The Volokh Conspiracy

CNN Website Gives Edwards Affair Higher Billing than the Russia-Georgia Fighting:

It's telling that, as of midnight today, the CNN website is giving the Russia-Georgia conflict a lower billing than the latest revelations about John Edwards' extramarital affair. This order of priorities is ludicrous from the standpoint of the real relative importance of these events. But it does fit my theory that most people who follow political news do so primarily to get information they find interesting or entertaining rather than to learn about objectively important issues in order to become better-informed voters. A tawdry affair by a presidential candidate who dropped out of the race a long time ago is insignificant compared to a bloody conflict with major implications for US strategic interests in a crucial part of the world (to say nothing of the loss of life). But the affair may have greater entertainment value, and entertainment is what CNN must provide in order to give the majority of viewers what they want and keep up its ratings.

UPDATE: MSNBC also has the Edwards story as its top headline. But, to its credit, the Fox News site is giving top billing to the Russia-Georgia story - despite Fox's longstanding reputation as the more superficial of the three big news networks.

UPDATE #2: I suppose I should make it clear that I'm not claiming that Fox is generally less superficial than CNN or MSNBC, merely that they chose the right order of priorities in this particular instance.

Guest McGuesterston (mail):
Certainly this proves that Fox is a legitimate news organization driven by mainstream market pressures and not the ideological whim of its owner. Certainly.
8.9.2008 12:40am
Ilya Somin:
Certainly this proves that Fox is a legitimate news organization driven by mainstream market pressures and not the ideological whim of its owner. Certainly.

The two theories are not mutually exclusive. Fox fills a genuine market demand for conservative-oriented news coverage - as its strong ratings prove. At the same time, it's also true that that orientation fits the ideology of the owner.
8.9.2008 12:48am
Ilya Somin:
In this case, of course, if the "ideological whims" of Rupert Murdoch were the deciding factor, Fox would have billed the Edwards story higher, as that story embarrasses a prominent liberal Democratic politician. The Russia-Georgia story, by contrast, doesn't offer Fox a comparable opportunity to make liberal Democrats look bad.
8.9.2008 12:51am
Orson Buggeigh:

Certainly this proves that Fox is a legitimate news organization driven by mainstream market pressures and not the ideological whim of its owner. Certainly.


Well, maybe. But to me, the interesting story is how long the MSM sat on this. Nearly two full weeks after the Times (the one in London) determined that it was suitable to carry (Times of London, 27 July, 2008 the US MSM decided to get interested. While it isn't proof of serving an ideological bias, the way the MSM was so quick to run with the story about the allegation of a McCain - lobbyist tryst, and yet so reluctant to look into the allegations of an Edwards affair really does seem to support complaints of ideological bias by the media favoring Democrats.
8.9.2008 1:00am
Tom Tildrum:
The Russians may have launched their offensive after learning of the Edwards news, in order to minimize world attention.
8.9.2008 1:03am
GV:

In this case, of course, if the "ideological whims" of Rupert Murdoch were the deciding factor, Fox would have billed the Edwards story higher, as that story embarrasses a prominent liberal Democratic politician.

I don't know that this is right. Edwards being run through the mud doesn't really affect democrats. On the other hand, this story is likely going to bring up mentions of the fact that John McCain also had an affair. I doubt most Americans are aware of McCain's affar.
8.9.2008 1:22am
Cornellian (mail):
"This order of priorities is ludicrous from the standpoint of the real relative importance of these events. "

And yet perfectly logical from the point of view of appealing to what American television viewers are likely to find more interesting.
8.9.2008 1:26am
Nathan_M (mail):
CNN is the network that carries Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Nancy Grace. Does Fox really have a reputation for being more superficial than CNN, or just being more conservative? I've never watched Fox News (we have two channels of CNN inflicted on us in Canada, but no Fox News) but I can't imagine how news could be done more superficially than CNN manages.
8.9.2008 1:28am
Allen Asch (mail) (www):
Ilya Somin wrote:
to its credit, the Fox News site is giving top billing to the Russia-Georgia story - despite Fox's longstanding reputation as the more superficial of the three big news networks

Whatever the Fox News website shows now, I noticed that today's "Special Report with Brit Hume" on the Fox News Channel, which is supposed to be a "hard news" program, led with the Edwards story followed by the Russia-Georgia story
8.9.2008 1:30am
EH (mail):
Fox may be superficial, but that doesn't prevent them from being more hawkish. Proffering war as a common state of affairs suits them.
8.9.2008 1:34am
loki13 (mail):
It's not news.... it's CNN!
8.9.2008 1:48am
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):
as posted over at leasticoulddo.com, which had a similar view:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08...html#1218255710
Volokh conspiracy is asking the same question.
But heck, I'll give it a shot.
For most americans, what happens in small eurasian countries doesn't change their lives such. Plus, they are burned out on 20 years of coverage of the war in afganistan.
On the other hand, whether the blue party or the red party wins the next election will matter, a little.
The red party is the holier-than-thou party, which sees the blue party as a coalition of communists, crooks, and sex fiends.
Under sex fiends we've got JFK, LBJ, WJC, and now Edwards.
It's not about the sex, it's about the coverup. Watergate wasn't about a hotel burglary, it was about Nixon's involvement in a coverup that spun out of control. Clinton's impeachment wasn't about whether he did or didn't rape Jaunita Broadrick and send armed troopers to procure Paula Jones. It was about the abuse of executive privilege, the threats, the perjury, the character assassinations, the coverup that spun out of control. The Edwards story isn't about Edwards, it's about Hillary and Obama.
It's not that he was boinking some chick while his wife had cancer. It's that the US papers have been sitting on the story for a year until a tabloid broke it. It's about a politician actually admitting he's "increasingly egocentric and narcissistic."
It's about the three lies in today's confession.
It's about whether the Democratic Party has any shame at all.
The trouble with the D's running buffoons like these is that the usual alternative is whoever the GOP puts up, which last time was Bush, and we know how that turned out.
So yeah, I'd say Edwards is a bigger story.
8.9.2008 3:04am
Dave3L (mail) (www):
The Volokh Conspiracy posted information on the Edwards affair well before the Russia/Georgia conflict. As a matter of fact, the Volokh Conspiracy didn't even post about the conflict until Saturday. Instead, it posted about, of all the possible superficial topics, the movie Mamma Mia. Even Ilya Somin posted about the significantly less important and less interesting topic of a NJ condemnation lawsuit well before he saw it fit to criticize others for their treatment of the apparently obviously dramatic and newsworthy conflict in Georgia.

Does any of this have anything to bear on the level of superficiality of the Volokh Conspiracy? Of course not. Like other media outlets, the VC can choose to report on issues that its writers feel its readership wants to know about, and order that reporting in whatever way it chooses. It is not beholden to some indiscernible "real relative importance" scale of prioritizing reportage. And whether it is the VC or CNN, surely taking a single data point such as this one and elevating it to standing for the broad proposition that an outlet is more or less superficial than whatever the public perception of it may be qualifies this post as yet another in an ongoing series of the "dumbest thing I have read all day."
8.9.2008 3:11am
dsn:
@Nathan_M

Sadly, yes it really is more superficial. I didn't think that was possible that Fox was as bad as everyone implies it is, until I stayed at a hotel in Isreal that had Fox not CNN. Watch a bit - I'm sure you can some on youtube, and try not to throw something at the TV / computer.
8.9.2008 3:16am
Jim at FSU (mail):
The Edwards affair was well known on the internet long before the mainstream media decided to run the story. Russia only recently invaded Georgia. Not only is the Georgia thing more newsworthy (since it is actual news) but it is also a million times more important than who Edwards is having sex with in his spare time.
8.9.2008 3:38am
Ilya Somin:
The Volokh Conspiracy posted information on the Edwards affair well before the Russia/Georgia conflict. As a matter of fact, the Volokh Conspiracy didn't even post about the conflict until Saturday.

