creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
15 Feb 2012
That's What Friends Are For

Here we go again: a tragedy in the music world, a tragedy waiting to happen that did. Disturbing headlines … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
What Happened to Newt and Mitt?

Newt's easy. While all of us on the Democratic side were playing "root for Newt," Republicans were … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Chasing Equality

Tuesday's ruling by a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit … Read More.

Where is John Edwards?

Share Comment

Doris Kearns Goodwin could not have asked for more. The author of "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," published in 2006, is making headlines once again for her foresight, as well as her knowledge of history, in light of President-elect Barack Obama's decision to surround himself with his former rivals, including Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, and now Secretary of Commerce-designate Bill Richardson.

The missing man in all of this is, of course, John Edwards, who was far more formidable a candidate than either Biden or Richardson, and whose endorsement of Obama last May was at least as significant for the president-elect as Richardson's. Edwards had long been mentioned as a logical choice for attorney general, a spot that has already been filled. His commitment to deal with poverty would make him a logical choice for Health and Human Services. But his problem isn't competence or experience.

Should Edwards' personal stupidity — his involvement with a wacky videographer, who may (if you believe the tabloids) or may not (according to her, and him, but what do you think they'd say) be the mother of his illegitimate child — cost him a seat at the table? If he has something to add — and I think he does — should he be disqualified from doing so because he is a lying lout?

Washington is full of lying louts. Many of them are called "distinguished gentlemen." Now that Congress has more women, my guess is there are more female versions of the lying lout.

Although, I am sexist, or realistic, enough to believe that there are real gender differences in this regard. If all the lying louts were disqualified from holding high elective or appointive office, the Capitol would shut down.

Edwards' case is arguably different on two accounts: 1) because the affair may have produced a child that we know about — as opposed to all the affairs that produce children we don't know about, and 2) because his wife is and was, at least when he went to visit the videographer in Beverly Hills last summer, suffering from incurable breast cancer. She also happens to be one great dame, who campaigned for her husband tirelessly even after her cancer recurred, and who had to bury her teenage son — every parent's worst nightmare — thus making her an all-around lousy person to be a lout to, as her husband surely was.

But isn't that between the two of them? Isn't all of it fundamentally none of our business?

Ask around at any newsroom or Senate office, and I will tell you what the answer will be: There should be a line between public and private. Private affairs, even or especially that kind of affair, should be private. Certainly this is the rule that the media apply to themselves, as do the distinguished gentlemen and ladies on Capitol Hill — until and unless they are caught in bathrooms or chat rooms. Poll the public, and we all claim to agree.

So where is John Edwards? Why no place for one of the most talented of Obama's rivals on the team of rivals? Is the answer that Edwards was a lout, or that the rest of us are hypocrites? I tend to think it may be the latter.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

