Carol McCain--the OTHER wife...you rarely, if ever, hear about...

[Inky]

This was sent to me, via email, today. A friend of ours, republican, said he won't vote republican this time.

If the following is true, what a real cad/disgrace to both men and the uniform.


Carol McCain

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fiber by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam . And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year- old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children. But there is another Mrs. McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator's presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain's three eldest children.
She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam 's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news. But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfi gured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969.
Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.
When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter. Today, she stands at just 5' 4' in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.
For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain, and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles sout h of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.
My marriage ended because John McCain didn't want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.'
In 1979 - while still married to Carol - he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii . Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage. Some of McCain's acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centered womanizer who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to 'play the field'. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans' rights,
said: 'I have been following John McCain's career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is -deceit.'
When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it. Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.'
McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory,' he said. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona . And the rest is history.'
Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, and a former presidential candidate, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel - even by the standards of modern politics.

[Bubastes]

According to snopes.com, this article is true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/carol.asp

[Captshady]

LOL I remember democrats lining up in droves to support another womanizer. But it was okay when HE did it.

[Takvah]

McCain called the demise of his marriage his greatest personal failure. He stood before the RNC and told of his reckless and cocky youth in a poignant way recounting his capture. Carol McCain doesn't seem to harbor animosity but I have heard Dems like Randi Rhodes make all kinds of cruel remarks and speculative comments about this personal event. If people want to attack McCain on Keating, it's fair... but it's not sexy. Meanwhile where McCain is candid about his failures, Obama can't recount the biggest real estate transaction of his life, wine and cheese fundraisers at the home of domestic terrorists or whether or not he ever heard his MENTOR utter a hateful comment.

Meanwhile in other news... Rome is burning.

[C A Winters]

According to snopes.com, this article is true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/carol.asp

I'm not saying it's okay to do what McCain did--but it probably would have happened regardless of his wife's condition.

This news is very old news, it's been played and re-played by the dems. And they, the dems, the ones who forgave a man for dishonoring the white house while in office, in a far worse way.... lying under oath to cover his sorry butt.

See how old news can be dug up and slung around? Par for the course, I guess.

We need to be focusing on the serious issues. AND the two major candidates do too!

[Roger J Carlson]

I thought a person's love life was nobody's business. At least that was the message during the Clinton years. Funny how it changes when the party of the candidate does.

[donroc]

Irrelevant to how I shall vote. Next try?

[Alpha Echo]

McCain called the demise of his marriage his greatest personal failure. He stood before the RNC and told of his reckless and cocky youth in a poignant way recounting his capture. Carol McCain doesn't seem to harbor animosity but I have heard Dems like Randi Rhodes make all kinds of cruel remarks and speculative comments about this personal event. If people want to attack McCain on Keating, it's fair... but it's not sexy. Meanwhile where McCain is candid about his failures, Obama can't recount the biggest real estate transaction of his life, wine and cheese fundraisers at the home of domestic terrorists or whether or not he ever heard his MENTOR utter a hateful comment.



Yes, this is true. He publically talked about how he was cocky and self-centered. He ADMITTED that to the nation.

Back when Clinton had his issues, everyone said, "Oh, but he's a man. He's human. Those are his personal issues. Who cares. It doesn't affect how he runs the nation."

And now, this is any different? He's not the first man to do something selfish and cocky and ignorant and stupid. Many men and women do things they regret that change the course of their own lives and often the lives of those they love or those who love them. And that was OVER 30 YEARS AGO. Just like Clinton's smoking (without inhaling of course) was during a time in his youth. He grew, so has McCain.

Sheesh.

[Christine N.]

Doesn't matter to me, and it doesn't impact the way he might run the country, anymore than it impacted Clinton's presidency (though Bill didn't run around in public, nor did he divorce Hillary). Or JFK's. Or Roosevelt's. Or Regan's - remember, he had a first wife. But I think that divorce was amicable and not the result of philandering.

McCain would mess this country up even if he was still WITH Carol.

I have other reasons not to vote for him, and none of them have to do with his personal life.