The VC is a blog, not a comprehensive news service. We post on issues of interest to the bloggers and (usually) also on issues where we have some expertise. On the vast majority of issues, we don't post at all, because they don't interest us, we don't have expertise on them, or both. By contrast, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., ARE comprehensive news networks and DO claim to prioritize the most important stories. The standards that apply to a news network are different from those that apply to an opinion blog. I would have thought that that was obvious. But apparently it needs to be spelled out.
8.9.2008 3:48am
trad and anon:
The Edwards affair was well known on the internet long before the mainstream media decided to run the story. Russia only recently invaded Georgia. Not only is the Georgia thing more newsworthy (since it is actual news) but it is also a million times more important than who Edwards is having sex with in his spare time.
Had sex with, if Edwards's claim to have ended the affair two years ago are to be believed.

And agreed that this is no longer be a news story of any importance, because he's a has-been rather than the powerful Democratic Party figure he used to be. 2004 was four years ago, and he's not a Senator anymore. His Presidential campaign made it nowhere: on Intrade: his numbers peaked at 20% in January 2007 and went steadily down from there. He's gone into private consulting rather than staying in the public eye pushing a cause a la Al Gore.

I'd say this is the political equivalent of Jamie Lynn Spears's pregnancy: a scandalous story about a celebrity that attracts a lot of public attention, but the only impact it has on the world is through the media attention it attracts. In Georgia, on the other hand, people are being killed by Georgian troops and Russian "peacekeepers" thanks to Putin's desire to extend his iron grip as far as he can.
8.9.2008 4:19am
Blar (mail) (www):
Orson, "the MSM" was not quick to run with the story about the alleged McCain-Iseman affair. Only the Times (the one in New York) determined that it was suitable to carry.
8.9.2008 4:20am
Joe Bingham (mail):
IMO, they're scrambling because they sat on the story so long, hoping no other MSM source would run with it either. But that's a prisoner's dilemma, thankfully.

Fox isn't trying to compensate, because it was the first MSM source to report the story, I believe. I may be misrecalling.
8.9.2008 6:24am
Dave3L (mail) (www):
CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., ARE comprehensive news networks and DO claim to prioritize the most important stories.

DO they claim to prioritize the "most important" news stories? Where can I find this claim? I believe that most, if not all, journalists, editors and publishers would say that they seek to fulfill the information desires of their readership, not force feed them stories based on Ilya Somin's ranking of importance.

Further, I am not sure that it is obvious to everyone that the Georgia conflict is "more important," whatever that means, than the Edwards affair. The average reader of CNN can take news about Edwards lying to them and use it in their political determinations, both about Edwards (whether as a VP or cabinet candidate) as well as about the Democratic party. But what do we really need to know about Georgia?

Plus, under your determination of the priorities of news reporting, practically anything that does not rise to the level of international conflict (business news, entertainment news, who won the world series) would not lead. I certainly don't want to read that paper. And it belies your following assertion:

The standards that apply to a news network are different from those that apply to an opinion blog.

Where can I find these standards? You said they should be obvious to me. Thus, could you please point to these obvious standards, wherein "news networks" are required to rank news according to some undefined set of importance (presumably related to your worldview), but "opinion blogs" can do whatever they so choose (including post poor media commentary such as that exhibited here)? And who sets these standards?

Clearly the VC and CNN serve different purposes, have different readership, and, of course, different staff and different budgets. But that doesn't provide a good basis for deciding that CNN should be held to an undefined standard of reporting (and one that seems to only exist in your head at this point), while the VC should be free of such questions. You did eventually write about the conflict, demonstrating that you, at least, believe that you have "expertise" on the issue, enough so that you would subject others to your view. In your Update #2, you claim that there is a "right" prioritization of the Georgia conflict over the Edwards affair (and presumably over any other news of the day, including the olympics). If you are so secure in your knowledge that there is a "right" prioritization of reporting on this issue, shouldn't we assume that this "right" priority should apply to you, too? And if not, why shouldn't you be held to the same standard that you would propose for another?

Of course, clearly you should be allowed to write about whatever you want, and whatever someone else wants to read. But the same should apply to CNN. One would think that would be an easy concept for a purported libertarian.
8.9.2008 6:32am
mls (www):
There must be a law and economics (maybe just economics) lesson in here somewhere. The amount of effort that it would take people to derive usable information from the stories about the Russian-Georgian conflict is not worth the expected return from such information. By "people" I refer not just to news consumers but also to the media itself, which seems to have no idea of how to put the information into a larger context that would make it useful (eg, for people deciding how to vote). And the presidential candidates, as well as the current administration, would seem to bear blame as well- they have not developed and/or articulated an international vision or strategy that would provide a framework for understanding or responding to information regarding the conflict.
8.9.2008 7:18am
Hoosier:
GV: "On the other hand, this story is likely going to bring up mentions of the fact that John McCain also had an affair. I doubt most Americans are aware of McCain's affar."

Because there was no affair. You'll want to check on that NYT story. I think you missed what happened.

I don't recall who made this point yesterday (Byron York?), but CNN sat on the Edwards-cheats-and-lies story until yesterday. Then it became OBSESSED with it. They gave it most of the late-night time slot.

The invasion of Georgia, on the other hand, was relegated to the crawler.

Dave3L thinks this is just fine. I suspect that his view is closer to the norm than is mine (if rather more strongly held, to judge by his posts). Which helps explain why CNN went with wall-to-wall coverage.

The whole Edwards/MSM matter is very depressing, while the NYT "story" on McCain was especially disturbing; they have lost a great deal of credibility. Now I suppose I'm just going to have to wait until the Enquirer starts covering the war in Georgia.
8.9.2008 7:25am
A.S.:
objectively important issues

The Edwards affair is more objectively important to most Americans. This is a man who had a very good chance to our next VP or AG. That is far more important to most Americans than some fighting between two random countries in the middle of nowhere.
8.9.2008 7:31am
Hoosier:
"And the presidential candidates, as well as the current administration, would seem to bear blame as well- they have not developed and/or articulated an international vision or strategy that would provide a framework for understanding or responding to information regarding the conflict."

I would also like to have that framework. It isn't clear to me that this is possible, however. The Soviet Union lost its lease more than a decade and a half ago. Yet there has never been a post-Cold War "X-Article." Truman and co. hit upon the framework of "Containment" rather slowly, but still had the *basic security concept* in place--those not all of its policy implications--within two years after the end of WWII.

One must give Truman and his team a great deal of credit. Marshall, Acheson, Kennan, Bolen, Hickerson, et al. were a hell of a lot more capable than the folks who have staffed the Clinton and Bush Administrations But I don't think the problem here is with the quality of policy makers. Threats to US interests come from such a wide, disparate array of sources that it is hard to imagine what "doctrine" could provide useful guidance to, let's say, energy security, South Ossetia, Islamist terrorism, *and* the growth of the Chinese military.

"Spreading democracy," for instance, doesn't seem to apply to most of the challenges the US now faces in the world.
8.9.2008 7:41am
A. N. Moose:
Ilya, you said:
I suppose I should make it clear that I'm not claiming that Fox is generally less superficial
but also:
despite Fox's longstanding reputation as the more superficial of the three big news networks.
So correct me if I'm wrong: what you mean is that superficiality is an observation in in Fox News' reputation (i.e., observation of viewers' and non-viewers' opinions), but the update stipulates that you were reporting on the same rather than revealing your own judgement.

If that is so, then I don't see the need for the remark in the first place. After all, most of Fox's criticism seems to come from non-viewers (whereas CNN's age and intial novelty gave it wide exposure and the chance to create an impression with policies that may have changed, making more shallow its own reputation). What I'm trying to say is that all TV news is shallow and hard to watch (and I exclude per-se opinion shows). Leaving out that point makes the rest of the posts arguments very weak.

Anyway, the lead story being about a top-list Democratic party VP scandal is notable, despite its age (blog scoop) and tabloid quality.