28 Comments | Post Comment
People are always talking about the drama around the Clintons. Today much of that is media-driven. But the soap opera that is Edwards' life is the real deal. Obama (and we) don't need that. What is it with these guys? What a freaking waste of talent!
Comment: #1
Posted by: cadbury
Fri Dec 5, 2008 4:22 AM
I feel Obama's choices especially Hillary was to prevent her from trying to run in the next election. He put her in a position that would prevent her from talking against him. I can not imagine Hillary taking orders from Obama without the feeling of hatred. He is where she wants to be!!. If John Edwards was a republican you would have buried him or destroyed him like you have the conservatives who had affairs. Your article just shows the American public what they are voting for and how our countries morals area going down the tubes. I admire Mrs. Edwards for her support even while terminally ill but I do not admire John Edwards for what he has done to his terminally ill wife. That is as low as you can go. It is funny when it involves a democrat you want to separate personal lives but if he was a republican we all should know about his personal life. Our politics are a laughing joke to the world and I am not laughing.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kathaleen McCausland
Fri Dec 5, 2008 4:42 AM
For once I agree with "The wicket Witch of the West" but only one point; namely Edwards sins pale by comaprison to Slick Willie's. In Edwards case a child was born. much to the dismay to the abortion champion Susan Estrich. Clinton was a rapist which easily trumps Edwards. But instead of saying "what the hay" I'd rather say throw all the bums out Barney, John, Bill, Hillary, Emanuel, and that real bum Eric holder. It's not a "team of rivals" but a bunch of bums
Comment: #3
Posted by: Ted
Fri Dec 5, 2008 8:25 AM
I generally like Susan's columns and her conclusions, but I part company with her on this one. The issue with John Edwards isn't just that he lied. It's the hypocrisy of his entire political persona. It begins with his chutzpah to think that he could buy his way into presidential politics once he had collected millions from his trial lawyer awards ... after spending less than one term in the Senate and absolutely no political experience before that (unlike Barack).
Next, he lectures everyone about responsibility to the poor and the needy, all the while building a huge mansion with olympic-sized swimming pool and all the rest. He seems to think middle class people are mean and miserly, yet he could have led by example and donated a major chunk of his own fortune to his pet causes. Instead, he goes on a "poverty tour" and gives speeches on college campuses for thousands of dollars a pop.
And don't even get me started on the expensive haircuts and other aspects of "vanity" that this man exudes. Everything about Edwards screams "ABM" ("all about me")and "phony." Many of us were overjoyed when the illicit affair and suspected love-child came to light -- not just because it exposed Edwards as the narcissist he is (even HE admitted that in his interview with Barbara Walters), but because it meant the end of the political career of this man. True, other politicians like Newt Gingrich and Barney Frank have had affairs and other unseemly personal revelations ... but they also have something substantive to offer in the political field. In stark contrast, Edwards never brought anything to the table except his saccarine smile and complete and utter pretense. Yuck.
Hillary ... Richardson ... Napolitano ... Gates ... EDWARDS?? What's wrong with that picture? I, for one, heartily applaud Barack for not wanting to have this miserable excuse of a man anywhere near him in government. Would you?
One other thing -- while I feel for anyone who has terminal cancer, Mrs. Edwards appears to have been the classic "enabler" in this drama. She has to have known about her husband's infidelity, personal failings and extreme ambition, yet chose to hide this from the rest of us. Far from encouraging him to run for office for some sort of aggrandized family legacy (which would shine on her as well), Elisabeth Edwards should have reminded him of his family commitments ... and how he would do far better by his children to prepare for when (NOT if) he'll be a single father.
There, that's a good takeaway message for John: Don't try to be president ... just try to be a good father. Oh, but that would be just so much less FULFILLING than fame and fortune.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Phil
Fri Dec 5, 2008 9:27 AM
Ma'am;... We no longer live in the Bronze age... We don't go to war, or shed blood at the drop of a hat for a slight of honor... But it does matter, and the vestiges of honor societies are all around us... And Yet, What used to be the sole currency of mankind, what everyone traded on like we trade on money today has become a thing of little value... The honor economy does not stand a chance after a money economy gains a hold... Honor is cheap where money is dear... And still, what else have we??? It is unfortunate that we cannot have a show of hands... It is a shame that we do not have democracy... We have to send representatives who are only personalities to go and represent us knowing they will go and grub for money... The pitiful little hope we have is the honor of those people... And I would certainly be dense, and deaf, and stupid if I watch a man cheat on his wife and expect he will hold to his oath to me... Can I give him comfort as his wife, or love as his children... I can give him nothing to reward his honor except my respect, and if he turns like a snake on one who does reward him then why should I trust him??? We have all pledged allegiance to the flag and the republic with liberty and justice for all, and all as soon are free from our oaths to deny liberty and justice.... The concept of Honor is meaningless, and we are crazy to think we can trust anyone in government, or anyone in life who makes meaningless oaths... Government could protect us, and those people could protect their honor if they would only make the house work on its original rules which would lower the price of their honor below its value to them... No one can represent 600 thousand people, half of whom voted against that one...No one could avoid representing 30,000, or avoid looking them in the eyes so they could wonder if they were lying...You can take it for granted that the Senate is corrupt, but the house could manage them if they were not... And the president would not have any more power than the people's house allowed to him...You know the court is corrupt... They are all rich, and they vote the money every time, and it is for that very reason they are the most deferential to the trappings of honor, which can seldom be found in their work... Ma'am; Honor matters...Our words matter... Relationships are demanding, often very hard to manage, and easy to escape... If we can have no trust we cannot have any true relationships...If all we have is self interest binding us, and money motivating us then we are all in trouble... Which explains why we are in trouble... Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #5
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Dec 5, 2008 10:38 AM
I can tolerate louts. I can't tolerate hypocrites. John Edwards and Slick Willie together never in their wildest dreams went through as many women as Edwin Edwards of Louisiana, but Edwin never claimed to be a good family man.
Comment: #6
Posted by: ghardin
Fri Dec 5, 2008 2:26 PM
John Edwards fooled a LOT of people for a long time, but now I just look at him as the handsome actor he was. He had a great run, but it's over. He got involved with an unsavory bit player and it ruined his marriage, ruined his career, ruined his life. I never did think he was all that bright. Just very slick. I always thought his wife was the one with the brains. I think she was the wind beneath his political wings.

