Is DNA Involved?

Drudge's siren is up with this headline:

"CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN"

Comments

[Gordon Shumway]

Drudge actually has an army of interns working at his disposal. They are spread throughout offices in DC and beyond, tempting politicians. Then when one of these politicians bites, Drudge gets the report and the scoop. The first one made him famous. If this plays out, what will the second do?

[Vic the Appraiser]

Drudge is a succubus pimp.

[George Colombo]

Even the scant details of the story that appear on Drudge make it clear that this is nothing more than rank character assassination of the most despicable sort. According to Drudge, the woman in question worked for the Associated Press, so there is no question here of abuse of power or harassment. If it's true, it's simply a case of a married man having an affair. Of course, that sort of thing shocks the dickless wonders that populate the White House these days, but it is nothing remarkable nor is it anything that ought to disqualify someone from holding office. (As an aside, if the Bushies had indulged their insecurities about their masculinity by having adult affairs rather than by launching unprovoked wars, wouldn't we all be better off?)

This sort of disgraceful smear is why I will never again vote for a Republican under any circumstances. But they evidently pay attention to their own pundits: When Ann Coulter tried to reconstruct the history of Joe McCarthy, I'm sure she never thought she'd generate this kind of blatant emulation of his spineless tactics. (Sure, Coulter is disgusting but at least she owns up to her own smears, unlike most of her Republican colleagues who hide behind flacks like Drudge. She may be the least dickless one of the bunch.)

[Sir Real]

nit pick-

"Drudge is a"... pimp for succubi.

I just wanted to clarify- though Drudge could very well be a succubus himself (Based on appearance I would've guessed Incubus, but you know how crafty demons are...).

[J. Goldberg]

I think it's the guys from the New Republic who set this one up. They've been saying Kerry is unelectable for weeks, and were complaining that he appeared to be a shoe-in for the nomination.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Colombo -

I agree with your assessment of this "story" - probably character assassination. Unless it involves abuse of office or power, or breaking the law, it's not a story.

But I find it hard to imagine that Republicans are responsible for this, to say the least. Democrats can be bastiches too. If Republicans had this kind of ammo, they'd use it in the general election, say October sometime. It simply makes no sense for them to use it in the primary season where the one person it probably helps the most is Edwards, the candidate they fear the most.

Add it all up and it's clear. Sharpton did it.

Sir Real -

I beg to differ. The plural is not called for in my construction, so it is currect (though there's an argument to be made that succubus-pimp should be hyphenated). But yours is correct, of course, too.

[brian]

Don't forget, Drudges best sources are in the media itself; what he broke in the Monica case was that newsmags were suppressing the story. What he breaks here is that news orgs are investigating a story.
As for the White House being responsible, dream on. Thats just dumb. More likely a Dem opponent leaking it. An October leak would be different, but now? Cant imagine the White House has their hands on this one...
And I cant wait for George's website. Intelligent cogent arguments, and dicklessness!

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Since when does messing around with an intern disqualify a Democrat for the presidency?"

Do you really think Clinton could have gotten elected if he'd had Monica around his neck in 1992? I seriously doubt it. Whatever reactions people had during his impeachment were after they had become well accustomed to the guy, not when he was making a bid for his first term. I suspect that if this Kerry rumor turns out to be true, it's going to be way too much 'here-we-go-again' for most voters to put up with.

Anyway, we'll probably know it all by tomorrow...

[shane]

Columbo, despite your accusations, this isn't from the WH.

They don't have to do this stuff when you have a former Clintonite- Chris Lahane involved.

This is an inside hit. 😉

Someone call David Brown. He should turn this into a novel.

[Franklin Harris]

Too bad for Kerry, unlike Clinton, that he lives in post-Janet's breast America.

[Todd Fletcher]

Unless it turns out to be a live boy or a dead girl, he'll ride past this. The people who are going to vote for him won't care.

[Jason Ligon]

Todd:

Sometimes even the live boy / dead girl rule is violated. See Ted Kennedy ...

[shane]

"The people who are going to vote for him won't care."

It's not about those folks, but the people in the middle....the undecided.