The trouble in Georgia is complex, goes back quite a bit, involves curious timing, and seriously strains political ties between a number of parties (European and Chinese proximity, independence and US support, Russian oil resources). I don't blame news networks for treating it lightly, meaning lack of analysis. Also, it should remind you of the primacy of internet-only news, which -- with, for example, the Times' refusal to run any Edwards story even on their own online outlets until now -- told us the who, where, and how before anybody else. And the why is trickling in, aided by historical exposition by experts and linked to up the wazoo.

There is a story in what the mainstream media has done by ignoring what should be their main journalistic questions. Still, they seem able to understand this and the lack of customer pressure to demand it. The demand is being fulfilled elsewhere. My main question: do you think cable news is representative of what people care about? It is somewhat for those who continue to watch it, but even for those it supplments better sources and acts as a form of entertainment because other sources exist. Furthermore, big news outlets can be slow to adjust to news tastes, leaving them a very bad indicator of cultural rot.
8.9.2008 8:06am
Orson Buggeigh:

The whole Edwards/MSM matter is very depressing, while the NYT "story" on McCain was especially disturbing; they have lost a great deal of credibility. Now I suppose I'm just going to have to wait until the Enquirer starts covering the war in Georgia.


Thanks, Hoosier - I couldn't say it better. When the tabloids are engaging in better investigative reporting than the New York Times, it really doesn't give you much hope for so called MSM, does it?

The point Hoosier made about quality people in the Truman administration is worth pondering as well. The bitter politicization of government doesn't help. Clinton and G. W. Bush both prized loyal minions over able advisors - and look how well that's working out.
8.9.2008 8:16am
tarheel:

Because there was no affair.

You'll want to check the records about how and when McCain's relationship with his current wife began. There most certainly was an affair.

In my view none of that should matter, but let's not pretend these things did not happen.
8.9.2008 8:19am
A. N. Moose:
tarheel, thanks for the link. That fills in some details I'm sure many of us had missed.

From my observation of a very limited selection of Left blogs, it's interesting that some philandery is dismissed and championed, no doubt fueled by a generally libertine outlook. If that's an accurate assessment, the idea of bringing up McCain's 1970s philandery as a counter to Edwards' leads to strange conclusions. Of course, Edwards may not be the reason for McCain coverage here... but it sure looks that way.
8.9.2008 8:29am
tarheel:

From my observation of a very limited selection of Left blogs, it's interesting that some philandery is dismissed and championed, no doubt fueled by a generally libertine outlook.

I think both sides are guilty of this, for sure. As I said, this stuff matters not a bit to me in terms of my vote -- I voted for Clinton twice, and I would have voted for McCain in 2000. If it does matter substantively, however, it should only matter for a current candidate, not a former candidate.

My view on this is probably colored by the fact that I met Elizabeth Edwards and think very highly of her, and I hate that her life is being torn apart in this very public way.
8.9.2008 8:44am
JohnKT (mail):
For me, the conflict over Ossetia is ironic. In informal conversations with friends I've been using US policy regarding Ossetia/Georgia/Russia as an example to illustrate my guess about campaign "issues" vs real issues.

IMV, there are three campaigns. 1st is for party support; 2nd is for campaign money; and last and least is for the popular vote.

I use Ossetia as a real issue that isn't on the table for discussion. All my interlocutors have never heard of it. Somebody wryly remarked that the purpose of foreign wars was to help educate Americans about geography.

It's a real issue, not just because of the shooting war now. In our support of Georgia, I think Buchanan is right - we are poaching on Russian interests that can only cause trouble that we don't need right now. For those not familiar with the issue, we support Georgia against Russia to make trouble for Russia. Russia supports Ossetia, Georgia's breakaway province, to make trouble for Georgia. Our policy should be neutrality.

In contrast, for the 3rd part of the campaign, issues are "wrinkled white haired" men, or arugula eating. I couldn't vote for anybody who eats arugula, could I? Or for a wrinkled old man.

The funny part is, now that Ossetia is on TV news, none of the people whom I've sprung Ossetia on, will remember that I used it.
8.9.2008 8:48am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
McCain's adultery 30 years ago is almost never mentioned (even now, when the Edwards story provides a natural context in which to raise it). I guess this proves that if Edwards runs for office in 30 years, no one will ever mention his adultery, either.

Very recently Hannity said this:

It’s a character issue … Don’t we have a right to know before we elect somebody? ...If you cheat on your wife, are you gonna be honest with your country?


But of course McCain wasn't mentioned. So much for "right to know."

moose:

From my observation of a very limited selection of Left blogs, it's interesting that some philandery is dismissed and championed, no doubt fueled by a generally libertine outlook.


I think you have it backwards. There is only one party that presents itself as the champion of 'moral values,' while also harboring more than its share of toe-tappers and heiress-chasers.
8.9.2008 8:59am
riptide:
You're missing the big picture - the Edwards story is easy to understand and explain.

With respect to Georgia there is
a) a lot of backstory
b) the requirement to explain over and over again that we're not talking about Georgia-the-US-state. That's way too complicated.
8.9.2008 9:15am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"harboring" isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe the larry craig incident...
8.9.2008 9:26am
BobVDV2 (mail):
Ironically, this post now gets top billing on my RSS feed of the Volokh Conspiracy. Of course, that's due to the fact that blog posts are viewed chronologically, so don't think this makes VC superficial!
8.9.2008 9:32am
calmom:
OK. I'll bite. To the American people the Edwards story is more important than the Ossetia story and not for merely salacious reasons.

1. It speaks directly to the bias in the media. The country cannot trust the major news outlets. THEY are the ones covering up information. They don't do investigations anymore. They are just outlets for the campaigns to feed the line to the public. They have done a poor job of covering Obama's record in the Illinois state house. In other words, our media is not only biased but lazy.

2. The story points out yet again that anyone who blindly adores and trusts a politician is being pollyannish (to put it charitably).
8.9.2008 9:34am
Hoosier:
Orson Buggeigh:

Your point about loyalty and partisanship is spot-on. Aside from invading Iraq, the biggest mistake that Bush made in the war on political Islamism may turn out to be the fact that he didn't have "a Henry Stimson" in his circle.

After the fall of France, FDR tapped that leading GOP foreign policy wise man to take the War Department, and a outspokenly pro-Allied Chicago newpaper publisher (no, not THAT Chicago publisher; the other one), also a Republican, as his Navy Sec. (Frank Knox. Navy was still an executive department).

After the 9/11 shock wore off, I kept waiting for this. Steve Solarz to the UN? Sam Nunn as "Special Advisor" to the president? John Breaux to Energy? Congressman What-his-name from Washington State to CIA?

But nothing. This was a HUGE mistake--though a characteristic mistake, I admit. He could have, and should have, made it clear from early on that war is not a partisan issue. That politics "stops at the water's edge."

The Democrats didn't exactly step up and produce their own Arthur Vandenburg. And they have been happy to play to their left base on the domestic security issue. But it really was Bush's move to make.

He blew it.

I have some hope for better people in the near future. If there is a president McCain, he may well choose Richard Haass for NSA, and/or Lugar for State. Both would be excellent.

Obama? You can't do better than Sam Nunn.

And if either wants a REALLY creative analytical mind, I am currently on the job market. (They'll just have to understand that I'm going to operate out of Indianapolis.)
8.9.2008 9:49am
Hoosier:
"heiress-chasers"

YEAH! John Kerry WAS an embarassment, wasn't he, juke?
8.9.2008 9:51am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Looks as if the MSM is answering to a (small) market, and being more precise about it.
So, yeah, the reader/listener/viewership still attending likes the Edwards story and the professionals know it. But those remaining who still attend are insufficient to maintain the industry.
So the rest of us are more broadly interested in things like breakaway provinces being broken up by breakaway townships which have internal unrest due to potentially breakaway blocks. Morons. Them, not us.
8.9.2008 9:59am
JK:
Does anyone else get the feeling that if the Georgia story was getting front page coverage this post would be, "why is the liberal MSM hiding the very, very important Edwards affair story?!"