[Don]

Gee, proof that another politician is slime. What a surprise. Just like with Clinton, the partisans will claim that a man's moral fiber has nothing to do with his ability to run the country. They ignore the fact that if a man will lie to the love of his life, the American public has no chance of a fair shake.

[johnnysannie]

I thought a person's love life was nobody's business. At least that was the message during the Clinton years. Funny how it changes when the party of the candidate does.

Hmm.....seems like Bill Clinton's love life was major news and major factor at the time. Ken Starr certainly thought so.....and there was that little ol' impeachment thing (impeached by the house, acquitted by the Senate).

Personally I don't care about the candidates "love lives". McCain's abandonment of his wife who had suffered serious injuries and physical disability and his failure to be faithful to his first wife indicate his true character which is not the moral fiber he claims.

But like someone else on this thread - I believe Christine N - McCain's so-called "love life" is not the reason why I won't vote for the man.

[Takvah]

John McCain would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." Carol McCain would later say: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else." John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on." According to Carol, her husband's five-year captivity in Vietnam had left him wanting to "make up for lost time" and John put it this way: "I had changed, she had changed....People who have been apart that much change."

Despite the divorce, Carol McCain has remained on good terms with John McCain, and has supported him in all his subsequent political campaigns. She refused to discuss her marriage with an election opponent of McCain's in 1982 who was seeking negative information about him, telling the opponent that "a gentleman never would have called." She supports her ex-husband's 2008 presidential campaign, and told The Mail on Sunday in June 2008 that she was not bitter and that, "He’s a good guy. We are still good friends. He is the best man for president."

Sounds like pretty standard stuff. Also, John McCain didn't divorce Carol until 1980. He didn't hop off a plane, see a grotesque and dump her on the tarmac... although somebody here might like you to infer that.

[shawkins]

There are exactly two people who might understand what the dynamics are of any given marriage. Outside speculation is pointless.

Having said that, I do hope the people who recoiled in moral outrage at Bill Clinton's infidelities will keep this one in mind come election day.

[Takvah]

There are exactly two people who might understand what the dynamics are of any given marriage. Outside speculation is pointless.

Having said that, I do hope the people who recoiled in moral outrage at Bill Clinton's infidelities will keep this one in mind come election day.

Hmmm... I don't know... there is something decidely tasteless about your President placing a LIT cigar up some young girl's (an intern and a subordinate) heynannynanny... I don't care that he did it, but I think it was an abuse of power... and to shake that fist at all of us and to point and to be so emphatic in denial... it was the entirety of the deed.

[Roger J Carlson]

Hmm.....seems like Bill Clinton's love life was major news and major factor at the time. Ken Starr certainly thought so.....and there was that little ol' impeachment thing (impeached by the house, acquitted by the Senate).Hmm....seems like Bill Clinton's indiscretion happened while he was actually in the most powerful office in the land. That says something about his character at the time he was President, not 30 years ago.

Having said that, I do hope the people who recoiled in moral outrage at Bill Clinton's infidelities will keep this one in mind come election day.Deal! If those who supported Clinton will do likewise come election day.

[tiny]

Many marriages fail when soldiers come home from battle. The person who comes home is not the same person who left. Rumors, opinions, moral high horses being trotted around through email and blogs is very sad.

[Takvah]

Many marriages fail when soldiers come home from battle. The person who comes home is not the same person who left. Rumors, opinions, moral high horses being trotted around through email and blogs is very sad.

I think that this thread could likely be closed on that salient and factual point.

[maestrowork]

That happened about 30 years ago. No relevance here. But I agree, let's drop the "How about Bill Clinton" -- why does it always come back to Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton is irrelevant in this discussion about McCain and also this election.

Now, the comments about "deceit" and "opportunistic" are more general and something to think about if we want to focus on "character." After all, McCain's the one who keeps talking about being a POW, and that also happened 30 years ago. I mean, if we're going to attack Obama as an "elitist" we should at least extend McCain the same courtesy.

[Captshady]

That happened about 30 years ago. No relevance here. But I agree, let's drop the "How about Bill Clinton" -- why does it always come back to Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton is irrelevant in this discussion about McCain and also this election.

How so? Those that excused a more horrid act not too long ago will be quick to persecute this time. Pointing out the insanity of the double standard is quite relevant, IMO.