And this isn't about '04, but '08. 😉

[mobile]

Kerry down 25% today in the Iowa Electronic Markets:

http://128.255.244.60/quotes/67.html

[alkali]

I think it's the guys from the New Republic who set this one up.

Perhaps this was #2 on their to-do list, right after finding their own asses with both hands.

[Dan]

Even the scant details of the story that appear on Drudge make it clear that this is nothing more than rank character assassination of the most despicable sort

Don't you have to actually have character before it can be assassinated?

The main reason this will hurt Kerry, if it's true, is that he doesn't *have* any apparent character. He hasn't taken a firm stand on anything since the early 1970s. A sex scandal will reenforce the perception that he always takes the path of least resistance -- even if that path leads to cheating on your highly intelligent and personable zillionaire wife.

The other reason this will hurt Kerry is that he's decided to run on a "Bush is dishonest" platform. That's not the kind of accusation people take seriously if it comes from a guy who cheats on his wife.

[B.P.]

Yeah George, cheating on his wife, no big deal. Everyone does it. It's just his marriage; he'll be trustworthy in other arenas.

[LB`]

This makes me happy. I've felt that this campaign was lacking something for the last few weeks. I kept having this vision of months and months of enui with baby boomer kvetching about the Vietnam War (who killed more gooks) and maybe some impenetrably financial scandals. But now we have SEX. Maybe really dirty sex. Bill Clinton was an imaginative boy but he could have done better.

Also we've got border-line psycho Theresa Heinz to contend with. This is gittin' gud.

[dhex]

BP - there have been plenty of accomplished and otherwise upstanding philanderers.

[joe]

Perhaps the intent in pushing this story isn't to wound Kerry so much as to get the media focused on something - sex - that's more interesting than Bush's Nat'l Guard slacking/lying about it scandal.

[Jean Bart]

Well, directly below the headline is a story from the Washington Post stating that Clarke is to endorse Kerry; yet in the body of the "sex" story, it states Clarke saying that Kerry will implode. Is this Drudge person that stupid as to post two wholly inconsistent stories?

[DU]

BUSH LIED!!!!

[StMack]

I guess this pretty much ends Garry Hart's shot at the VP slot.

[Shannon Love]

I think this could really hurt Kerry.

As many have pointed out, Democrats are voting for Kerry primarily because they view him as electable i.e. he will appeal to independent swing voters who determine elections. Arguably, this creates "a speculative bubble" which will collapse at the first prick.

If Democrats believe this will hurt Kerry in the least in the general election, he could implode virtually overnight like Dean.

[George Colombo]

Under the circumstances (i.e. the "other woman" was not an employee, etc.), whether or not Kerry cheated on his wife is not material to his presidential campaign and is an inappropriate subject for serious journalistic commentary. (Not that one would mistake the Drudge Report for something serious.)

It would be interesting, by the way, to compare the leadership qualities of known philanderers with those of known non-philanderers. Not their policies, mind you, just their leadership. In recent history, that would pit Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and Bush 41 against Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush 43. As I see it, this is not a decisive juxtaposition necessarily, but it's at least a suggestive one.

[Jean Bart]

Mistresses for politicians in France are common; or such is the rumor (the actual facts are rarely reported). Indeed, mistresses were common for political figures in most of Europe until sometime in the 20th century. Perhaps this is also the case for America. I do find the lack of tolerance for it in America today interesting, and I wonder if this is something of the "values" it will try to "export." 🙂

[shane]

Jean,

America has always had an "outrage" part of the media.

In the late 1800's, Grover Cleveland ran for president and his challenger(can't remember who) released a story to the press about Clevelands fathering of an illegitimate child.

The press even came up with a little jinggle:

"Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Well, sittin' in the White House ha, ha, ha!"

This type of stuff has always been around. It's part of "Americana".

[Jon H]

GOP policy is now "Eating isn't Cheating", as established by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

So I'm not sure this is a good issue...