I hope he and his new age crack ho videographer disappear with their love child, never to be heard from again. Elizabeth Edwards and her children deserve better.

John Edwards is no class, rich white trash - not unlike the Beverly Hillbillies - and he doesn't hold a candle to any of President-elect Obama's cabinet nominees.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Marla Morrison
Fri Dec 5, 2008 6:00 PM
Whereas Barack Obama's refusal to select John Edwards for a spot on his cabinet is probably political, it is good that Edwards was left off. Whereas Edwards' primary appeal to the American public was that he was a nice guy it turns out that he isn't. And his belated mea culpa made it even more clear that he isn't anything like the individual he pretended to be. During the Clinton scandal the economy was good so the majority of the American public gave him a pass on his infidelity prompting The Senate to give him a pass on his perjury in a civil case. As Clinton's approval numbers remained above 60% a prominent member of the media surmised that it was because the American public “could separate his public life from his private live”. I still contend , on the contrary, that the American public who could see that the economy was good, even though they couldn't see that it was primarily due to the tech boom, wrongly chose to separate Clinton's public life from his private life. (In fact an individual's private life is the greatest indicator of what he will do in public life when the public isn't looking.) Then, it could be argued, that enough of the same people hypocritically took it out on Al Gore to expunge their guilt for giving Clinton a pass thereby giving us George Bush for eight years. I hope the Clinton apologists are happy. Let me leave anybody who has taken the time to read this with a question: If an individual's spouse can't trust him, then why should the American public? As to the author's assertion that we shouldn't hold Edwards' infidelity against him because so many in Washington are guilty of the same or worse, let me point out that we should do so because he got caught. To follow her line of reasoning, perhaps we shouldn't have forced Nixon to resign either because many in Washington have done worse.
wade mathias
Comment: #8
Posted by: wade mathias
Fri Dec 5, 2008 6:55 PM
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings. Dwight D. Eisenhower, during World War II is reported to have had an affair with the woman assigned to be his driver.
John F. Kennedy committed adultery and he inspired this country to greatness. Franklin Delano Roosevelt committed adultery against the much beloved Eleanor Roosevelt, but he led this country through the Great Depression and World
War II. Lyndon B. Johnson committed adultery, but he got passed most of the U.S. Civil Rights Legislation. And we know more about President Bill Clinton's love life than we want to. I value John Edwards' political expertise, especially concerning the economy. Now that the U.S. has had a total collapse of its financial system I know John Edwards can be helpful in the Obama Presidential administration.