Anyway I've always noticed that the front page of CNN, NYTimes, etc isn't a prioritization of the most important story, it usual an interesting story that was posted very recently. Right now Georgia is the front of NYtmes, and “Bernie Mac died” is the front of CNN… I think it just means “this is a story we wrote very recently,” not this is the most important story of the day.
8.9.2008 10:09am
Hoosier:
riptide: "b) the requirement to explain over and over again that we're not talking about Georgia-the-US-state. That's way too complicated."

That occured to me also, but I hoped it was just my cynicism. Were you just joking? Or do you think this is really a factor?

"With respect to Georgia there is
a) a lot of backstory "

Yes. And it is hard to blame Americans for not knowing anything about it. My prize undergrad of the last few years decided to write her senior thesis, under my direction, on a historical question in Russo-Georgian relations. The lack of scholarship on Georgian history and politics STUNNED me. I tend to think that every topic has been done-to-death by now. But if you get on a big research university's library catalogue and search for Georgia, you may be surprised how little turns up. And much of what does exist is written from the perspective of ethnic minorities with resentments against the Georgians.

I wish there were better sources to go to for background on this. I'm open to any suggestions.
8.9.2008 10:10am
Hoosier:
"he trouble in Georgia . . . involves curious timing"

Remember the date of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

They know how to do this without getting much media attention in the West.
8.9.2008 10:12am
Frog Leg (mail):
Hoosier: "heiress-chasers"

YEAH! John Kerry WAS an embarassment, wasn't he, juke?


There's a different heiress chaser on the Presidential ballot this year. Keep up.
8.9.2008 10:17am
ian (mail) (www):
Discounting an un-hyperlinked headline at the top of the page, CNN now has the death of Bernie Mac set more prominent than Russia/George.
8.9.2008 10:17am
ian (mail) (www):
Correction: Georgia*

Tried to link a screenshot but, sadly, I must've screwed it up.
8.9.2008 10:19am
Hoosier:
tarheel: "Because there was no affair."

I will assume you cut the context from my comment without meaning to change my intent.

You nevertheless did do so. Here is the context:

"Because there was no affair. You'll want to check on that NYT story."

This is a reference to the implication of te NYT story, not a reference to his previous marriage. So your response pointing to 30 years ago does not make my statement invalid at all. Does it?
8.9.2008 10:19am
tarheel:
Hoosier: Actually, you assumed GV was talking about the NYT piece, but that is not at all clear from his post. He just said "McCain's affair." I didn't mean to change the intent of your post. I simply wanted to add a link and some detail to GV's accurate comment.
8.9.2008 10:28am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
daniel:

"harboring" isn't exactly the word I'd use to describe the larry craig incident...


Help me find a better word. 'Stalling?'
8.9.2008 10:33am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
calmom:

They have done a poor job of covering Obama's record in the Illinois state house.


Some coverage of that subject can be found here, here and here.

It speaks directly to the bias in the media. The country cannot trust the major news outlets. THEY are the ones covering up information. They don't do investigations anymore.


After NYT published the Iseman story, McCain issued a denial. As far as I can tell, this is how much further investigation was done, by NYT or anyone else (in MSM): zero. This is how many times Iseman has been interviewed: zero. This despite the fact that a former top McCain campaign official viewed the Iseman situation as "alarming." (That was reported by NR back at a time when the GOP still had some hope of nominating someone other than McCain.)

McCain's only executive experience was 13 months, 30 years ago, in a job he doesn't even mention in his official campaign bio. Not much is known about this period. As far as I can tell, MSM has done this much investigative reporting on that period: zero. This is how many times reporters have asked him to sign SF-180, to release the records of that period: zero.

Those are a couple of examples of how "they don't do investigations anymore." And the failure to mention McCain's adultery, while obsessing about Edwards, is an example of how "THEY are the ones covering up information."
8.9.2008 10:34am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

"heiress-chasers"

YEAH! John Kerry WAS an embarassment, wasn't he, juke?


Kerry chased Heinz while still married to his first wife? Really? If so, then the situations are comparable.

Here's another difference: when Kerry married Heinz, he had already been a senator for 10 years. He didn't need her money and connections to launch his political career.

Here's another difference: Kerry was already rich ("Forbes").

In contrast, the circumstances seem to indicate that McCain left Carol for Cindy because, aside from being 24 (he was 42), Cindy's family had money and political connections, which McCain then used to launch his career as a politician. After working for his father-in-law for a while. As Ross Perot said:

McCain is the classic opportunist.
8.9.2008 10:34am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

I will assume you cut the context from my comment without meaning to change my intent.


You said "there was no affair" in response to someone who did not reference the Iseman story. Therefore your remark falsely implied that there had never been an affair. And I think most people don't know about the earlier affairs (apparently there was more than one).

Also, you are not in a position to claim "there was no affair" with Iseman. All we know is that McCain issued a denial, and then the 'liberal' media decided to drop the subject. I guess we have to wait for National Enquirer to investigate that story.
8.9.2008 10:34am
Hoosier:
"You said "there was no affair" in response to someone who did not reference the Iseman story. Therefore your remark falsely implied that there had never been an affair. "

My reference was clearly to the NYT story. As my full quote demonstrates.

I know you are here primarily to campaign for Obama and against McCain. But you might want to take realities of this sort into consideration.

As to: "how much further investigation was done, by NYT or anyone else"?

YOU KNOW how much effort, over how long a period of time, was given to the "story." And they blew it. How much more time and effort OUGHT they to have given it?

I don't agree that the MSM neglected the Edwards story for partisan reasons. Ask Spitzer, for instance. But I DO believe that the NYT and the other media realized the Times had embarassed itself, and that no one was willing to touch it after that.

tarheel: Yes. I understood GV to be talking about the NYT story, since the discusion seemed to be about current coverage of current stories. I'm sorry if I got his intentions wrong. My point, again, is that it was rather clear what I was talking about.
8.9.2008 10:54am
amativus (mail):
Well now the top news is the death of Bernie Mac, what does THAT say about voters?
8.9.2008 10:57am
amativus (mail):
Sorry, *voters = news priorities
8.9.2008 10:58am
TMac (mail):
I had to google Bernie Mac to learn who he was so I guess the MSM isn't doing its job of keeping me informed about the important people in the world.
8.9.2008 11:00am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

I know you are here primarily to campaign for Obama and against McCain.


What a relief to know that I'm the only one here with partisan interests (unlike, say, you). Thanks for clearing that up.

How much more time and effort OUGHT they to have given it?


As far as I can tell, the investigation ended when McCain issued his denial. And as far as I can tell, Iseman has never been interviewed. In my opinion, these are both indications that the investigation ended prematurely.
8.9.2008 11:23am
Eli Rabett (www):
So, when do we get full coverage of McCains philandering?
8.9.2008 11:29am
GV:

tarheel: Yes. I understood GV to be talking about the NYT story, since the discusion seemed to be about current coverage of current stories. I'm sorry if I got his intentions wrong. My point, again, is that it was rather clear what I was talking about.

I was not talking about the NYT story. I had actually completely forgotten about it and would have been more clear had I remembered it. I was referencing his earlier affair. Sorry for the confusion.

I don’t understand the argument that private affairs should not matter at all. I don’t think they’re an impeachable offense. Don’t even believe lying about one should result in impeachment. But cheating on your wife says something about your character. And while I think people overestimate the importance of character in elections, it is surely relevant, isn’t it? If John McCain should get some credit for his acts of bravery in Vietnam, shouldn’t he also lose some credit for his acts of disloyalty (which took place later in time)?
8.9.2008 11:45am
Michael Drake (mail) (www):
"A tawdry affair by a presidential candidate who dropped out of the race a long time ago is insignificant compared to a bloody conflict with major implications for US strategic interests in a crucial part of the world (to say nothing of the loss of life)."

True. And yet...
8.9.2008 11:46am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"So, when do we get full coverage of McCains philandering?"