[B.P.]

dhex -- Oh yes, I understand that being a philanderer and successful (and even otherwise upstanding) are not mutually exclusive. I'm just taking issue with the assertion that secretly shredding a contract with the supposed most important person in a candidate's life "is an inappropriate subject for serious journalistic commentary." It may be that there are mitigating circumstances (Kerry and wifey have since gotten over it, etc.), or that Kerry is such an outstanding and visionary leader that these alleged transgressions don't matter. If it's not true, let it die a quick death; if it is true, the story is at least worth visiting, esp. if the candidate plans on "defending marriage" (or whatever) as president.

As far as the mistress stuff goes, I'm not in favor of the norming of infidelity in America. I much prefer the straight-up, honest (albeit painful)approach: "Wifey, I've had it with fucking you and want someone else in the sack. Either you live with that or we're divorced".

[Andrew]

It is fair that anything that surfaces about Kerry gets inordinate attention...he is the comparatively unknown challenger.

We don't need to look at Bush's NG records to draw conclusions as to what kind of President he might make-- we have the previous four years to judge him by.

Kerry has, of course, never served as a President...and he himself made distant and faily personal events the main reccomendation for his candidacy: he has not sought to showcase his very undistinguished Senate career.

[Shannon Love]

Lets think about whether a politician will cheat on their spouse tells us about their psychology.

1) Unless the spouse is onboard with the affair, its revelation, even in private could cause intense emotional suffering for the spouse. Children can be hurt as well. That person who would risk this suffering for their own self gratification reveals a selfish narcissistic personality that would be dangerous in a leader.

2) If the politician already holds public office, they risk the destruction of their career and along with it all the hopes of all the people who supported them. Sex scandals are a fact of life and everybody knows it. That a politician would risk sacrificing the policies they ran on for personal gratification points to a certain contempt for their voters and supporters.

[late for the boom]

Shannon, you mean the hypocritical Americans that cheat on thier spouse/loved ones daily??

Latest report on Americans and thier cheating ways say, 35% of wives and 45% of husbands cheat... thats
80%, of married people. But for the benifit of the doubt lets just say at least 50% or half of married Americans. Thats to assume that the marriage lasts, considering 65% of American marriages end in divorce in the first 4 years.

Those figured dont even account for non-married couples, everyone knows someone who has cheated on thier girlfriend/boyfriend. I would even go so far as to say that 90% of the people posting here have cheated on a partner of some sort sometime in thier life.

Just goes to show just how sick our American society is, a tit is the most rewatched event in American television history, all the while those people pretend to be 'shocked'.

Grow up America, the rest of the world laughs at you daily. Sex is the biggest piece of American culture, it sells everything... its all around you, from a radio commercial to beer TV ads, to Football to 'shock TV' reality shows. Why do people pretend to be so upset about something they crave more then anything else??

The same guy that claims he wont vote for Kerry after this revelation is the same guy that has a TIVO season pass of Temptation Island... amazing country we have here...

[Todd Fletcher]

More revealing than the existence of an affair - if it pans out - is how Kerry deals with it today. Does he lie and obfuscate, or come clean?

[PLC]

Did you know that "late for the bloom" has an IQ of 53? His penis is only 1" long? We're just pulling numbers out of our asses, right?

[late for the boom]

ok PLC, just because I knew some retard was going to dispute my numbers... I guess since FOX news didnt report it, must be wrong..

So here is a google search link, with all the information you ever wanted to know about cheating spouses

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=percentage+of+americans+who+cheat+on+their+spouse&spell=1

If you would prefer here are specific links to the
relevant points of my post:

Psycology Today:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1175/4_33/63125105/p1/article.jhtml

Here is Bible.org (for the christians) with a link to many studies citing varying % of cheaters:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1175/4_33/63125105/p1/article.jhtml

How about Marriageproject.org fact sheet:

http://www.marriageproject.org/fs0008.html

Heres a Novemeber 2003 article for your consumption:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03322/240835.stm

Just incase those arent good enough for you, heres a 'trusted' news source, ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/wolffiles19.html

Its amazing what a little google search will turn up for you PLC....

heres something I DID pull out of my ass, PLC doesnt know shit about research.... if you had done just a single search using that internet thingy, you might have not have looked like someone who was talking out of his ass....

