he believes we should go into Pakistan to chase “Al Qaeda.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1

The Pakistani government, not speak of the people—who are mostly quite anti-US and pro Chinese—have made it plain, they do not want US troops in Pakistan. Do you feel thresatened by “Al Qaeda” in Pakistan? Or a better way to ask this is, would you be willing to sacrifice your child to fight whatever it is we are calling “Al Qaeda” in Pakistan? Get behind the MSM and read about the realities of geopolitical posturing and you will see that this is all about oil, empire, containing the Chinese in the “great game” of domination in Central Asia. It is right out of the playbook of the Rockefellers, the “liberal” wing of the NWO.

If, say, Russia put troops inside US territory to contain a phony terrorist threat, would you feel attacked? I would.

(Note Obama’s language, the way he uses the neo-con boogie men: “3000 dead,” “terrorists.” gag me with a spoon!)

As for attacking Iran, Obama made it very clear that he would use “whatever it takes” to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Thisk about that “whatever.” To AIPAC, which endorses a military strike on Iran those words mean war. That’s what they mean to me too.

Once again note how Obama uses the neocon boogie men: Here are three outright lies in one paragraph followed by a threat:

[Iran] pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

He makes no mention of the fact that Israel is the only nation who will not sign the nuclear treaty which we are attacking Iran for not living up to.

I admire Obama, and believe that he is making his deal with the devil because he believes that is the only party with enough power to do good, but if he wins, we will see the continuation of those ruinous imperial policies that will bankrupt our nation and expose our children to war.

On the much less inportant libido question, I will just say that if Edwards wants to beat himself up publicly for doing what millions of good men and women do everyday to stay sane in the rough waters of marriage, he has a right to do that. But if we pretend that it is not used to control us all politically, by demanding truth from agents of change, but allowing secret sex by the rich and powerful, then we, not he, will pay the biggest price.

Russia, the US & Israel have sparked a war in Georgia and this site wastes it’s time on John Edwards affair.  How wonderfully tabloid…

Had been wondering for a few weeks if this was a newsite worthy of my attention. 

Wonder why the newspapers are going under?  Guess i’m just gonna have to punch the little red X

Hasta much later Robert, 

Over & out

Even the great Eugene Robinson gets sucked into this one.If his wife is okay with it it is no one else’s business.If he illegally diverted campaign funds let someone indict him.People there are really important things going on in this world and to be innudated with information about John Edward’s sex life does not seem like it is a first step towards solving any of them.Worry about your own sex life and let the Edward’s worry about theirs.

Omniadeo,

I was with you until you came up with this really poor ‘how could he’ analogy.

As in Obama ‘promised’ AIPAC he would ATTACK Iran if they develop a nuclear weapon..how could he?

He DIDN’T, (promise to attack Iran) and he HASN’T.

Dick Bush by the way, has already initiated that, as in the Armada is enroute to assist in the long ago planned naval blockade, to which Iran WILL respond as an act of war, since that’s what it is, and that’s what they’ve already promised.

So, your rhetoric needs some fine tuning.

Same here..

•  “..Or Obama is getting ready to pull the troops out of Iraq, but leave the bases in and attack Pakistan; how could he?..”

Just as an FYI, (since people seem to be confused) Obama isn’t President *yet*, so he isn’t ‘getting ready’ to do anything of the sort. He certainly has a plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq, and as for ‘leaving the bases’ I don’t recall him suggesting that the should be exploded or otherwise torn down, if that’s what you’re suggesting. Neither has he given any indication that they will be used by Americans. Matter of fact, I’ve heard him say AT LEAST a dozen times, that there will be NO PERMANENT BASES in Iraq.

So, why would you make such a bald-face statement that basically is a lie? That’s the trouble with rhetoric. So again, when you ask ‘how could he’, the same answer applies..he HASN’T.

And, have you seen a Pakistan attack plan on his desk. Can you direct us to any mention of him (a direct quote please) where he says that he is going to “attack Pakistan” sometime after January 21, 2009? Maybe I missed that.

Probably not though. So, just more rhetoric. BAD rhetoric.

As for the ‘how could he’ with John Edwards. HE HAS, and he’s admitted that he HAS, and I agree with you… So what and who cares?!!!

Even your long explanation on libido and all the rest is a total waste. None of it has anything to do with the current condition of the US Republic.

Not about sex?  Read the articles in almost all of the standard liberal publications and tell me they would be talking about this in the same way if it didn’t have to do with sex. (Not all of them, that would take too much time.)

Let’s start with this article and its “how could he factor.” How could he what? Feel like sleeping with someone other than his spouse? Uh, think about it. If you need some help, read this excellent interview with Katharine Mieszkowski in salon.com.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/08/09/marriage_history/

But most probably an honest reflection on your own mind will do just fine.

Why is it that the liberal mind can rail against the stupidity of just-say-no sex ed when it comes to teenagers, and the deleterious effects of chastity requirements for Catholic priests, but expect all libido to disappear when people run for office? No one writing these articles (in which I continually read phrases such as “betrayal,” “cheating,” etc) knows anything about the sex life of the couple involved or the understanding between them. For all we know, Elisabeth Edwards was libidoless from illness and greatly relieved her husband sought satisfaction elsewhere.

Don’t people understand that selective enforcement of the fidelity requirement is one of the ways that our nation’s leadership is filtered?