[maestrowork]

How so? Those that excused a more horrid act not too long ago will be quick to persecute this time. Pointing out the insanity of the double standard is quite relevant, IMO.

Who here has double standards? If anything, many of us are saying what McCain did was irrelevant. So what does it have to do with Clinton now?

It's the standard Republican talking points: "What about Bill Clinton, that scoundrel?" In fact, it's the Republicans who are having double standards -- they pounded on Clinton, and now regarded McCain's indiscretion as "it happens." They rode on their high horses about morals, and then said, "Bristol Palin is a wonderful girl who decides to keep her baby..." I see partisan biases are alive and well here. It's getting a bit old, though.

[Ageless Stranger]

Who here has double standards? If anything, many of us are saying what McCain did was irrelevant. So what does it have to do with Clinton now?

It's the standard Republican talking points: "What about Bill Clinton, that scoundrel?" In fact, it's the Republicans who are having double standards -- they pounded on Clinton, and now regarded McCain's indiscretion as "it happens." They rode on their high horses about morals, and then said, "Bristol Palin is a wonderful girl who decides to keep her baby..." I see bipartisan biases are alive and well here. It's getting really old.


Hopefully they'll die of old age soon, but I doubt it.

[Tirjasdyn]

Back when Clinton had his issues, everyone said, "Oh, but he's a man. He's human. Those are his personal issues. Who cares. It doesn't affect how he runs the nation."



Really? No, actually.

My college campus at the time held a rally against Clinton.

I don't like McCain, I don't like Clinton(s), I don't like Obama.

[Captshady]

They rode on their high horses about morals, and then said, "Bristol Palin is a wonderful girl who decides to keep her baby..." I see partisan biases are alive and well here. It's getting a bit old, though.

Where's the bias? Anti-abortionists have always favored keeping a baby, or putting it up for adoption over termination. I see them sticking to that in this situation.

As for Clinton, the fact that this is being brought up at all, is being done by democrats. Those that stood in line to defend Clinton and his long list of women making claims of sexual deviance. The difference is in the level of deviance. Clinton: did it more than once, lied to the American people about it, perjured himself about it. McCain: at best, his own shallowness (debatable at best) had him leave his wife for greener pastures, 30 years ago.

[icerose]

I didn't care about it when Bill Clinton did it, though I knew he was lying. I don't care about McCain doing it thirty years ago. I didn't care when I found out all those other presidents did it. If they can just do their job, I don't care what else they are doing.

Take GWB for example. For all we know, he's been 100% faithful to his wife, what good as a country, did that do us? Obviously had he strayed it wouldn't have changed his presidency, but I'm pointing it out to say personal fidelity does not decide how good they are as presidents.

[Roger J Carlson]

Who here has double standards? If anything, many of us are saying what McCain did was irrelevant. So what does it have to do with Clinton now?

It's the standard Republican talking points: "What about Bill Clinton, that scoundrel?" In fact, it's the Republicans who are having double standards -- they pounded on Clinton, and now regarded McCain's indiscretion as "it happens." They rode on their high horses about morals, and then said, "Bristol Palin is a wonderful girl who decides to keep her baby..." I see partisan biases are alive and well here. It's getting a bit old, though.Let's be careful of our own high horses then, because the democrats spent much of the Clinton years blaming Reagan/Bush for just about everything.

When one party does something, it's a little unfair to call foul when the other side does it...regardless of the party.

[Captshady]

When one party does something, it's a little unfair to call foul when the other side does it...regardless of the party.

Agreed 100%

[Takvah]

Hi... are you an Iraq war veteran? Did you come home after years at war and find that life had moved on without you? Tough to cope with the changes? Has it caused marital strife? Are you getting a divorce? Well then you're scum and you're unfit to be the President of the United States. At least according to some people around here.

[Alpha Echo]

It's the standard Republican talking points: "What about Bill Clinton, that scoundrel?" In fact, it's the Republicans who are having double standards -- they pounded on Clinton, and now regarded McCain's indiscretion as "it happens." They rode on their high horses about morals, and then said, "Bristol Palin is a wonderful girl who decides to keep her baby..." I see partisan biases are alive and well here. It's getting a bit old, though.