[B.P.]

Sexual imagery in the media and marital infidelity are not the same thing, l.f.t.b. Being a lying cheat is not just a form of cultural expression. And you may want rework some of your math there.

[Shannon Love]

late for the boom,

You were also apparently late for math.

"Latest report on Americans and thier cheating ways say, 35% of wives and 45% of husbands cheat... thats
80%, of married people."

That would mean that conversely since 65% of woman DON'T cheat and 55% of men DON'T cheat then 120% of married people don't cheat.

You actually get the number of married people who cheat by averaging the male and female figures together. So 40% of married people cheat. That means that 60% DON'T.

I can see why all the "the rest of the world laughs at you daily" First our math education sucks and second the majority of us at sophisticated enough to cheat on our marriages.

[not a math nazi]

You actually get the number of married people who cheat by averaging the male and female figures together. So 40% of married people cheat. That means that 60% DON'T.

I can see why all the "the rest of the world laughs at you daily" First our math education sucks and second the majority of us at sophisticated enough to cheat on our marriages.
-------------------------

As long as we're being math nazis...

It's not a simple average, it's a weighted average.

So, it's not 40%, unless men and women each are exactly half of the population.

[HH]

Names attributed to this report: Wesley Clark, Chris Lehane.

Gee, I don't see any Republicans here.

[MJ]

"...mistresses were common for political figures in most of Europe until sometime in the 20th century."

Despotism was also a common trait among European political figures until that time as well. Perhaps there is a link?

[MJ]

"Latest report on Americans and thier cheating ways say, 35% of wives and 45% of husbands cheat... thats
80%, of married people."-late for the boom

Uh, you do understand that percentages are not additive in this fashion? If 35% of wives are cheating, then 65% are not, and the split among husbands is 45%-55%. That means the total percentage of married people cheating is probably somewhere around 40%, depending on how the initial number were developed.

[Reg]

Whoever blames this on the Republicans is nuts. That makes no sense, it is just using a Democratic scandal to tar Republicans who have nothing to do with it. Leave us out of it, at least till this summer.

[Rich Reilly]

Let me introduce a phrase for the repubs to use for this and/or future unearthings:

CONCEALED KERRY!

Damn..I shoulda gone into advertising.

[Rich Reilly]

Sent it to Drudge..maybe he'll have fun with it.

[joe]

"That person who would risk this suffering for their own self gratification reveals a selfish narcissistic personality that would be dangerous in a leader."

That person who would run for president reveals a selfish narcissistic personality that would be dangerous in a leader. That's the bind we're in.

Maybe we'd be better off drawing straws. Or signing up for a square like an office pool.

[dj of raleigh]

Infidelity: why they are attacking the man's pocket book.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe we should stop voting for guys who've wanted to be the prez since they were in short pants.

[Sam I Was]

The most amusing part of this whole escapade today has been watching the blogosphere reliably fluff itself up as it points with pride to Drudge's "scoop" -- as if Drudge did any actual reporting.

Drudge merely did the same thing he always does: He swiped the work of real journalists and put it out there before they did. While Time, AP, etc., were apparently out there corroborating stories, verifying information and nuking false leads, Matt Drudge sat at a Miami seaside computer and thrust the half-assed version of the "story" onto a Web page.

The difference between Time et al. and Drudge can be summed up in a single word: recklessness. OK, two words: recklessness and hubris.

I couldn't care less about the fate of John Kerry. But the self-inflated self-importance of amateurs on the Web continues to provide reliable chuckles.

I have no doubt my post will be met with derision, as such posts typically are. That's to be expected. Most anybody who's taking the time to post here is at least emotionally invested in the Internet; that attachment lends itself to a certain brand of myopia. (See also: "Instapundit," "Calpundit," and all others shut out by the forces of the marketplace and relegated to conveying their opinions not only without compensation, but usually at a cost (bandwidth, domain registration, etc.)

Go ahead -- let's have some posts about how the Internet has usurped "old media," etc.

