In 2004, Democrats nearly put John Edwards a heartbeat away from the presidency. In 2004 and 2008, millions of Democrats voted to nominate Edwards for president. Two years later, a former Edwards aide alleges possession of a sex tape involving the former North Carolina senator and Edwards himself has finally admitted that he lied when he denied paternity of a child mothered by a woman with whom he denied carrying on an affair (as his wife endured terminal cancer). Republicans saw in Edwards a sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer. Democrats saw a future president.

During the California primary I recall talking to a famous television showrunner who was an ardent John Edwards fan.

I told him I just didn't get Edwards. I remember thinking of Edwards as completely "disengenous," and that was before the controversy. Edwards has a fake sheen that reminds one of politics 1.0. At least Bill Clinton could lie with a degree of panache.

I didn't vote for Kerry because of the same intuition. Believe it or not, when all is said and done, people end up voting for the man, not the party or the company line. I voted for Bush because at I felt Kerry was a typical "Democrat," which at that time was an elitist with faux sympathy for the poor. Edwards was even worse.

While Obama is elitist, he is not as apologetic about it. I also feel his impulses are grounded in a genuine desire to ameliorate the anxiety of our class system. His philosophy may be not the same as yours -- and perhaps even wrong -- but the man can talk and he is TRYING to walk his talk.

But as bad as Edwards is, he doesn't even compare to the atrocious choice of Sarah Palin, who isn't even culturally literate.

Is it fair for me to generalize that Republicans wanted an idiot a heartbeat away from the presidency? No, because I think we didn't know who she was at the time. Similarly, we didn't know who Edwards was at the time.

Generalizing is a bit dangerous. But I am with you that Edwards is a real creep. While I would be the first to say sexual misconduct is not the same as general thuggishness, I have to say that Edward's breach of character is particularly nasty. Not owning up to his child is disgusting for a man of his position.

My point: scandals hit both parties, and I don't think it is fair to say Democrats would have this, Republicans would have that, etc, particularly in light of later revelations. It feels like an emotional argument, and not a rational one.

Did you say John Edwards did a sex tape? Eeewwww!

James,

I'm going to make a generalization. And yes, they can be accurate. Democrats are less likely than Republicans to consider morals and or ethics when making a choice at the polls. All that is required for them (in most cases) are the right politics. Morals, as Dems see it, are for Republicans only - and to be invoked only when they can hang them around their necks after some failing.

I would rather have Palin a heart-beat away from the Presidency than almost any Democrat I can think of. Not because she has proven governing abilities and solid conservative principles (though she does). But because she is a woman of courage and conviction. She has has a moral center - knows the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood. Unlike many other politicians (John Edwards included) she doesn't believe that these are relative constructs to be discarded once the campaign is over.

Palin is of the middle class; that massive group of people who pay most of the taxes, spend most of the money, build most of the homes, raise most of the children, supply most of our armed forces, and make up the moral center of this country - yes, its still exists.

Palin knows the Middle Class's vital place in American society because she has lived it. She speaks their language. How then, can you say she is culturally illiterate? There isn't a more culturally literate poltical figure in existence in this country - Republican or Democrat. I can only assume that, by Palin not being "culturally literate", you mean she is not an elitist. I consider that a huge plus. I don't know if Palin will ever win high office, but she has already been a positive influence on our politics - even if it has only been to define for us our own American aristocracy - who see the governance of this country as their birthright.

I wish we had a few more "idiots" like her. They are sorely need.

"Is it fair for me to generalize that Republicans wanted an idiot a heartbeat away from the presidency? No, because I think we didn't know who she was at the time."

This I don't get? Idiot? How so? Because the media machine made her to look like a fool? Because people believed that she said something that was part of a comedy skit? I get your point and the same people who were projecting Edwards the end all are the same ones who were projecting Palin as the idiot.

The idiots my friend are the people who do not bother to dig a bit deeper and who believe the tripe the Democrat Party and their house organ media choose to forward about the opposition.

Democrats? For the most part, they are slick incompetent power mongers who could never have the edge given their record of being slack and dishonest without the leftist agenda being taught in our schools or without the complicity of an ever bum kissing media.

Edwards? The guy is a disingenuous joke. But, then again, the Dems have gone further by pushing a more incompetent disingenuous joke who actually did make it to the White House.

As I've said before, I could not and can not stand McCain but I would have voted for Bobo the Circus dog before voting for a Democrat fraud who I knew would destroy this country.