Some things like marriage relationships are private to be discussed between the persons involved. People need to stop pretending they are outraged. The only person with a right to be outraged is Elizabeth Edwards, and she has decided to spend much of her time working for universal health care for Americans. She has also said she and her husband want to dedicate their lives to fighting poverty. Let's not hinder them.
Other things like jobs, labor rights, the collapse of our economy, and government bailouts are public matters to be discussed by all Americans. I don't want to see working Americans treated like the workers in "third world countries". John and Elizabeth Edwards are well aware of their short comings, but they also know how to fight for the American people.
Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7WbBuukrzo
Comment: #9
Posted by: Cherubim
Fri Dec 5, 2008 8:59 PM
Someone on the Left, who is known nationally known, needs to be added to the Obama administrationt to counterbalance those who lean to the Right. I nominate Senator John Edwards. America already knows who John Edwards is, and he was the only candidate who dared speak against the moneyed interests who have taken over our government and the U.S. treasury, your tax money, which is being sent as "bail out" money directly into the pockets of the already super rich. So far, Obama has chosen, mostly, Wall Street promoters to in his cabinet. John Edwards would be a refreshing change. Is not change what Obama is supposed to be about? John Edwards is for the workers and unions, i.e. Main Street, not Wall Street.
Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJlKE_BLAUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItdN2BYwA-8
He also walked and comforted people whose homes were being foreclosed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_GWrYkcCI
John Edwards is, also, the only candidate for President that actually went down to New Orleans on several occasions
And worked along side those striving to try to bring back the areas that remain so devastated from
the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DaofQCkbA8
Comment: #10
Posted by: Cherubim
Sat Dec 6, 2008 6:03 AM
THIS IS WHERE JOHN EDWARDS IS:
John Edwards has resumed his fight against poverty starting in Haiti. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5idIJ-SRt3R4Bz0IANBHIPQN1B7iQ
"PORT-AU-PRINCE (AFP) — Celebrities from Hollywood and Italy helped cut the ribbon Wednesday (12/3/08) on a new hospital for handicapped children in Haiti that has the highest infant mortality in the Western hemisphere.
US actress Madeleine Stowe, Italy's Martina Colombari, Canadian director Paul Haggis and former US senator and White House hopeful John Edwards joined other stars for the ceremonial opening of the modern hospital built by Italian non-governmental group NPH (Our Little Brothers).
John Edwards said to the news organization AFP: "I am particularly excited about being here for the opening of this rehabilitation facility which is much-needed, and I am also here to help, we hope, bring attention to the plight of the Haitian people, their struggles and their efforts to have a better life."
Comment: #11
Posted by: Cherubim
Sat Dec 6, 2008 6:12 AM
I agree with Mr Sweeney. As Ross Perot said, "If a man's wife can't trust him, how can I?". If all of the lying louts in Washington left, the Capitol wouldn't shut down; the people might elect representatives based on character instead of glib sound bites. Term limits would help.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Susan Tygart
Sat Dec 6, 2008 8:05 AM
Re: Cherubim
Your sweet little crush on John Edwards is endearing, but John Edwards was always an empty suit. Haiti is a good place for him.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Marla Morrison
Sat Dec 6, 2008 10:07 AM
Susan, I have always enjoyed your forthright opinions on TV, but this is my absolute favorite column. I appreciate your bluntness and realism. It's a tragedy to lose John Edwards' brilliant contributions to the national dialogue.
We'd never have had a JFK if these new standards had been applied...nor an FDR.
Comment: #14
Posted by: lauren
Sat Dec 6, 2008 2:11 PM