[Citizen]

Do you suppose that this is a case of the news being more important than the news it is reporting? Everyone's got the Drudge headline (and now a small, very small write-up), but there's nothing to report. Yet, anyway.

[Mike]

Yes. Now, anyway.

[Matt]

The republican campaign has officially begun. As C. Matthews said the other night, you could have sex today and the baby would be born before the election. I'm scandal-weary and it's only February.

[Eric]

Since when does messing around with an intern disqualify a Democrat for the presidency?

[joe]

What Eric said. Clinton's highest approval ratings were recorded on the day of his impeachment.

[Terry McAuliffe]

God, how many times are we now going to hear "Hillary is waiting in the wings"?

[shane]

It is interesting though that it took a Clinton-connected candidate, Clark, before it was "leaked".

And why did Gore endorse Dean?

Because Gore knew.

Ohhh, the drama.

[Shannon Love]

What is it with Drudge and interns anyway?

[Shannon Love]

Proving a correlation between corruption and culture is problematic largely because neither concept can be truly measured in any concrete fashion. One cannot measure 3 meters of corruption or 2 liters of "tolerance for extramarital affairs."

But going with what we've got Transparency Internationals corrupt perception index clearly shows that Latin Europe is perceived as more corrupt than northern Europe.

I don't really care if monarchs of centuries past screwed around. Ruling monarchs are by American standards inherently corrupt and tyrannical since they were never elected. But if he want historical examples I would contrast the notoriously strict self-disciplining Vasa dynasty of Sweden versus any French king named Louis.

The defining attribute here is not whether the same numbers of people within each culture engage in a particular activity but whether that activity is viewed as a shameful personal failing or not. It also reflects the degree of which hypocrisy is tolerated or expected. Even in Latin Europe, politicians publicly declare for sanctity of marriage but the electorate cynically expects them be lying. Likewise, the same politician declare for honesty and transparency in government but the electorate assumes they are lying and expects and tolerates corruption.

It is this disconnect between the explicit and the implicit that corrodes Latin Europe's politics. It is this disconnect that you mock us for not emulating under the guise that the "world" is laughing at us.

[Jean Bart]

"Proving a correlation between corruption and culture is problematic largely because neither concept can be truly measured in any concrete fashion. One cannot measure 3 meters of corruption or 2 liters of 'tolerance for extramarital affairs.'"

Then why make the stupid and outlandish claim that you've made, eh?

"I don't really care if monarchs of centuries past screwed around. Ruling monarchs are by American standards inherently corrupt and tyrannical since they were never elected. But if he want historical examples I would contrast the notoriously strict self-disciplining Vasa dynasty of Sweden versus any French king named Louis."

Actually, they aren't "ages past"; and the fact is that you called on history in the first place. If you don't like the use of historical examples, then don't use it as a prop for your arguments.

And for all of Sweden's self-discipline, it was routed by the far less disciplined Russians; largely because that self-discipline led to a tremendous amount of over-reach, and an attempt to conquer a great deal of territory that Sweden could never possibly hold. Indeed, during the Thirty Years' War, Sweden spent a great deal of blood and treasure via their self-discipline for nothing. So much for the advantages of your so-called self-discipline.

"It is this disconnect between the explicit and the implicit that corrodes Latin Europe's politics. It is this disconnect that you mock us for not emulating under the guise that the 'world' is laughing at us."

Yet, somehow, one of the most pious, "self-disciplined" men ever to sit in the White House, a fucking Quaker no less, Richard Nixon, was one of the most foul and corrupt you've ever had. We mock you because to be quite frank, you are the real hypocrites. 🙂

You have the same level of corruption as we do; we are simply honest about, while you are liars.

[Jean Bart]

"Proving a correlation between corruption and culture is problematic largely because neither concept can be truly measured in any concrete fashion. One cannot measure 3 meters of corruption or 2 liters of 'tolerance for extramarital affairs.'"

Then why make the stupid and outlandish claim that you've made, eh?

"I don't really care if monarchs of centuries past screwed around. Ruling monarchs are by American standards inherently corrupt and tyrannical since they were never elected. But if he want historical examples I would contrast the notoriously strict self-disciplining Vasa dynasty of Sweden versus any French king named Louis."