I am all for the “how could he” rhetoric, but let’s put it in the right place. As in: Obama promised AIPAC he would attack Iran if it develops a nuclear weapon; how could he? Or Obama is getting ready to pull the troops out of Iraq, but leave the bases in and attack Pakistan; how could he?

There are plenty of “how could he” retorts like these available, but I am not reading them. And when someone says “it’s not about sex,” experience has taught me that it is usually about sex.

MackTN,

I get your concern in the same light as samosamo. But in reality, how much money are we really talking about?
And how much of it actually came from the people living in the FEMA trailers?

Yes, yes, I know you’ll say that it’s the principle of the thing. Here these folks are, already destitute, and yet they’re giving donations to Edward’s who claims to support the poor people, (and I believe that he HAS - maybe more than you realize) and he goes off and spends it on good times and apparently (though we have ZERO proof) on the keeping of a mistress.

Meantime, that is so less than pennies, compared to what Jack Abramhoff, Tom Delay, and tons of others have ripped off from us over the past several years, and that’s not even going to the TRILLIONS that have been spent on the destruction of Iraq, or the TRILLIONS that the corps have stashed in the off-shore accounts.

Have you taken a glance at the New Dubai? Well, have a look at that, (should be able do a google search for it, though there’s an excellent powerpoint making it’s way through email) and it all pales by comparison, and that’s YOUR money. Far, far, far more of your money than those contributions to Edwards’ campaign. Everytime you buy gas, you’re paying the tab on the Wonderland where Cheney’s Hallibuton is now luxuriously located, away from any claims on the taxes that they probably never paid even when they were located in Houston. Same with Shell, Exxon, Chevron, British Petroleum, and all of the rest.

And, THOSE millions…yes millions upon millions, are financing McCain.
http://www.truthout.org/article/is-big-oil-funneling-donations-mccain

Meantime, there’s a huge struggle now, just for poor people to even be able to CAST A VOTE in this election. Besides the standard tricks and illegalities that have been going on for at least 8 years now, (including the firing of all those US attorneys, and the standard voter suppression that occurs in most Southern states and other very poor areas ALWAYS) there is a whole new batch of disenfranchised voters as a result of the jillions of foreclosures. (convenient eh?)

So, as much as I hate saying this, because it is really depressing…the whole thing is just so much bigger than whatever Hunter et al may or may not have provided to Edward’s apparently short-term mistress.

mackTN,

I appreciate your concern about campaign funds but, once that money is in their pockets well almost nothing you can do about it, so don’t donate especially if there is doubt about your favorite canidate. And I believe with, what, 3 posts now about edwards here at truthdig, and I still don’t see the outrage about what the current administration is still pulling off in the illegal war in Iraq and now in Afghanistan and now in Georgia, or soon to be, nor the dragging of this country into financial hell, nor the shedding of the constitution(much less calling it a GODDAMN PIECE OF PAPER). Hell, there is 4months+ left for this administration and I have some far off hope that the house and senate will impeach this sorry prick of a president.
I feel for your position on uses of campaign funds but you probably would have a better chance of getting your money back or anyone get their money back from a corporation than a political campaign. Unless you, a donator, would be linked to some deep nefarious deed or group.
Also, a damn good reason to allow any and all campaigns to LEGALLY begin just 6 weeks before the election and all campaign funds set at a maximum of $xxxx dollars handled by the public. It is pure corporate and ‘elitist’ bullshit to have to have what, a billion dollars now, to run for office. Pure corporate bullshit

By samosamo, August 10 at 4:33 pm #

I am confused. What on god’s green earth does this have anything to do with anything? “

It has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with misuse of campaign funds, contributions paying for good times instead of for helping people Edwards portrayed as in bad times, people in Fema trailers paying for people in multimillion dollar homes.

When you rail against the hypocrisy and self-centeredness that undermines our government and permits politicians to put their interests above those of the people—this is the kind of irresponsibility you are talking about. 

The sex doesn’t bother me either—they can all have sex with whomever they want…

JUST DO IT WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS AND ON THEIR OWN TIME!

I am confused. What on god’s green earth does this have anything to do with anything? I thought there were more important stories to report on but here in its full naked glory is the fasination with beating the poor dead horse over and over and over again.
And here is the point I am confused about, has it been declared to give little w & dick and all a pass as we go back to the old sexual who dunnits? Does what our military is accomplishing now the accepted direction for america? Does the congress deserve to serve until their unequivocal death is ascertained? Or does congress need to start the bi-annual sexual Olympics straight from the floors(literally) the house and senate, of course, with the appropreiate corporate sponsers?

All Edwards, all the time.  Is this foxnews.com?

It’s the money, not the sex. As Robinson states, Edwards often switched into lawyerly talk when pressed on certain details.  He seemed relieved to be able to say he knew nothing about any payments, arrangements easily made between friends when one says to the other, “I’ll take care of this—that’s all you need to know.”

If he’s not the father, then why does Baron set her up in a multimillion dollar house—the proxy boyfriend, too?  Why not help them get new jobs and an apartment? 

Even his rush to declare his eagerness to take a paternity test though reminding everyone that the other person would have to agree, too, was phony.  Whoever didn’t think that the other party would decline, raise your hand.

Sex is easier to admit to that misuse of campaign funds especially campaign funds solicited for a poor people’s campaign.  People will want to look at the books, just to make sure that Hunter et al aren’t enjoying the good life courtesy of those who live in Fema trailers.