Forgive me for this unholy screed as I read this abomination of an opinion right after I read that the White House and the Democrats are going to put together a bailout package for the auto industry. Oh, and surprise surprise, it HAS TO BE DONE NOW, QUICKLY, FAST, RAPIDLY before anyone gets a chance to see what it really is.
I have read SE's articles before,,,rarely does she operate in the same dimension as the rest of the world does. To sum up her article, The Democrats should select an individual who can't keep his oath to his family, who has lied repeatedly, who is a living sham, to be the TOP LAW OFFICER in America.
Now she sees no problem with this as another top elected official who lied to the American people, lied to his family, and broke the law to save his butt when he was supposed to preserve the rule of law, just happens to be a Clinton who she supports for Plenipotentiary Leader of the World.
Susan, is it asking too much to promote some one with morals, ethics, a sense of patriotism, a commitment to keeping America safe. Oh yeah,,,,you and your kind have been hounding him for the last 7 years. Why WOULD you want some one like that in the Administration?!
Comment: #15
Posted by: infinitewisdom4u
Sat Dec 6, 2008 5:58 PM
I would like to add that these are some of the best comments I have read,,,well put by everyone.
Now I ask, for those who,,,like Cherubim and Estrich,,,see no problem with deceit in Washington by our elected politicians, "If your boss, who you knew repeatedly lied, stole property, was carrying on relationships even though married, one day told you to keep up the good work because you were going to get a raise right after they left (moved up??)as they had put you in for one with the head honchos, would you believe them?"
The next questions are, "Why would you expect anyone like that to be good for the company and why would you want to work for them"?
And if you are a good morale person who makes good choices, why shouldn't you be the one in charge so that you could throw out the garbage that is inevitably disastrous for your company (country??)?
Now people, especially those who consider themselves enlightened, will say that those of us who want straight shooters in DC don't understand politics and we couldn't comprehend the intricate inner workings of DC. They would say, as SE here does, that there is a difference between political service and private life. They would argue that other people before them have committed some of the same discretions and have not hindered the country. A common defense of the "oops, crap i got caught" crowd. But those same people are some how satisfied with the idea that a corruptible individual is going to decide how our money is spent and how we, as a nation, are going to fare in the future. So really, what we have to hope for, is that the one who puts in the highest bid for our politicians, really has OUR good fortunes in mind.
Comment: #16
Posted by: infinitewisdom4u
Sat Dec 6, 2008 6:32 PM
Edwards is a narcissistic candy ass why would anyone want him to be anything other than a two bit ambulance chaser???
Comment: #17
Posted by: Pedro
Sat Dec 6, 2008 6:52 PM
How many times can you look the other way with politicians and say their ethics and their personal life do not matter? They do matter, they are the measure of the man (or woman) in all they do.
"Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law” Sophocles
Comment: #18
Posted by: jbaugher
Sun Dec 7, 2008 5:23 AM
Susan,
John Edwards is an idiot and a phoney. He deserves no place in any administration. The man is a joke.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Ed Ross
Sun Dec 7, 2008 8:33 PM
Obama has chosen, mostly, Wall Street promoters and corporate lawyers to be in his cabinet.
He hasn't included anyone who knows how to go out interact with the everyday American citizens around the, and then report back to him what the people's needs, and assess whether his administration's new Initiatives are working. During the Great Depression, Eleanor Roosevelt
fulfilled this role. I nominate John Edwards for this role. John Edwards would be a refreshing change. Is not change what Obama s supposed to be about? He has spoken up for over and over for average Americans, i.e. Main Street, not Wall Street.
During his “Road to One America Poverty Tour” John Edwards demonstrated that he is uniquely qualified for this role. Watch the videos:

He also walked and comforted people whose homes were being foreclosed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_GWrYkcCI

The Great Moral Test of Our Generation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS1x88ZmohM

He has visited workers employed in the new renewal energy economy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50yOR5bvMV0

John Edwards is, also, the only candidate for President that actually went down to New Orleans on several occasions and worked along side those striving to try to bring back the areas that remain so devastated from the effects of Hurricane Katrina.


Watch the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAqktFnA4nk&feature=PlayList&p=EB1EC8919DC5DC52&index=0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DaofQCkbA8







Comment: #20
Posted by: Cherubim
Mon Dec 8, 2008 4:49 AM
What can you say about John Edwards? Let's see - fast talking, fast walking, slick haired, two-timing, snake oil salesman who's favorite piece of furniture is a full-length mirror. And sadly through all of this....his wonderful wife is having the fight of her life with cancer. Sounds to me like a pretty rightrous dude. NOT!
So Susan, you say; "But isn't this between the two of them? Isn't all of it fundamentally none of our business?" Here we have Pretty Boy John who's been dipping his wick into the container of self-satisfaction and self-gratification, resulting in offspring of his own likeness. A guy who wants to be the president of the United States, and he nor the author of this column, doesn't believe in such a thing as being held to a higher set of standards. A guy who is also the seed for more lawyer jokes.
You also said Susan; "Edward's case is arguably different on two accounts..." Sure is! Can you argue that he was the right person to be the next leader of our great country? YEP! Wrong guy. Can you argure that he did an incredibly stupid thing? NOPE! "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits".
--- Albert Einstein This guy is batting a 1000.
What is most dissappointing about this, is the fact that you Susan are defending him and trying to justify his behavior by saying; "Isn't all of it fundamentally none of our business?"
Shame on you!
Comment: #21
Posted by: Gary
Mon Dec 8, 2008 10:22 AM
On First Casting Stones: A new low watrer mark in wacky reasoning. Because some distinguished gentlemen are thought to cheat on their wives unreported by the press it's ok to appoint someone who brazenly cheats on his wife to a position that demands trustworthiness. If Ms. Estrich would think for just a moment about the logical implications of her position, she'd have no business lashing out at distinguished gentlemen who are hypocrites unless she has not betrayed a trust in her entire life. And that includes fobbing off dinner invitations for people she does not care to dine with. People who live in woolly houses should not throw fuzz.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Rally Girl
Tue Dec 9, 2008 5:29 AM
susan.......what a sad commentary but not surprising coming from you......i guess you feel there aren't any capable people in the u.s. that have a positive moral compass so let's settle for another slick talking, coniving snake......personally, i'm tired of reading about the edwards, slick willys and jfk hollywood types that you seem to imply should be our world leaders----my children and grandchildren need and deserve better !
Comment: #23
Posted by: wendell
Tue Dec 9, 2008 7:52 AM
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings.
=============================================================
He wasn't married at the time. According to the opinions of those in the know, it was a love match, and marriage simply wasn't an option at that time.

I believe that people who are essentially decent can cast away their good judgment and concern for the welfare of their spouses and have affairs. I don't excuse it, but I don't think it should mean automatic ostracism from society.

In John Edwards's case, however, he had an affair, presumably, while dragging his wife, who was suffering from incurable cancer and undoubtably still grieving for her child, through a campaign for the U.S. presidency. You'd have to be a truly self-centered clod to disregard so completely the well-being of a person you vowed to honor.
Comment: #24
Posted by: Carla
Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:29 AM
Susan,
Thank you for being brave enough to keep talking about John Edwards. I am proud to have campaigned for him and Elizabeth. There are millions of John Edwards Democrats in this country. Many of us are communicating nationwide. Thanks goes to John and Elizabeth and the sacrifice that their family have given to this country.
Many of us would like Edwards to be in a cabinet position. Keep us abreast of what happens......
Comment: #25
Posted by: yann123
Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:09 PM
Susan Estrich's column about John Edwards really highlights the debate between support for moral/ethical equivalency and relativism (Democrats/Liberals) vs the recognition and support of an objective moral/ethical value system (Republican/Conservative). The former is the sectarian view, which argues that evaluation of any behavior is subjective. Specific claims of bad behavior can be excused by pointing out other examples of similar or worse behavior! Wow! With experience or history as the only guide, seeking lower and lower standards to justify behavior, is a descent toward the sewer. There is no doubt Republican/ Conservatives sometimes behave badly. However, even the Liberal press holds them to objective standards, even though the press denies such standards for their cohort. In the Liberal world there is no such thing as temptation or an inclination to evil because any behavior can be subjectively justified or rationalized. Everyone gets a free pass on any behavior!? With such a mindset, is it any wonder so much of our society is screwed up?
Comment: #26
Posted by: Geo Garbo
Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:17 PM
Self-righteousness is the Greatest sin.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Cherubim
Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:37 AM
I knew a politician when I worked as a security guard at an office building in Boston's Park Square. He was going through a tough time and I observed him making a stupid choice. He made the same argument that Susan is making. Other men did it and were never caught. Why would it disqualify him from higher office? We debated the issue and, though he dismissed me because of my lowly place in life, he eventually dumped "the other woman". He never became President but he didn't destroy his marriage.
Comment: #28
Posted by: JohnB
Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:09 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Terence Jeffrey
Terence JeffreyUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012

8 Dec 2010 What a Dame

6 Feb 2008 Unconventional Thinking

3 Aug 2007 Insecurity