You better be squeaky clean, bro'.

Why is it widely accepted that politicians are to hold themselves to a higher degree than the rest of us? Who cares if he had an affair? It's no one's business - especially since he never made his political platform on the issue of morality, and never condemned anyone else's extra-marital behavior.

Well congratulations. John Edwards is a human being after all - one that makes mistakes from time to time. In all honesty, that should make him a better public servant.

You mean like McCain?

I agree with all the commenters on this topic across the past few war room articles that the whole thing reflects a crazed, juvie misplacement of priorities. We have an administration comprising a huge conspiracy to commit war crimes while turning our nation into a panoptic police state (click my name link if you wanna check out my work in progress n the latter point). But, we fixate on sex stuff.

Depressing.

Why is it widely accepted that politicians are to hold themselves to a higher degree than the rest of us?

Who is doing so? I expect no less from Edwards than I'd expect from anyone else. If you're running for public office, especially that of the presidency, I expect you to be honest.

Pretending to be happily married when you're running around on your spouse is not honest.

I think I'm not alone in those beliefs. Yes, we have a long track record of adultery in national politics, but that doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, must expect it, tolerate it, or accept it.

And cheating on your wife when she has cancer just reeks of Newt Gingrich, and we can all do without that.

No, McBu'ush can claim no mileage on this. Given his sorry marital record, he'll want to stay way away from it and let the MSM take care of things.

Meanwhile, WWIII may be erupting, not in friggin' Iran, but in Georgia. McBu'ush will call for a surge into Atlanta, I guess.

I'm seriously wondering why this is happening now. The tabloid articles were a few weeks ago and apparently the affiar is all in the past.

I couldn't care less about scandal part but I wonder about the timing.

Could it be as simple as the fact that Elizabeth Edwards will be giving a keynote, John Edwards will not, and they decided to head off sopeculation about why beforehand? This would at least make some sense - since no one in the party leadership would want the story to be overtaken by rumors about J Edwards after the convention.

Get out in front of it? Could it be that simple?

Who cares about issues?

John's got a willy!

Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!

A nation of morons idiots and imbeciles.

ths nation deserves to be robbed, conned and laughed at by both parties and whoever wins the election.

Who cares about issues?

John's got a willy!

Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!

A nation of morons, idiots and imbeciles.

This nation deserves to be robbed, conned and laughed at by both parties and whoever wins the election.

I'm still annoyed as hell at him for being so damned stupid, but it is a well-worded statement. I particularly like the ending: "I'm going to do one interview about this, and then everyone needs to just shut up."

I think it is a beautiful statement.

Anyone can make mistakes. It sounds like he's even learned something from this one.

Dem's will get points for meeting this head on -- and rising above it -- instead of running away as the public expects. At the convention, Edwards should briefly acknowledge the affair with intelligent words of contrition, then say that his appearance is obviously not about him, but about Barack Obama, the Democratic party and the future of America. Then make a good case.

Edwards would get respect for sincerity and courage, can get out an important message... and most of all, tons of viewers will tune in to the Democratic National Convention.

The story is out and not going to go away in time for the convention. Damage control is still about damage. Instead, it is time to make lemonade.

I've been catching some of the news coverage on this issue. If I follow the logic correctly, the Edwards affair is news because he's a public figure. As I see it all the TV talking heads have thrust themselves into the national spotlight and are, therefore, public figures. How can we know if we can trust David Gregory, or Chris Matthews, or.... unless we know about any sexual improprieties they have engaged in. After all, they offer their comments on how others should deal with sexual issues. Don't we need to know their sexual backgrounds and activities? While they may not be pretty, we are all waiting for pictures. News at 11.

More like delusional. How did he ever in a million years think he could run for president and keep this hidden? If there is even a chance that the child is his this denial of paternity will just make him look worse.

It is a bit disappointing because I always want my candidates to be perfect. I was drawn to the campaign of John and Elizabeth Edwards because it was about poverty, health care, and working people's issues. Those issues need representation, need active and aggressive voices in politics. So, let's see, let me think about it again...1). Edwards admitted to an affair in 2006; 2). John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards are still married and it is 2008 (so I am assuming they hopefully have dealt with it). I heard some annoying talking heads on MSNBC's Hardball with Mike Barnicle going on and on about hypocrisy. Barnicle also wondered if Barack Obama would be asked a question about affairs. I am assuming then from the media--so as for it to not be hypocritical--that John McCain would be asked about it, too, for his first and second marriages. Or is there a statute of limitations on behavior and conduct? And I actually really hope that the issues, like poverty and health care, matter more...