Not every Republican. Not this one, anyway. I didn't agree morally with Bill Clinton, but it didn't appear to be altering his leadership. I don't agree morally with McCain, though, as someone said, none of can truly know what happened between him and his first wife. War changes people - both those who fight it on the frontlines and those who fight it from home.

[maestrowork]

Where's the bias? Anti-abortionists have always favored keeping a baby, or putting it up for adoption over termination. I see them sticking to that in this situation.


But they're sidestepping the fact that she got pregnant at 17. And if somebody tries to say something, there's a blanket statement: "Leave her family alone." That's the kind of double standard I'm talking about, even though I agree that her family should be left alone.

As for Clinton, the fact that this is being brought up at all, is being done by democrats.


Really? Inky said the email was sent from her Republican friend. Plus, it's a story, and it's a fact. Perhaps the Democrats want to use this to illustrate McCain is not the honorable man we all praise he is. And I think they have a point, at least the McCain 30 years ago.


Clinton: did it more than once, lied to the American people about it, perjured himself about it. McCain: at best, his own shallowness (debatable at best) had him leave his wife for greener pastures, 30 years ago.

That's exactly what I'm saying though -- pounding on Clinton and then said about McCain: "It happens." "Debatable shallowness"?

Why not have the balls and say both were wrong? At least you'll come off a bit more honest.

[InfinityGoddess]

Where's the bias? Anti-abortionists have always favored keeping a baby, or putting it up for adoption over termination. I see them sticking to that in this situation.

As for Clinton, the fact that this is being brought up at all, is being done by democrats. Those that stood in line to defend Clinton and his long list of women making claims of sexual deviance. The difference is in the level of deviance. Clinton: did it more than once, lied to the American people about it, perjured himself about it. McCain: at best, his own shallowness (debatable at best) had him leave his wife for greener pastures, 30 years ago.

Some of the Republicans that wanted to have Clinton impeached were also adulterers. Newt Gingrich springs to mind. One wife he had left behind was on the operating table for cancer treatment.

Part of the defense of Clinton's own adultery was the fact that many of those Republicans in Congress who wanted to hang him for lying about Monica were not without some extramarital sin of their own. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". In other words; they were hypocrites.

[Alpha Echo]

Some of the Republicans that wanted to have Clinton impeached were also adulterers. Newt Gingrich springs to mind. One wife he had left behind was on the operating table for cancer treatment.

Part of the defense of Clinton's own adultery was the fact that many of those Republicans in Congress who wanted to hang him for lying about Monica were not without some extramarital sin of their own. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". In other words; they were hypocrites.

And that's wrong too. But two wrongs do not make a right.

What Clinton did was wrong. He went beyond adultry, and lied as a leader to his country, and THAT'S where the trouble came in...IMO.

What McCain did sounds very wrong as well. He admitted to doing it and admitted to being wrong. It was 30 years ago, not during his presidency, and he was open and honest about what happened rather than trying to cover it all up.

There's a difference.

[maestrowork]

Did you come home after years at war and find that life had moved on without you? Tough to cope with the changes? Has it caused marital strife? Are you getting a divorce? Well then you're scum and you're unfit to be the President of the United States. At least according to some people around here.

Hey, we're praising him for being a war hero, a POW (in fact, McCain seemed to answer everything with "I was a POW.") I think it's only fair we talk about the other side of that? So did he have trouble dealing after coming back from the war? Did he cheat on his first wife? Etc. I think those are legit questions, if we want to talk about his life as a war veteran and POW. Why only focus on the "good stuff"? Being a POW doesn't automatically make someone a great person...

Listen, yes, it happens. Yes, war changes people. And yes, people do get divorce for whatever reasons. All of that may or may not have anything to do with McCain's fitness to run the country. And his "love life" certainly has little to do with his ability to lead.

But it also doesn't mean we should just ignore all of that as if they never happened. It was a big part of McCain's life, and it shaped him in certain ways. Yes, it happened 30 years ago, but so was the POW. If we're going to talk about how being a POW makes him fit for the presidency, then we may want to examine that a little more fully.