When he gets caught visiting his paramour in a hotel room at 3 am.
8.9.2008 11:51am
Hoosier:
"I was not talking about the NYT story. I had actually completely forgotten about it and would have been more clear had I remembered it. I was referencing his earlier affair. Sorry for the confusion. "

GV: Thanks for clearning that up. Sorry I misread you.
8.9.2008 11:52am
neurodoc:
The Edwards affair is more objectively important to most Americans. This is a man who had a very good chance to our next VP or AG. That is far more important to most Americans than some fighting between two random countries in the middle of nowhere.
Was the speaker of those words smirking when s/he uttered them? Even if Edwards were someone who presently has "a very good chance to (be) our next VP or AG" rather than someone who had (and it was had for VP after the first Tuesday in November 2004), how "objectively important" would news of his affair be in any event? (By "objectively important" I mean something with the potential to affect our collective interests, not that which can do little more than titillate.)
Hannity said this:It’s a character issue … Don’t we have a right to know before we elect somebody?...If you cheat on your wife, are you gonna be honest with your country?
Can we have a show of hands by those who agree with Hannity that "we have a right to know" whether or not a candidate has engaged in adultery, and that a candidate who has engaged in adultery is less fit for office on account of it? Where does that "right" flow from and what empirical evidence is there that marital fidelity is any kind of predictor of success in office?
8.9.2008 11:53am
tired of blogs:
I'm disappoint that Ilya hasn't responded to Dave3L's second post. It's hardly unsubstantive, and drama amuses me. I daresay drama is the point of the internet. Get on it!
8.9.2008 12:00pm
calmom:
Actually, the LAT did cover the break up of McCain's first marriage and his affair with Cindy. If you can judge a story's impact by the number of letters to the editor it generates, that story was a big nothing.

It happened thirty years ago and McCain has never lied about it.
8.9.2008 12:00pm
MnZ:

So, when do we get full coverage of McCains philandering?


Perhaps when McCain starts talking about how he is such a devoted husband?

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Edwards would have won the nomination. Would Edwards or his operatives been going around talking about how McCain was not the model husband 30 years ago...unlike John Edwards who stuck by his ill wife?
8.9.2008 12:01pm
pluribus:
Rumors of a romantic relationship between Edwards and Hunter circulated for months. Edwards strongly denied them. Lacking proof, and concerned about violating the Edwards family's privacy, the MSM avoided the story. Now Edwards admits he blatantly lied, and the MSM has gone with the story.

Rumors of a romantic relationship between McCain and Iseman circulated for months. McCain denied them. (I listened to his denial and thought it was rather limp, but that is only a personal opinion.) Lacking proof, and perhaps concerned with the McCain family's privacy, the MSM have avoided the story.

I'm not here to campaign for or against anybody, nor to impugn anybody's character. But there is a certain similarity between the two stories. Only die-hard McCain supporters would deny that is within the realm of possibility that the MSM will eventually have something to tell us about McCain and Ms. Iseman.

It is no answer to say John McCain would never do something like that. He has admittedly done so at least once in the past. The relevant question is whether he, like Edwards, is lying about the rumors. That is not an irrelevant question when asked of a presidential candidate.
8.9.2008 12:03pm
neurodoc:
I don’t understand the argument that private affairs should not matter at all...cheating on your wife says something about your character. And while I think people overestimate the importance of character in elections, it is surely relevant, isn’t it?
"Character" is undoubtedly important, the only question being what aspects of "character" are most relevant. "Character" has many dimensions, and some are a good deal more pertinent than others when judging fitness for public office, in particular the presidency. Tell us, if you will, whether presidents who (we believe) were faithful to their wives (e.g., Carter) were generally better for the country than those who weren't (e.g., FDR and JFK)? If marital fidelity has no predictive value as far as how competent they will prove in the exercise of their official duties, then why pay the matter any attention?
8.9.2008 12:06pm
calmom:
The other difference between Edwards and McCain besides the fact that McCain was forthright about his past in his book is that McCain married Cindy, has been married for thirty years and apparently loves her. Edwards affair was by his own words a loveless sex fling. To a woman, that's a big difference. We forgive a man in love.
8.9.2008 12:07pm
NYer:
It's sad, perhaps, but it isn't surprising. Most Americans probably don't care about the fighting in Georgia, regardless of how important it is relative to Bernie Mac or John Edwards. And I agree with the comment above that most Americans don't know that a separate country named "Georgia" exists - or didn't know until now.

The NY Times has pretty consistently kept the Georgian conflict on the top of the page since yesterday, but CNN and the other 24/7 networks don't have the same audience. As I am writing this, the three stories shown under CNN's "Popular News" heading right now are: (1) Comic actor Bernie Mac dies; (2) Clay Aiken is a father; and (3) (the video link of) Hooters for Neuters.
8.9.2008 12:15pm
neurodoc:
The relevant question is whether he, like Edwards, is lying about the rumors. That is not an irrelevant question when asked of a presidential candidate.
I think it is or should be an irrelevant question. It is in these matters that our national policy, unenforceable of course, should be "don't ask, don't tell," and then there would be no need to lie.

Is there nothing in a candidate's personal history that shouldn't be laid out in full view for public scrutiny? No concern about discouragement of very well-qualified potential candidates by this sort of probing of personal lives? This moral measuring winnows out the less well-suited, leaving us with the best possible leaders?
8.9.2008 12:17pm
Uncle Creamy:
Maybe it's just me, but the world is probably better served if CNN limits its coverage to sex scandals and celebrities and leaves important world events to others.
8.9.2008 12:22pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The Edwards affair is more objectively important to most Americans. This is a man who had a very good chance to our next VP or AG.
On what planet? You may have forgotten, but he had a very good chance to be our last VP, and was a disaster as a candidate. He had no chance of being picked again.
8.9.2008 12:33pm
TerrencePhilip:
neurodoc makes interesting points. The Democrats do not share his view, however. They are not going to have Edwards speak at the convention- he might not attend- and his chances at some official role, such as cabinet member in an Obama administration, are finished.

I just feel bad for his wife; and for the baby.
8.9.2008 12:39pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
PartisanHack writes:
In contrast, the circumstances seem to indicate that McCain left Carol for Cindy because, aside from being 24 (he was 42), Cindy's family had money and political connections, which McCain then used to launch his career as a politician. After working for his father-in-law for a while. As Ross Perot said:
Of course, just a few days ago, PartisanHack was writing that McCain got remarried to Cindy because Carol had been in a car accident. And he cited the very same quote from a guy who had absolutely no knowledge of the situation as evidence of his first theory!
8.9.2008 12:46pm
Michael B (mail):
"I suppose I should make it clear that I'm not claiming that Fox is generally less superficial than CNN or MSNBC, merely that they chose the right order of priorities in this particular instance." Ilya Somin

It was CNN's Eason Jordan and CNN's Tom Johnson who negotiated for CNN's access and status quo reporting of Saddam & Sons' Iraq. See also: CNN's Iraqi Cover-Up: CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.

For in-depth, book length treatments of the problem, see some of Jacque Ellul's sociological works such as Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, among a few others, though very few that probe with requisite depth.
8.9.2008 12:48pm
Public_Defender (mail):
CNN long ago Foxified itself. I heard a report on On the Media in which a CNN news chief defended covering stories with no news value (the disappeared-pretty-blonde-girl-du-jour, for example) simply because, well, he had no choice. Adding Fox-style anchors like Nancy Grace and Lou Dobbs didn't help.

And although this is a blog, not the MSM, the conspirators did put a lot of time and effort into analyzing whether a has-been had cheated on his wife, and no time into analyzing what was going on between Georgia and Russia.

One of the useful parts of blogs is that they reflect the quirkiness of the bloggers. I like the oddball topics I see here and elsewhere. Y'all also have every right to blog about whatever you want. But as long as you allow comments, your choices are fair came for discussion because your choices do, to at least some extent, reflect your priorities.

