And the right to risk President McCain?

Yes! It might make him an idiot, but how does the word "right" even begin to figure into it? That's hyperbole of the highest order, and ill-serves your argument.

Fact is, neither of us know what it looks like from the inside, but for some reason he thought he could get away with it, or that it was worth the risk. Two consenting adults makes it at worst a bad idea. Maybe even a very bad idea. But if he has no right to risk President McCain, shouldn't we be taking more concrete steps against the anti-Christ? I mean, if it had just been one man's zipper standing between us and the end of all we hold dear...

There are people I would like as my president and people I would like as a spouse. These are rarely the same people.

Absolutely. Marital infidelity has nothing to do with the job.

Every girl who read Misty of Chincoteague just sighed with envy, CaBil.

I've got to read that book, because it seems that virtually all the women I have talked to have done the same thing Ginger....

Well, I admit since he never got close to the nomination he has not in fact given us Pres. McCain. And since he is not a nominee, it was none of the media's business. But the risk I'm saying he had no right to take was not cheating on his wife. (I don't even know if it was cheating. For all we know they have an open marriage.) It is running with no disclosure. You are responsible for forseeable consequences of your actions. President McCain was a forseeable possible consequence - avoided only because he was not in fact nominated.

President McCain was a forseeable possible consequence - avoided only because he was not in fact nominated.

Absolutely. But don't you think it's a bit...overzealous to say that he had no right to embark upon a set of actions that might have resulted in it?

Given that, (Yes, electoral college and '00 was a massive mess in Florida and other real issues) the choice is in the hands of the voters, I would blame *us* for President McCain. But, in full disclosure, I blame this country* for Bush already.

*eta: the majority of voters who actually voted, specific-cakes.

don't you think it's a bit...overzealous to say that he had no right to embark upon a set of actions that might have resulted in it?

No moral right. I'm not denying his legal right. Are you saying running for President without disclosure was not in fact morally wrong in those circumstances? It seems we are getting awfully puritanical about hyperbole thse days. I remember Hec telling a Nader supporter "to hell you go" (in a good humored fashion) without anyone pouncing and calling him overzealous.

I misread your tone, TB. I apologise. And I still think he had every moral and legal right to be an idiot.

Eh. All in all, it makes me feel better about thinking this whole time that he's a sleaze. I never could stand him, and now I feel justified in that.

Generally, however, I don't feel like being a sleaze is reason enough to not vote for you--there have been times where if I agree with someone I will vote for the sleaze over the other guy. But I'd RATHER vote for a good person who I also agree with.

If he didn't use public money, his office, etc etc, coerce her, blah blah blah...then I don't give a shit. Consenting adults? That's him and his wife. I don't respect him, and I think he's a shit, especially since he bases his whole political reputation on being all Mister Nice Guy (unlike, some skeevy politicians like...um...Rudy Giuliani. Who if he got caught having another affair we'd all say "Um, duh?").

Stands in the ita corner, and also in the "she may have condoned it" corner, where I bet Dan Savage is standing.

To this day part of me thinks that Hillary Clinton condoned Bill's affairs.