[Captshady]

But they're sidestepping the fact that she got pregnant at 17. And if somebody tries to say something, there's a blanket statement: "Leave her family alone." That's the kind of double standard I'm talking about, even though I agree that her family should be left alone.

Hmmm, better brought up against the Abstinence only crowd then, which I haven't heard how McCain nor Palin stand on these issues.

Really? Inky said the email was sent from her Republican friend. Plus, it's a story, and it's a fact. Perhaps the Democrats want to use this to illustrate McCain is not the honorable man we all praise he is. And I think they have a point, at least the McCain 30 years ago.

FORMER republican. Democrats didn't feel any dishonor was done while serving in the whitehouse. This is a suddenly important issue when they're praying for votes.

That's exactly what I'm saying though -- pounding on Clinton and then said about McCain: "It happens." "Debatable shallowness"?

Why not have the balls and say both were wrong? At least you'll come off a bit more honest.

Because it's apples and oranges.

- One man left his wife. The other cheated on his wife multiple times while serving.

- One man admitted his indiscretions and seemed to feel sorry about it. The other lied incessantly about it, perjured himself about it, and came up with now infamous "that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

[dgiharris]

When I first read this, I was outraged. Then, after careful consideration, I am still outraged.

However, this doesn't mean that I think less of McCain. Here is why.

The person we are now is the sum of all our mistakes (as well as successes).

In many cases, it is those aggregious mistakes that result in our being more noble than had that mistake or crime never occurred.

That will be a tough pill for 'holy-er than thou" types to swallow, but I believe it is true.

Of course, the converse can be true, past mistakes and crimes 'can' reinforce present mistakes and crimes. But my point is that is not always the case, and in the case of John McCain, his personal failure at 40 could have shaped him into the person he is today and given him the moral compass he wishes us to believe he has.

In the end, it is not a deciding factor in my vote. I supported McCain in 2000 becuase I thought he was the best republican candidate. But I'm voting for Obama because I want change.

Mel...

[cethklein]

Hi... are you an Iraq war veteran? Did you come home after years at war and find that life had moved on without you? Tough to cope with the changes? Has it caused marital strife? Are you getting a divorce? Well then you're scum and you're unfit to be the President of the United States. At least according to some people around here.

It doesn't make one unfit to be president. But it doesn't solely make them fit either.

[Joe270]

Part of the defense of Clinton's own adultery was the fact that many of those Republicans in Congress who wanted to hang him for lying about Monica were not without some extramarital sin of their own.

The point of Clinton's affair was that it was with an intern, the junior most staff with the senior most, the president.

In the military, which the POTUS is commander in chief of, such a relationship is considered 'fraternization', and the punishments are severe. It is considered an abuse of power, and it is.

But that never applied to Clinton, somehow.

It's not a matter of 'sin', and the comparison with people having affairs with people they have no power over, save sex appeal, just isn't the same.

[InfinityGoddess]

And that's wrong too. But two wrongs do not make a right.

What Clinton did was wrong. He went beyond adultry, and lied as a leader to his country, and THAT'S where the trouble came in...IMO.

What McCain did sounds very wrong as well. He admitted to doing it and admitted to being wrong. It was 30 years ago, not during his presidency, and he was open and honest about what happened rather than trying to cover it all up.

There's a difference.

Clinton wasn't convicted in the end, though, and he was more popular after his trial. So apparently the American people didn't care that he lied about his personal life over all.

Personally, I usually only have a problem with a politician's personal life when they are trying to pretend to be holier-than-thou when they really aren't.

[robeiae]

Personally, I don't care that Clinton was/is an adulterer. And I don't think he should have been impeached.

That said, his actions were stupid. He had sex with an employee while he was a sitting President--and while he was "on the clock." That's not a moral problem, that's a security problem and a employer/employee problem. Huge ones? Not in my opinion. But it was still a stupid thing to do.

[TerzaRima]

I have the strangest sensation of deja vu.

[robeiae]

I have the strangest sensation of deja vu.
Have you ever felt it before?

[Captshady]

What would be interesting, is what McCain had to say about Bill Clinton's indiscrections at the time. Not his perjuring himself though, that's a different issue. McCain should be on record about the affair, if anyone cares to research it. Especially a nexis search.