Actually, they aren't "ages past"; and the fact is that you called on history in the first place. If you don't like the use of historical examples, then don't use it as a prop for your arguments.

And for all of Sweden's self-discipline, it was routed by the far less disciplined Russians; largely because that self-discipline led to a tremendous amount of over-reach, and an attempt to conquer a great deal of territory that Sweden could never possibly hold. Indeed, during the Thirty Years' War, Sweden spent a great deal of blood and treasure via their self-discipline for nothing. So much for the advantages of your so-called self-discipline.

"It is this disconnect between the explicit and the implicit that corrodes Latin Europe's politics. It is this disconnect that you mock us for not emulating under the guise that the 'world' is laughing at us."

Yet, somehow, one of the most pious, "self-disciplined" men ever to sit in the White House, a fucking Quaker no less, Richard Nixon, was one of the most foul and corrupt you've ever had. We mock you because to be quite frank, you are the real hypocrites. 🙂

You have the same level of corruption as we do; we are simply honest about, while you are liars.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon,

BTW, thankyou for evading nearly every argument that I made; again, it demonstrates who the real hypocrite is.

[some guy]

Although I see merit in asking if the willingness to break the ostensibly meaningful oath of marriage is an indication of a willingness to break lesser, but politically more important promises, I can think of two kings of the Vasa dynasty who had mistresses. So much for that.

[Jean Bart]

some guy,

Ooooh, thank you. 🙂

Shannon,

BTW, earlier you talked about mistresses being paraded about; now you claim that they aren't. Which is it? Oh yes, the level of the inconsistencies in your statements continues to rise.

[Jean Bart]

some guy,

Yes, Johan III of Sweden had four children with his mistress Karin Hansdotter; Eric XIV had several relationships with women prior to his marraige, and these two prior relationships were the genesis of four children; and of course Christian II was so "self-disciplining" that he caused a fucking open revolt amongst his subjects.

[some guy]

Yes, both Eric XIV and Karl IX both has mistress named Karin, that's how I remembered them. You gotta say this for European universities - when it comes to history, they don't fuck around (unlike their rogering politicians, apparently 🙂 ).

[some guy]

er, "had mistresses", that is.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon,

BTW, for all your supposedly "northern European" values (you know, the ones that spawned the Nazis - as opposed to French Republicanism and the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), the U.S. is tied with Ireland for 18th on this survey, and France, that country of the "swarthy" Latins, ranks 23rd with Spain. And the score is 7.5 for the US, and 6.9 for France. Looking at this data from that perspective, its fairly clear that your attempt to draw some sort of distinction is hogwash. I do love eviscerating your idiotic comments though, so keep them on their way.

[some guy]

JB,

Just of curiosity, and if you don't mind saying, Fusiliers Marin or RPIMa?

[Shannon Love]

Jean Bart,

You implied I was a racist.

I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If your playing the race card I must really have you pinned to the mat.

But in case I haven't.

If you believe that, say, Denmark is just as politically stable and corrupt as Italy, then I would say we our definitions of the words are so divergent as to preclude further communication.

More generally: Hypocrisy is easy to avoid: simply have no standards. If you announce to the world that you are a liar, a libertine, a thief and in generally care nothing for anybody or anything but yourself, you can pretty much be certain you will never be called a hypocrite. Having set no expectations you cannot be criticized for not having met them.

Throughout history Stoics, Confucians, Puritans Victorians and others that set high standards for personal behavior have been those most loudly condemned as hypocrites. Yet they became hypocrites because of the goals they set, not because they were morally inferior to their critics. They attempted to scale a mountain and fell off only to be mocked by those who remained in the valley.

Americans are called hypocrites because we set relatively high standards for the behavior of our politicians. If he says he values his marriage and doesn't sleep around we expect to be able to hold him accountable if he fails.

Just because many public and private individuals fail to live up to ideal standards of behavior does not mean that those ideals are invalid. Moral Ideals are important because they are hard to live up to. If people did them automatically without effort there would be no need to create the ideals in the first place.