It's even more fair to comment on the choice of topics when a post discusses the MSM's devotion to a sensational story over a substantive one.
8.9.2008 1:03pm
Dave N (mail):
We lament that the John Edwards story gets priority over the Georgia story, yet at the time I post this comment, there are NOW 76 coments on this thread, while only 18 on the substantive thread regarding the Russo-Georgian conflict.

So, even here, we see where the interest is.
8.9.2008 1:07pm
The Franchise (mail):
Question: Is the "Mistress" also the "Tiptress" who's info led to the Nat Enquirer ambush?
8.9.2008 1:21pm
michael:
Dave3L, I suppose Ilya has other things to do besides point out to you what everyone else already knows:

CNN is a news organization; its mission is to report the news. A blog isn't. I know you're awfully excited to use your new law school tricks to play devil's advocate, but stop wasting everyone else's time.
8.9.2008 1:24pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
(2) Clay Aiken is a father

Clay Aiken isn't gay!?
8.9.2008 1:48pm
MarkField (mail):

"Character" is undoubtedly important, the only question being what aspects of "character" are most relevant. "Character" has many dimensions, and some are a good deal more pertinent than others when judging fitness for public office, in particular the presidency. Tell us, if you will, whether presidents who (we believe) were faithful to their wives (e.g., Carter) were generally better for the country than those who weren't (e.g., FDR and JFK)? If marital fidelity has no predictive value as far as how competent they will prove in the exercise of their official duties, then why pay the matter any attention?


Completely agree.
8.9.2008 1:56pm
Dave N (mail):
I hate to say it, I honestly do, but J.F. Thomas just won the thread.
8.9.2008 1:59pm
Michael B. (mail):
As previously pointed out, there's a lot to the Georgian story: Russian imperialism and nationalism as recently visited in the Solzhenitsyn post, the British empire's use of these middle earthlings as allies, the relationship of Ossetia (?sp) to Georgia. The lack of comment may speak to our lack of knowledge. OTOH as recently as a week ago if I recall correctly, respectful discussions occurred on NPR and from the Obama campaign about the potential role of John Edwards in a Democratic administration; why wasn't he then a past candidate of historical trivial interest? Without acknowledging the supressed salacious facts that could have been the story line and perhaps saved Mrs. Edwards some pain.
8.9.2008 2:00pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
zarkov:

When he gets caught visiting his paramour in a hotel room at 3 am.


McCain cheated with Cindy while still living with Carol. Please explain why the time and location of the cheating makes any difference.
8.9.2008 2:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
doc:

… that a candidate who has engaged in adultery is less fit for office on account of it


I tend to agree with you. But it's very noticeable that the press (and not just Hannity) is making a big fuss about Edwards and not about McCain. I realize it was a long time ago, but most people probably don't know about it. And unlike Edwards, he's actually running for president. And he's running on the concepts of 'straight talk,' character, honor and judgment. So if an adultery story is relevant for any candidate, it's especially relevant for McCain.
8.9.2008 2:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
calmom:

the LAT did cover the break up of McCain's first marriage and his affair with Cindy


As far as I can tell, that's the only story in US MSM. Not exactly extensive coverage.

It happened thirty years ago and McCain has never lied about it … McCain was forthright about his past in his book


Wrong. In his book, he claimed the affair didn't start until he was separated. Legal documents show otherwise. This is documented in the LAT article with which you are supposedly familiar.

Aside from that, "never lied" is a stretch, since the affair itself was a kind of lie. As Hannity said, "if you cheat on your wife, are you gonna be honest with your country?"

McCain married Cindy… Edwards affair was by his own words a loveless sex fling


I think it's hard to argue that having an affair and not coming back is less of a betrayal than having an affair and coming back.
8.9.2008 2:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mnz:

Perhaps when McCain starts talking about how he is such a devoted husband?


As I said, McCain is running on such things as 'straight talk,' character, honor and judgment. He is also running as the candidate of the 'family values' party. Therefore his track record as an adulterer is highly relevant.

Aside from that, McCain does indeed present himself as a family man. Cindy's picture on his home page takes up more space than his. In his bio he mentions his "seven children and four grandchildren," and the kids get their own separate page. And Cindy has her own page, too. Any information there about Carol, or about a divorce, or an affair? Not that I can see.
8.9.2008 2:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
pluribus:

It is no answer to say John McCain would never do something like that. He has admittedly done so at least once in the past.


More than once. I believe he admitted to multiple affairs.
8.9.2008 2:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
terrence:

They are not going to have Edwards speak at the convention


If the idea is that adulterers shouldn't speak at conventions, maybe McCain won't speak at his.
8.9.2008 2:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
nieporent:

writing that McCain got remarried to Cindy because Carol had been in a car accident


The car accident is why McCain left Carol. Cindy's youth, beauty, money and connections are why she got picked instead of someone else. If that's too complicated for you to follow, that's your problem.

he cited the very same quote from a guy who had absolutely no knowledge of the situation


Ross Perot knew the family. He was already paying Carol's hospital bills, and he was responsible for introducing McCain to the Reagans. So you should explain why you're claiming that Perot "had absolutely no knowledge of the situation."
8.9.2008 2:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
michael:

CNN's Iraqi Cover-Up: CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.


I wonder if Saddam appreciated that as much as the cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides (deadly against humans, that is) he obtained with the assistance of Reagan and Rumsfeld, right around the same time that Saddam was gassing civilians.

Then again, I suppose Saddam also appreciated the $53 million that ended up in his pocket when we allowed 14 tankers to leave Iraq shortly before we invaded (details here, here, here and here).
8.9.2008 2:09pm
ShelbyC:
I'm curious about why folks think that none of this matters, either about Edwards or McCain. Should a candidate for public office have a highly developed sense of personal integrity? Is adultry consistent with highly developed sense of personal integrity?
8.9.2008 2:10pm
trad and anon:
In his bio he mentions his "seven children"
One per house, I guess? Or per decade?
8.9.2008 2:48pm
NRWO:
Neurodoc says: “Tell us, if you will, whether presidents who (we believe) were faithful to their wives (e.g., Carter) were generally better for the country than those who weren't (e.g., FDR and JFK)? If marital fidelity has no predictive value as far as how competent they will prove in the exercise of their official duties, then why pay the matter any attention?”

What personal characteristics do have predictive value? My sense is that political partisans -- and voters in general -- will always find ways to discount bad behavior of candidates they like. This is because (a) bad behavior (e.g., adultery) can be offset by one or more perceived good characteristics (e.g., probability of being a good CiC); (b) whether a candidate has good (or bad) character is often a matter of judgement that cannot be conclusively proven; and (c) whether bad character is dispositive in a decision to vote against a candidate (or vote at all) depends on the alternatives.

In any case, bad behavior such as adultery can significantly impede the ability of an executive to discharge his or her duty when it leads to distractions that funnel attention away from job goals. If a president has an affair, and he believes discovery of it would damage his reputation or ability to be-re-elected, he may be subject to blackmail.

In addition, people who believe that some candidates have performed well despite having affairs may create the perception that on balance affairs have negligible effects on the performance of chief executives – when having an affair (versus not having one) creates distractions (e.g., public debate about honesty and fitness for office) that probably reduce performance (e.g., the theory that Clinton’s decision to bomb a weapons depot – that turned-out to be a pharmaceutical factory – was influenced by Monicagate).

Also, discounting the effects of affairs probably increases the incentive of would-be philanderer-executives to have affairs (for, if you know people are generally willing to discount your affair, so long as public perception remains favorable, you are more likely to do the naughty thing).

Finally, discounting affairs (or any type of bad behavior) can, to use Moynihan’s term, define deviancy down, increasing the likelihood that people find the behavior less objectionable and, if they’re at the margin (on the cusp of making a decision to have an affair), increase the likelihood of engaging in deviant behavior.