[InfinityGoddess]

The point of Clinton's affair was that it was with an intern, the junior most staff with the senior most, the president.

In the military, which the POTUS is commander in chief of, such a relationship is considered 'fraternization', and the punishments are severe. It is considered an abuse of power, and it is.

But that never applied to Clinton, somehow.

It's not a matter of 'sin', and the comparison with people having affairs with people they have no power over, save sex appeal, just isn't the same.

Eh, Monica was an adult. It wasn't as if she was some young, naive girl who didn't know that the guy she was doing the hanky-panky with was her own boss. She had the choice not to engage if she didn't want to. But she did and reports suggest that she liked it.

Besides that, other politicians do the same thing; they flirt or engage with their junior staff. Mark Foley was flirting with his male pages, after all. Now that is most definitely abuse, because these boys were underage.

[Captshady]

Eh, Monica was an adult. It wasn't as if she was some young, naive girl who didn't know that the guy she was doing the hanky-panky with was her own boss. She had the choice not to engage if she didn't want to. But she did and reports suggest that she liked it.

Besides that, other politicians do the same thing; they flirt or engage with their junior staff. Mark Foley was flirting with his male pages, after all. Now that is most definitely abuse, because these boys were underage.

ROFL!!! After awhile your allegiance is just funny.

[MarkEsq]

Disclaimer: MarkEsq = Obama voter.

Now then.

This is old news. Which means it ain't news. And not only is it not news, it's not relevant. Only McCain and his first wife know what went on and whatever it was, it went on 30 years ago. Find me a CEO or leader who hasn't commited at least one act of dubious moral value in the last quarter century and I'll find you... well, as someone pointed out: a crappy President.

But if you cared that Clinton cheated on his wife don't act like McCain's abandoning his means nothing. It's hypocritical, frankly, Ray was right to point that out.

He was also right to point out the 30-years-ago inconsistency. Don't tell me he'll make a great Prez because he was a POW but that other actions that long ago are irrelevant. Personally, I don't think being held as a POW is much of a qualification for CEO of the USA, in and of itself. But then that's not a very pc thing to say, is it?

[Captshady]

Disclaimer: MarkEsq = Obama voter.

Now then.

This is old news. Which means it ain't news. And not only is it not news, it's not relevant. Only McCain and his first wife know what went on and whatever it was, it went on 30 years ago. Find me a CEO or leader who hasn't commited at least one act of dubious moral value in the last quarter century and I'll find you... well, as someone pointed out: a crappy President.

But if you cared that Clinton cheated on his wife don't act like McCain's abandoning his means nothing. It's hypocritical, frankly, Ray was right to point that out.

He was also right to point out the 30-years-ago inconsistency. Don't tell me he'll make a great Prez because he was a POW but that other actions that long ago are irrelevant. Personally, I don't think being held as a POW is much of a qualification for CEO of the USA, in and of itself. But then that's not a very pc thing to say, is it?

I'll agree with most of that. The part I disagree with you on, is that Clinton's actions were far different than McCain's. That's like comparing misd. shoplifting with felony grand theft. We don't even know if McCain actually cheated on his first wife with his second, so it might even be more like comparing misd. shoplifting with murder. I'm bothered by this accusation, but I'm troubled with the public's comparing McCain's actions here, with Clinton's actions while serving as Governor and President.

[InfinityGoddess]

ROFL!!! After awhile your allegiance is just funny.

I have no such "allegiance". Thank you. I have issues of my own with Clinton that has nothing to do with boinking women other than his wife and lying about it. And they are far more of an important matter.

[TerzaRima]

Have you ever felt it before?


Hee. It's as if I'm just about to see Puxatawney Phil poke his nose out of the ground.

[dgiharris]

Personally, I don't think being held as a POW is much of a qualification for CEO of the USA, in and of itself. But then that's not a very pc thing to say, is it?

Very true. This is one of those things about politics that annoys me to no end.

We hold up somethign shinny and pretty and say "hey look at this, Vote for me"

Now, being a POW will give you some insights into things, but in and of itself, it is not going to solve our current economic problems.

We should be more interested in concrete tangibles that prove he will be a good president.