We are best served when we expect that the public and private faces of those we place in public office are the same. Many, perhaps most, will fail this standard but that does not mean it is not a worthy goal. It is better to strive for high standards, fail and be called a hypocrite, than it is never to strive at all.

[Jean Bart]

MJ,

"Despotism was also a common trait among European political figures until that time as well. Perhaps there is a link?"

I am now laughing. In America, despotism (e.g., killing Indians, slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) has been common; is there a link to say the type of soap people used?

[Andrew]

Before this thread drops off the page...

You have to kinda wonder how European women feel about all this. I am assuming European women supply most of the wives and the mistresses (Clemanceau had an American wife...I don't know whether he cheated.)

JB would have you assume the women accept this behavior in much the same way Mormon women accepted polygamy...but I sorta doubt it.

My personal experience is that while mainstream European girls seem generally less egalitarian AND less sophisticated over-all, than comparable American girls, that this was changing quickly.

(Europe every day manifestly becomes more "American"...it is self-evident where cultural leadership comes from in the modern world).

It will be amusing to see a European politician get his come-uppance off some kind of "gender-gap"-- perhaps this is why the political class is scrambling to escape from direct elections, with all the EU non-sense?

Who will be laughing then?

[joe]

Quite right, JB. Many events popularly described as democratic uprisings against monarchist despotism were in fact rebellions occasioned by British refusal to approve of ethnic cleansing by settlers eager for more land.

[Shannon Love]

Jean Bart,

Let me let you in on a little secret: France does not equal Europe.

The keeping of mistresses is a facet of Latin/Mediterranean cultures France, Spain, Italy etc. In northern Anglo, Germanic and Scandinavian cultures mistresses are not something to be proud of. I can't recall the last time an English or Danish Prime Minister paraded his mistress and her children in public.

American culture reflects northern Europe far more than mediterranean Europe. That's why we drink more beer than wine.

Culture does matter to politics. The toleration and even admiration of those who keep mistresses reflects an anti-egalitarian attitude. It says there is one rule for men and another for women. It says there is one rule for the rich or powerful and a another for the ordinary citizen. Leaders who do not have to follow the rules rapidly become corrupt and tyrannical.

I would say there is a very tight correlation between cultures that openly accept politicians keeping mistresses and nation states with a history of corruption and instability.

[joe]

That's very interesting about northern/Mediterranean Europe, Shannon. Though I suspect the difference manifests itself in the acknowledgement of mistresses, rather than in the levels of cheating.

JB, what about Shannon's charge about inequality? Do blue collar French men get the same wink-and-nod about adultery that politicians get?

[joe]

(Europe every day manifestly becomes more "American"...it is self-evident where cultural leadership comes from in the modern world).

"We look to Los Angeles for the language we use
London is dead, London is dead, London is dead."

Anyone? Anyone?

[some guy]

I can't say what the situation is in the rest of Northern and Central Europe, but there is no shortage of politicians' mistresses in Germany. It's simply not considered newsworthy.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

"Let me let you in on a little secret: France does not equal Europe."

Being a European I know this.

"The keeping of mistresses is a facet of Latin/Mediterranean cultures France, Spain, Italy etc. In northern Anglo, Germanic and Scandinavian cultures mistresses are not something to be proud of. I can't recall the last time an English or Danish Prime Minister paraded his mistress and her children in public."

Bullshit. And French Presidents do not parade their mistresses in public.

"American culture reflects northern Europe far more than mediterranean Europe. That's why we drink more beer than wine."

Wine consumption in the U.S. has been on the rise for quite some time; beer consumption has been flat as I recall. And the fact is that a "Latin" culture, the Belgians, make the best beer in Europe.

"Culture does matter to politics. The toleration and even admiration of those who keep mistresses reflects an anti-egalitarian attitude. It says there is one rule for men and another for women. It says there is one rule for the rich or powerful and a another for the ordinary citizen. Leaders who do not have to follow the rules rapidly become corrupt and tyrannical."