My visceral reaction to the pieces about McCain, pointed to by Tarheel and Juke (and about which I wasn’t aware), can be summed-up in one word: Disgust.
8.9.2008 2:54pm
pireader (mail):
ShelbyC asked--"Is adultry consistent with highly developed sense of personal integrity?"

I'm a management consultant. Over the years, I've had occasion to know a considerable number of men (and some women) who held positions of great responsibility in large organizations in both the private and public sectors, across a range of countries. I knew them and their colleagues well enough to be aware of their actual/reputed personal lives. They've ranged from strict family men (and women) to out-and-out womanizers.

As best I can tell, there's no relation whatsoever between successful leadership--including the highest professional integrity--and a personal life of sexual fidelity or promiscuity.

Over the past ten years since Messrs. Clinton and Gingrich brought this issue into the headlines, I've asked several of my partners for their views. None of them saw any relation either.

YMMV
8.9.2008 2:55pm
Public_Defender (mail):

We lament that the John Edwards story gets priority over the Georgia story, yet at the time I post this comment, there are NOW 76 coments on this thread, while only 18 on the substantive thread regarding the Russo-Georgian conflict.

So, even here, we see where the interest is.


And, alas, the knowledge. I say this as someone who both commented here and does not know enough to post an intelligent comment on the Georgia-Russia war.
8.9.2008 3:24pm
John Herbison (mail):
Assume for sake of discuaaion that Fox News is carrying water for the Republican Party--admittedy not a difficult assumption to make. Who is harmed by a discussion of marital infidelity by a candidate for president?

Senator Obama has been slammed six ways to Sunday by the Rovians in John McCain's employ, but none of the criticism has impugned his devotion to his wife and daughters. McCain has an acknowledged history of horndoggery while married to a crippled and disfigured first wife, including divorcing her to marry a 24 year old Barbie beer heiress.

McCain makes much of his military background (though he doesn't talk about losing five planes). Many of McCains supporters make much of his reputation as a man of honor. During his multiple affairs, McCain was an officer in the United States Navy; ergo, his adultery violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He may have been an officer, but he was surely no gentleman.

McCain is currently trying to shore up his standing among evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians. (Some commentators who are more knowledgeable than I have written that McCain's "The One" ad includes symbolism associating Obama with the Antichrist.) In this context, those who take the words of Jesus literally may conclude that McCain's current marriage constitutes a present state of adultery. (Oh, how I wish that someone in the media or, better yet, some preacher that McCain tries to suck up to would ask McCain about Jesus' teachings at Mark 10:9 and Luke 16:18.)

In this context, the wariness of Fox News regarding John Edwards' admission advances a Republican agenda.
8.9.2008 3:28pm
The Ace (mail):
is likely going to bring up mentions of the fact that John McCain also had an affair.

Except John McCain didn't have an affair.

It was inferred he did by a sloppily written story in the NYT.

Those are 2 different things.
8.9.2008 3:35pm
MartyA:
The role of the mainstream media in the Edwards scandal is fascinating. Their refusal to cover the story is just like their refusal to cover any possible negative in Obama's background. There is the issue of Larry Sinclair, for example.
My bet is they will continue to ignore Obama's background, early next week declare the Edwards story to be over, and revert to type on protecting left wingers, Kwame, for example.
The legacy media isn't just inept, it is anti-American. And, next week, they have to protect Russia and help prove how evil a friend of George Bush's is.
8.9.2008 3:38pm
Hoosier:
"We lament that the John Edwards story gets priority over the Georgia story, yet at the time I post this comment, there are NOW 76 coments on this thread, while only 18 on the substantive thread regarding the Russo-Georgian conflict.

So, even here, we see where the interest is. "

Well, I TRIED to talk about that. But they wouldn't LET me!
8.9.2008 3:38pm
The Ace (mail):
I wonder if Saddam appreciated that as much as the cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides (deadly against humans, that is) he obtained with the assistance of Reagan and Rumsfeld, right around the same time that Saddam was gassing civilians.

Hilarious.

Saddam didn't receive assistance from Reagan or Rumsfeld.

Allegations are not fact.

Except when you're a liberal.
8.9.2008 3:40pm
The Ace (mail):
By the way, I love that the response from jokebox is to: a) Lie b) Attempt to change the subject and C) Ignore inconvenient facts.
8.9.2008 3:42pm
really (mail) (www):
What an opportunity for an ecumenical moment. The Republican convention with a priest in robes swinging an incense censor followed by rabbis and Episcopalian clergy and Obama's half brother dressed as an imam. Senator Mccain could ascend the podium and confess that if he had just not misled John Edwards all would be hunky dory and John would be AG. For good measure, John M. could confess that beyond his recent 30 year old affair with his current wife, his grandfather on several occasions in the nineteen teen's used the n-word. Various Volokh commenters could ably finish out the script (try to work in William the Conqueror).
8.9.2008 3:48pm
Hoosier:
So . . . do you all think that Mikheil Saakashvili would be more (or less) effective in his response to the Russian invasion if he were having an affair with a blonde chick?

(Trying to heave this train back onto the track.)
8.9.2008 3:50pm
Hoosier:
MartyA:
"Their refusal to cover the story is just like their refusal to cover any possible negative in Obama's background. There is the issue of Larry Sinclair, for example. "

I suspect the MSM avoids the Sinclair Affair for the same reason it provides so little useful coverage on the Yeti.
8.9.2008 3:52pm
Perseus (mail):
8.9.2008 3:56pm
Hoosier:
UPDATE:

"Russian fighter jets targeted the the major Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline which carries oil to the West from Asia but missed, Georgia's Economic Development Minister Ekaterina Sharashidze said on Saturday."

Because them pipleines move FAST!

(Remind me why these guys lost the Cold War . . . ?)
8.9.2008 3:56pm
GV:

Except John McCain didn't have an affair.

It was inferred he did by a sloppily written story in the NYT.

Those are 2 different things.

"The Ace," if you're going to join a thread this late and comment on an early comment, you might at least want to see if your comment has already been addressed (which it has).

As an aside, I think the fact that several people on volokh (who I assume are not low-information voters) don’t know that John McCain had an affair means that the vast majority of Americans also have no idea. And regardless of whether having an affair means you’re less likely to be a good president, it is clear that most people think it has some relevancy. Indeed, the people who claim to carae the most typically vote Republican. Thus, as I said before, I think the real loser in this John Edwards saga is going to be John McCain because it is likely to lead to more mentions of his prior affair with Cindy, which apparently most people don’t know about.
8.9.2008 3:59pm
Hoosier:
""The Ace," if you're going to join a thread this late and comment on an early comment, you might at least want to see if your comment has already been addressed (which it has). "

GV is correct. And in the process, I learned that crow doesn't taste too bad. Kinda like chicken.

"Thus, as I said before, I think the real loser in this John Edwards saga is going to be John McCain because it is likely to lead to more mentions of his prior affair with Cindy, which apparently most people don’t know about."

And this will have as much impact as Favre with the Jets? (see next VC post, above)
8.9.2008 4:21pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

The Russians may have launched their offensive after learning of the Edwards news, in order to minimize world attention.


That was the thread winner.

If the Russians were attacking the other Georgia, where CNN is, then that would be more interesting to both CNN and Americans in general.

Cats and dogs fighting does not interest us too much. If we get pictures of dead kids, our interest level may increase.

(I understand Georgia is a NATO applicant but it is not in NATO yet. If it was a NATO member, I would be interested in the war since it would involve the US. Since it will not involve the US, I don't care, like 999999999999% of Americans.)
8.9.2008 4:27pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Ross Perot knew the family. He was already paying Carol's hospital bills, and he was responsible for introducing McCain to the Reagans. So you should explain why you're claiming that Perot "had absolutely no knowledge of the situation."
Actually, you should explain why paying someone's hospital bills a decade earlier -- or any of the things you cite, really -- means Ross Perot has the foggiest idea what John McCain was thinking when he split up with his wife. Especially since Carol McCain -- the only person other than John McCain who would actually know why they split up -- says otherwise.
8.9.2008 4:28pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
GV, I doubt the fact that McCain had affairs 30 years ago, and that he ended up marrying the person he was carrying on the affair with, is going to affect anybody's vote. If it were recent, it would, perhaps.