Intelligence, knowledge of current events, political theory, economic theory, history, law, leadership ability, business savvy, etc, etc.

I'm so tired of candidates spouting off laundry lists of 'stuff'. Why not a debate that delves deep into an issue. Take public education.

Dive into the numbers, the logic, the equations, the HOW. Don't just spout "no child left behind". Have a debate where you drill down to the nth level, a debate that proves your solution is realistic and plausible.

Too many times, the answers are so top level as to be nearly pointless.

But alas, the public prefers shiny distractions. Yes, they are nice, but not nearly as relevant as people believe.

Mel...

[Captshady]

I have no such "allegiance". Thank you. I have issues of my own with Clinton that has nothing to do with boinking women other than his wife and lying about it. And they are far more of an important matter.

To sum up your opinion of this. What McCain did was terrible and proof he's lacking in moral fiber. What Clinton did ... well, I guess it was bad.

[Don]

Hi... are you an Iraq war veteran? Did you come home after years at war and find that life had moved on without you? Tough to cope with the changes? Has it caused marital strife? Are you getting a divorce? Well then you're scum and you're unfit to be the President of the United States. At least according to some people around here.
There are adult ways to deal with changes. I have no issue with his divorce. I do have issues with the lying and cheating, regardless of party.

[MarkEsq]

I'll agree with most of that. The part I disagree with you on, is that Clinton's actions were far different than McCain's. That's like comparing misd. shoplifting with felony grand theft. We don't even know if McCain actually cheated on his first wife with his second, so it might even be more like comparing misd. shoplifting with murder. I'm bothered by this accusation, but I'm troubled with the public's comparing McCain's actions here, with Clinton's actions while serving as Governor and President.

You know, as I think about it I might just have to agree. Or disagree. Here's what I mean: on a moral level, I think their actions are the same. The both cheated. Now, both are irrelevant to me as qualifications for CEO.
But on a judgment level, Clinton's actions were far worse. Abuse of power, potential for blackmail/coercion, lying under oath... so I think the comparison is a poor one for those reasons.

[Don]

You know, as I think about it I might just have to agree. Or disagree. Here's what I mean: on a moral level, I think their actions are the same. The both cheated. Now, both are irrelevant to me as qualifications for CEO.
But on a judgment level, Clinton's actions were far worse. Abuse of power, potential for blackmail/coercion, lying under oath... so I think the comparison is a poor one for those reasons.
Yeah, what if Monica had been an agent for some foreign power? Talk about compromised. Seriously.

[InfinityGoddess]

To sum up your opinion of this. What McCain did was terrible and proof he's lacking in moral fiber. What Clinton did ... well, I guess it was bad.

No, to sum up my opinion of this; none of those personal issues matter and they aren't my business. What matters is what these men do as policy that affects the nation.

Personal issues would only matter to me when they try to proclaim some sort of moral superiority complex by legislating morality and then later we find out that they would have to arrest themselves under their own laws. Sort of sad, yet delicious and amusing to watch in a way.

[Inky]

Hey all,
sorry to have started this thread, then bailed. The military, in their infinite wisdom, has decided we need a bigger house and that we're to move to the other side of base...AND they dropped the bomb on us that they've moved our 'move-in' date up by two weeks...
Translation: packers and movers began today...this morning...complete madness.

Anyhoo, you all have very valid points.

When I read this email, my shock wasn't so much having affairs--unfortunately it's become the expected norm--but rather, the seemingly reason behind it: his wife was no longer the perfect face, willowy body. Yes, he admits NOW that he wasn't so suave in how he handled the situation THEN, but it feels like he's fessing up to this/taking blame because the spotlight is on him, and it's the 'make everyone feel good about me again, right thing to say.

But what about the damage that was done to Carol all those years ago? She might be a lady in how she talks about the situation, but 30 years is enough time to dull the pain of rejection.

In a nutshell, I was simply disgusted by his conduct towards an individual who was now physically impaired--his own wife, to boot!

As for his claim to fame POW mantra--because mantra is what it's become--I'm failing to see why this must be his answer for everything; his qualifying platform.

At the end of the day, I think he's insensitive....to what degree? Well, I'm not so sure I want the impairments of this country to be what finds out.

