Anyone want to explain why that guy was news but John Edwards isn’t?

Ees Party Line, Comrade.
Don’t ask Political Questions.
Just sing along:
“O come let us adore Him,
O come let us adore Him,
O Come Let Us Adore HIIIIIM –
BA-RAAAAAACK O-BAAA-MAAAAAA!!!”

Someone offered up Torricelli’s name. No lie.

These people are sick. People arguing on the innernets, people who write for newspapers, the whole sorry lot. They wouldn’t know “objective” if it swam up and bit ‘em square in the butt.

Still, there is an element of validity to the argument that it’s about hypocrisy. The counterpart on the democrat side of the line would not be the discovery of infidelity, but rather of intolerance, since they’re supposed to have a monopoly on tolerance just like Republicans are supposed to be leaders in family values. And it does seem to work like that; the Jeremiah Wright thing did damage Obama much more severely than the Hagee thing damaged McCain.

I’ll concede that is a deeply flawed parallel, since McCain let go of the live wire while Obama hung on and got himself cooked. And some folks still want to skewer McCain over Hagee and just let the Wright thing go. But you can’t measure these things by observing the behavior of the extremist kooks. I think, within the reasonable moderates, most people are even-handed in weighing the damage on this stuff and they consider hypocrisy to be the worst sin.

It’s just that when democrats absorb damage by being caught in hypocrisy, *cough* Al Gore’s House *cough*, we don’t hear that much about it. Therefore, there’s no consequence. YES, I’m saying we live in a plutocracy, in which a class of elites decides who stays and who goes. Democracy decides who gets in, and then the “scandal” is used to polish the peoples’ choice down to the liking of those whose opinions really count. It’s that bad.