I think the people who care about affairs generally tend to be non-supporters of the candidate in the first place; the problem with an affair is not so much that it costs you votes directly, but that it changes the focus of your campaign. The media spends all its time asking you about the affair instead of your plan to give everyone a puppy and a hug, and when you try to attack your opponent, nobody notices.
8.9.2008 4:37pm
Hoosier:
Final (?) point:

For those who have said they know nothing about the Russia/Georgia situation: A USEFUL BACKGROUNDER is at the Economist online, with many links to reports from the magazine on past events.

Requires subscription (If you are an academic or student, check out your university library's E-journals. You probably have access.)
8.9.2008 4:38pm
GV:
David, I agree with you that most people only feign concern about an affair when they don't like the candidate already, but we're talking about voters at the margins. Perhaps only 8% of voters truly care, but that's a lot of people. Regarding the time delay, I would normally agree with you, but it's hard to claim that what he did so long ago doens't really matter given that McCain's service in Vietnam has been heavily touted by him as an important credential.

I suspect a lot of middle America who doesn’t have strongly held views on either candidate will be surprised to find out about McCain’s affair and think less of him for it. And at least some of those people will not vote at all or vote for Obama based on this. If I’m right, then this story would be a plus for Obama.
8.9.2008 4:51pm
LM (mail):
neurodoc,

Tell us, if you will, whether presidents who (we believe) were faithful to their wives (e.g., Carter) were generally better for the country than those who weren't (e.g., FDR and JFK)? If marital fidelity has no predictive value as far as how competent they will prove in the exercise of their official duties, then why pay the matter any attention?

Because we don't learn from history -- we just collect fetishes. Ever since the press outed Gary Hart, breaking the unspoken rule to look the other way, there's been no getting that genie back in the bottle. It's a given that infidelity is of the public interest. Like how since Nixon gave secrecy a bad name we've never seriously considered whether there might not be a few things (e.g., FDR in a wheelchair) we're better off not knowing.
8.9.2008 4:55pm
DCP:

A few points:

1. The MSM didn't go after Edwards on this, the National Enquirer did, and he has nobody but himself to blame for that. He went to the MSM to "come clean" and he did it on a friday afternoon, sandwiched in between the Russia story and the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.

2. McCain is obviously a member of the adulterers club and everyone knows it. If you're wondering why the MSM doesn't launch into attack mode over this, it's probably because it happened 30 years ago, he remains on friendly terms with his ex-wife and the woman he cheated with is now his long term wife and they have four kids together. It's one thing to report on John Edwards infidelity when he comes to you and offers a public confession about his recent escapades. It's another to start slinging mud on a happy marriage with four children trying to reopen scars that presumably healed along time ago.

3. I don't think the media wants to dig in these ditches if they can avoid it. It's not a big secret that this was not Edwards first infidelity, that he has some baggage in this department, and that his ex-staffers (one of whom is a friend of mine) have spoke about a year long affair he had while a Senator. It's one of the reasons the Democratic brass never fully embraced him. But the MSM didn't go after it, nor did they when Wesley Clark's campaign started the rumor about Kerry having an affair, nor did they with the latest McCain rumor. I just have a hunch that the media is not interested in this sort of thing, unless they can't avoid it (Clinton, Edwards, Criag, etc).

4. I think public attitudes on this topic have relaxed as they have with recreational drug use. This isn't 1955. I think most people are willing to tolerate a few "youthful indiscretions" as long as it's not over the top on the grounds that (a) it will not affect future performance in office and (b) setting the bar too high in the character department might weed out some of the best candidates. As evidence of this shifting standard note also that Obama's recent admission of past drug use didn't even register a blip on the radar, even in the conservative propaganda ranks. Or Barbara Walters admission that she had a fling with a prominent married Senator who was going through a rough patch in his marriage.
8.9.2008 5:26pm
JK:
Interesting post DCP, thanks.
8.9.2008 6:08pm
Hoosier:
"As evidence of this shifting standard note also that Obama's recent admission of past drug use didn't even register a blip on the radar, even in the conservative propaganda ranks. Or Barbara Walters admission that she had a fling with a prominent married Senator who was going through a rough patch in his marriage."

What bothered me was that she admitted it after all these years, for no apparent reason other than to sell her book. Her former lover is no longer in office; in this world, at least. This tarnishes his image a bit. Why do it?
8.9.2008 6:12pm
pluribus:
pireader:

As best I can tell, there's no relation whatsoever between successful leadership--including the highest professional integrity--and a personal life of sexual fidelity or promiscuity.

Then, why do candidates go to such great lengths to conceal this sort of conduct? Why did Clinton emphatically deny all the Flowers/Broddrick/Jones/Willey/Lewinsky charges? Why did Hart drop out of the race after he was found carrying on with a babe? Why did Edwards tell Woodruff he was hanging around the hotel in the middle of the night, and holding the door shut so reporters couldn't follow him into the men's room, to prevent the public from finding out? There are new charges that Edwards was paying Hunter $15,000 a month to keep quiet. If so, why?

I admit that adultery isn't the only, or even the most serious, offense a public official or candidate can be guilty of. Bribery. Breaking an official oath. Nepotism. Thes are all more serious. But I don't understand why adultery, and even worse promiscuity, shouldn't be regarded as an offense at all.
8.9.2008 6:24pm
pluribus:
David M. Nieporent:

I doubt the fact that McCain had affairs 30 years ago, and that he ended up marrying the person he was carrying on the affair with, is going to affect anybody's vote.

I agree. It certainly won't affect my vote. Particularly since McCain has publicly admitted that he acted badly in the whole affair. I'm more willing to forgive an offense if the offender admits to it.

If it were recent, it would, perhaps.

I agree. If it should develop that the Iseman story has some basis, the fact that McCain got up on national TV and denied it would would certainly affect my vote.
8.9.2008 6:33pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
The FOX bashers hate two things about it: One, it doesn't parrot the liberal tribe and, two, it has double the ratings of every other news network.
8.9.2008 6:43pm
whit:

I think you have it backwards. There is only one party that presents itself as the champion of 'moral values,' while also harboring more than its share of toe-tappers and heiress-chasers


which is great, but at least in the case of edwards, there are metric #$(#$(loads of quotes from him criticizing clinton for adultery, etc. I'm not going to repeat them, but whichever party claims to be the one of moral values, edwards specfically engaged in a significant amount of specific criticism regarding adultery.

and of course... more importantly. it's the whole coverup (not to mention the chick he was boinking was being PAID by his campaign).

then there's the whole cheating on your wife who has just been diagnosed with cancer.

but EASILY the worst and most arrogant part was running for president with this in your (very recent closet) and not disclosing it. if he HAD got the nomination, and he was the nominee right now, and this came out, it would practically guarantee a repub win.

compare and contrast with, for example, the new governor of NY who came into office and took the wind out of everybody's sails by admitting some past dalliances
8.9.2008 6:46pm
LM (mail):
pluribus:

I agree. It certainly won't affect my vote. Particularly since McCain has publicly admitted that he acted badly in the whole affair. I'm more willing to forgive an offense if the offender admits to it.

I wouldn't judge someone else's personal life in the first place. That said, if McCain keeps up the negative campaign against Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if it's brought up that, assuming the LA Times article is true, McCain appears to have lied about the affair in his 2002 autobiography. That event is pretty recent, and in the tradition of Republican attacks on Bill Clinton and John Kerry, it's not the behavior that's the problem -- it's the lying about the behavior.
8.9.2008 7:01pm
LM (mail):
Hoosier:

What bothered me was that she admitted it after all these years, for no apparent reason other than to sell her book. Her former lover is no longer in office; in this world, at least. This tarnishes his image a bit. Why do it?

I