[whistlelock]

Personally, I feel this should not be brought up. A marriage is a lot of things, and they're very easy to destroy.

[johnnysannie]

Hey all,


In a nutshell, I was simply disgusted by his conduct towards an individual who was now physically impaired--his own wife, to boot!

As for his claim to fame POW mantra--because mantra is what it's become--I'm failing to see why this must be his answer for everything; his qualifying platform.

At the end of the day, I think he's insensitive....to what degree? Well, I'm not so sure I want the impairments of this country to be what finds out.

This sums up how I feel. And although I respect all our military (I'm an Army brat and wife of an Air Force vet with many service people on branches of the family tree) and McCain's POW years, I am tired of hearing about it. Being a POW does not in and of itself qualify anyone for the office of President and IMHO, McCain himself has degraded his experience as a POW into just another campaign tool.

And I think McCain is insensitive on about all counts.

[eldragon]

The list of infidelities and divorces is endless and has little to do with party lines.

Idaho Senator Larry Craig is a Republican, but John Edwards is a Democrat. They both demoralized, degraded and humiliated their wives in the past year or so.

I can understand McCain wanting to leave his wife after spending all those years in a tiny cell. A lot of things had changed. He probably felt like a different man.

I'm still not voting for him though.

[Inky]

If he had come back a changed man, and it destroyed their relationship, that's so normal, it's become the expected.
But I think it was a bit colder/dirtier than that.

I know politicians talk out both sides of their mouth, and it's almost as if lying is somehow part of the 'if you can't lie well, you won't fit in at Washington' competition, but it's not just his wife he was insensitive towards. What about their children, back then? What message did he send them? I can only hope they grew up to be sensitive men, having seen what their mother went through.
Furthermore, I've listened as closely as possible to both parties, since I couldn't make up my mind, but wanted it to be MY OWN mind that was doing the processing. Again, I'm not politically savy, so I had to listen closely. He comes across as insensitive towards middle class, the TRUE cost of living for most Americans, and seems to remain in a state of denial regarding our current economy.

And then he picks Palin.
THAT was an insult to many women.
Why?
Because it came across more as picking something with a vagina, assuming most women are stupid enough to vote for him now, simply because his running mate has tits and twat.
Obama made a good point when he stated that if he were to die, the country needs to be left in the hands of someone capable and with experience.
Now, in all honesty, I don't know much about Biden, so for all intents and purposes, he could be a bloody nightmare.

Scary times, this voting stuff, scary times.

[Bartholomew]

Meanwhile in other news... Rome is burning.

Anyone up for some fiddle music?

[Tirjasdyn]

Hi... are you an Iraq war veteran? Did you come home after years at war and find that life had moved on without you? Tough to cope with the changes? Has it caused marital strife? Are you getting a divorce? Well then you're scum and you're unfit to be the President of the United States. At least according to some people around here.

No, he's an adulterer, which makes him a liar, a cheater and scum. So yes I believe he's scum. Being a POW and a vet doesn't change that.

My ex-husband, who was a marine, a veteran of the Mogadishu incident, decorated and left with honorable discharge turned out to be scum when came back from the military. He lied, stole, cheated, blamed the military for it then started picking up hookers while we were married.

Personal yes. Anyone who cheats on another (this is also called betrayal folks) is scum. So Clinton, scum, McCain, scum.

That's what I'm saying. McCain is playing the victim card, and it doesn't fly. He has to own up to his behavior. End of story.

McCain betrayed Carol. He wasn't even honest to her. He cheated, lied then divorced her. Had he had the honor to tell her he was sorry that he could not deal with her as she was then, and then divorce her...I would count it as a different story.

Adulterers belong in the same level of hell as all betrayers. Stuffed up satan's ass and frozen there.

I say that as pagan.

[Tirjasdyn]

Now, both are irrelevant to me as qualifications for CEO.


So you're okay with CEO's who have a history of lying and cheating?


People wonder why American corporations get in trouble.

[Celia Cyanide]

Where's the bias? Anti-abortionists have always favored keeping a baby, or putting it up for adoption over termination. I see them sticking to that in this situation.

Who said anything about abortion? It's the abstinence-only education thing that applies in this case.