Highlander, you just declared that Democrats don't have morals and that there isn't a more culturally literate poltical figure in existence in this country - Republican or Democrat"-- than Sarah Palin.

ASDF, you state that you "would have voted for Bobo the Circus dog before voting for a Democrat fraud who I knew would destroy this country."

Not only are both of your statements hyperbolic and extremely partisan, but they seem to lend creedence to my post that such rhetoric comes from an irrational, emotional, and fixed viewpoint.

Without resorting to a partisan battle, can we at least abandon the connotation of "elite" as something akin to evil? Are you aware that our nation was founded by "elites?" Correction: extremely elite.

I don't think an educated, thoughtful person should be deemed incompetent or immoral by virtue of his education or class, nor should a "middle class" citizen be elevated to the oval office because of a scrappy populist persona.

Both parties are corrupted by MONEY -- in my opinion -- and I don't think we can argue that morality or God fights for one side or the other. You do recall the sex scandals that affected the Republicans last year, right? Or is your memory that selective and biased?

My point was human beings are flawed, not just the party you don't like. People are human beings fighting for what they believe to be the greater good. And the greater good is usually indoctrinated to them through their culture, news, and experience. I think both Obama and Palin are good people.

And I can't stress enough how information itself is now at stake in our democracy. I don't want to generalize about the readers of this blog, but are you presuming to be so omniscient that you can assert these opinions with the same self-righteousness that one would find in the ranks of the Taliban?

Is the Supreme Court idiotic because of their advanced education and "elite status"? Should Heidi Montag be Palin's VP because of her middle class bragging rights?

I am middle class. And an independent. I even sort of buy into your narrative that the middle class are this noble subset of society, the backbone of our country. But I think this because of statistical reasons, not the emotional propaganda that would have us believe government is my enemy.

Regarding education: I was always the first person to defend George Bush when morons declared him an iditot. "Hey, did you go to Harvard and Yale?" I usually replied to the stoned musician who didn't finish high school. If you achieved those feats, you get to call him a moron. Otherwise, you don't seem to have earned the right to insult the man on that level. Well, to be fair, I think the current Commander in Chief might be just a little bit more "informed" than you. Sorry. I could be wrong. You might be a professor of constitutional law, a former senator, a nobel peace prize winner. (while even dems will agree the latter was not earned, it goes to show how much the world approved of our country electing an articulate leader that promised a less fascist rule)

What is so frightening about the comments I read on blogs such as these is that you take the general ideology of someone very intelligent like Dan Flynn, and then degrade that viewpoint to a bitter, cynical, partisan rant.

And people wonder why change is so hard to create in our society? Dan himself recently opined on how Obama presides over an even more divided nation. He mentioned it casually, without offering any evidence why, as if to imply Obama created the partisanship through his evil agenda

Your comments reveal why.

Look, if you think Palin was ambushed by "gotcha" questions, I can't change your mind. If you think she is the great WHITE hope and you got Jesus in your pocket, that is your right as well. And if you can't fail to see the similarities in your fundamentalism with the fundamentalism in... say... Iran, well I can't connect those dots for you either. (I"ll give you a clue: you both claim the monopoly on values and social conservatism).

While we take it for granted now, only decades ago people were fighting for blacks to have rights. Guess which party was the MORAL one waaaaaay back then? Oh, and those virtuous states with those moral Jim Crow laws -- who do they vote for now? But they're the moral ones, right?

And while we are at it, why not mention that Jesus, the prince of peace and tolerance, would also be now be the prince of torture, the death penalty, homophobia, and war profiteering. Oh, I forgot to add that he would certainly be against health insurance for those with pre-exising conditions.

Since the meek -- while they can inherit the earth, shouldn't be so lazy and just get a good job that provides insurance.

You know, I can't tell you what morality is, since that is something you claim to be an expert on... but don't -- not even for one microsecond -- think that you are somehow part of the solution to our problems, a thoughtful voice in the debate, a candle in the darkness. You are the gridlock, the ignorance choking science and civil discourse, the guy who wants only sips on news that fits his comfortable paradigm.

And that isn't the worst part. You are the very people that give Conservatism its terrible image as the ideology of the ignorant. In preserving the sanctity and exceptionalism of the United States, you sell your regressive, medieval ignorance as true Americanism, and that makes you more of an elitist than Obama could ever hope to be.