The problem of course is that historically mistresses were as common in northern Europe as anywhere else; they common amongst German (Protestant and Catholic) Princes, amongst the British monarchy (Catholic, Protestant, etc.).

"I would say there is a very tight correlation between cultures that openly accept politicians keeping mistresses and nation states with a history of corruption and instability."

Prove it.

[Ira Weatrheral]

JB,

Wouldn't the examples you used be more indicative of violence and injustice in US society, rather than despotism?

The US might be a lot of things, from oligarchy to plutocracy, but despotism?

Maybe under Lincoln and FD Roosevelt, otherwise not really.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

BTW, yours is a typically prejudiced view of the so-called "swarthy" Latins that was common amongst the snobbish bastards who inhabited elite American and British society in the 19th century. If anyone is being an elitist here, it is you.

joe,

Hmm, having a mistress is very common in France; or has been traditionally; and this is across class. My father, not a rich man by any means, had a mistress for example. Americans have this strange notion that sex outside specific bounds automatically leads to corruption.

[Jean Bart]

Ira Weatheral,

I would say that holding people in thralldom is despotism; you can try to make it as pretty as you want to, but U.S. history, despite what Americans try to make-believe about it being one long, glorious "whiggish" march, is hardly that. Europe certainly does not by any means have a perfect record (no nation, region, people, etc. do), but one gets the impression that certain class of people in America think that their historical record is somehow an unblemished march towards the glorious today. Its hagiography is place of history.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon Love,

BTW, to shoot another torpedo into your prejudiced theory, it was these so-called "moral" Germans who were not supposedly "parading" their mistresses around who proved to be Europe's most difficult problem in the 20th century regarding militarism and despotism. Indeed it was these so-called moral Germans who tortured my uncle to death in the hotel terminus for defending and trying to regain the freedom of Frenchmen. Your national chauvanism would be laughable if it weren't so despicable.

[Jean Bart]

Anyway, I have to be gone for a time; I am trying to nurse some birds of paradise to bloom for my wife.

[Jimbo]

Sam I was,

You do realize that you just posted a reply in an online forum complaining about how unimportant online forums are and how those who post in them are trapped in a myopic false conciousness of their own sense of self-importance. And, you posted this because you became upset with how self-important online-only writers are after reading an online post and commments.

Is it me, or are you arguing with the voices in your head?

PS. I work for the online arm of a giant off-line media company, and I never underestimate for a second the levelling power that this medium has for "amateurs." If you also work in media, you should pluck your head from the sand (or your own ass) and go beyond being defensive over guys who spend close to nothing to build loyal audiences most "professional" organizations would be happy to have.

[I Was the One]

*IF* it's true, Teresa already knows about it. So Kerry ought to play it this way:

"Teresa and I have ALREADY worked through this as a couple." Story dies.

Now, it's possible that the woman might see $$ and want to come forward and claim something, but if all they have is a picture at a restaurant, it won't be nearly like the Clinton/Monica affair. But it might be enough to tip the scales to Bush.

I don't believe Americans or anyone else is weary of scandal. We live for it, and seek it out, to the contrary. That is the problem.

[Jean Bart]

Shannon,

BTW, if your argument is that a society where mistresses are not encouraged is one more likely to have more gender equality, why is it in this vaunted Northern Europe "only" society (which based on immigration patterns is patently false on its face) that some semblance of gender equality only came in America in the last thirty years? About the same time it started to become a reality amongst us "swarthy" Frenchmen, that is?

[Jean Bart]

Shannon,

And to be even more blunt, why did America take sixty more years than France in coming to a declaration of the rights of women? France had such in the 1780s; it took until the 1840s for the U.S. to do so at Seneca Falls, N.Y. And why in France have we continued to have "think tanks" (salons) which were run and agenda by women, yet this idea would have been radically foreign to America until quite recently?

[MJ]

" am now laughing. In America, despotism (e.g., killing Indians, slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) has been common; is there a link to say the type of soap people used?" -Jean Bart

My comment was in a sarcastic vein, I was not seriously proposing a link. On the other hand I don't find European "sophistication", or rather cynicsm, about infidelity laudable.