I would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, but this all sounds eerily like, "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman" which gave us lip-biting and the now infamous "that depends on what your definition of is, is."

The difference, for me, is that we all knew Clinton was an admitted philanderer. Giving him the benefit of the doubt on a sex scandal would've been naive.

Kerry has been clean, so far.

Hopefully getting (or giving) the benefit of the doubt will not always be the road less travelled by.

I suspect most people are giving him the benefit of the doubt and/or are so disgusted (still) by the Clinton witch-hunt that they are totally uninterested. (I'm in both camps...).

What's The Difference?

Not much, Yet,it may have a bearing on what the voter is thinking when behind the curtain.

I don't care if he's lying or not. I just enjoy the drama.

Geoffrey,

Me too!

Although, I am hoping that he is lying.

I hope he's telling the truth. Mostly because it would be hard on his family. On the other hand, they probably already know if he's a jerk or not.

I find myself thinking that if he'd burn "not-his" medals then he's the kind that would cheat on his wife. That's not particularly fair and non-judgemental. But, when I have to vote, thats making a judgement about his ability to be a good president. Thats inherently judgemental. Part of that will be based on whether or not he can be trusted to do the right thing in difficult times. A guy that will trash someone elses medals for political gain (while shrewdly keeping his medals for future political gain) ... are you gonna trust him? He was intentionally trying to decieve the public in that situation, whether it was the mob burning medals or the people voting for him later. Somebody was decieved, on purpose. With forethought.

For the record, there are plenty of people that I disagree with that I trust. Kerry just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I think Kerry is probably lying, and it bothers me that this issue is being talked about
seriously. Sex is something we are expected to lie about - sorry, that's life. It hardly shows the entire character of a man or woman. Now, if a person is prone to constant whoring and sexual misconduct, groping and such, then we have an issue. When that happens, people know what to do - elect him governor of California or Minnesota.

Read the newspaper stories on Bush's Guard service, and the innuendo is right up front: "questions have been raised...he has not provided evidence..."

Will we ever read a major newspaper story regarding Kerry's intern alert that relies on that level of cheap and obvious innuendo?

As. If.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. Though I have to admit a little disappointment. Not so much in that Kerry might be innocent, but that Bush is also obviously innocent of the AWOL charges levied against him, and he has not been given a pass. There is a sense of unfairness in it all. However, two wrongs don't make a right, so for now, Kerry gets a legitimate pass until there is evidence rather than just allegations.

Tim,

There are a good portion of us out here who disagree that lying about sex is something to be expected. There are a good portion of Americans who respect the values of the oath they take to their spouse, and never cheat on them. There are a good portion of divorced people who never cheated on their spouses while married.

So saying that lying about sex is no big deal reveals your attitude about commitment, but is not necessarily reflective of the attitudes of a great many Americans. A great many Americans believe that lying about the most intimate aspect of your relationship with the one person that you have voluntarily pledged fidelity to is a very big deal.

If it wasn't a big deal, Kerry wouldn't need to address the rumor at all, because the voters just wouldn't care. It is the realization that voters take promises seriously that leads those who are guilty of infidelity to try to hide it. It is why the story is potentially damaging.

I'm not giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt. He's helped perpetuate the "Bush was AWOL" rumor without the slightest bit of hard evidence.

Kerry hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt, nor has he accorded others that benefit. Call it karma.

Scott Harris, I echo your comments. Lying about cheating on your spouse is reprehensible. Cheating on your spouse is reprehensible. And both are indicative of the character of an elected official. Character is the sort of person you are when you think you won't be caught.

Some people should realize we are electing a politician to be president, not canonizing him!

Whether it be FDR or Ike or JFK, many of the past presidents were flawed in this department. Nixon helped lower presidential expectations, and Clinton lowered the bar for our future candidates even further.

When events turn against the candidate, who does he turn to? In a pinch, what interest groups or segments of the population does he fall back upon? Is it not the times when things do not look well for the candidate that we know what or who concerns him most?

The real question is which group you like more or dislike less, those that Kerry falls back upon in a pinch or those that Bush relies upon? When everything is fine, most politicians can be moderate and centrist sounding.

The worst that could happen (for me, that is) would be for it turn into a fight between the proxies of Michael Moore and those of Gary Bauer and Sandy Rios. Who offends or insults me less?

Your Most Evil Majesty, in all Your Wicked Splendor, why do you wish Kerry to be lying? You are a self-described Democrat, what principles of yours does he violate? Is it Kerry or just a general anger at the direction of the Democratic Party?

The term "conservative Democrat" is meaningless outside of context. John LaFalce was called this, yet his lifetime ACU rating was a 13! Why? Look at all his conservative votes! In many years, they are all about abortion! This type, though, has been in the Northern segment of the Dems for decades.

The Ted Kennedys are just those of that group that changed on some social issues, taking a more culturally libertarian view to advance the issues they felt most strongly about, needing to expand the coalition to do so.

What has changed than? What is new in your party? What do you believe the Democratic Party was supposed to stand for, and how and why has it strayed?

I'm not pleased with the President right now, but I do not wish him to be a criminal. It strikes him as merely a "Bush is just as bad as Clinton, so there!" reaction from some Dems, and a similar counterreaction by some conservatives. This only energizes the faithful. No one is going to be changed by this. It is all so stupid. I am also bored by it. The novelty is gone.

Call it karma.

There is much to be said for karma. However, I'm in wait-and-see mode. I don't know enough to even be able to say "I'm giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt." I'm certainly not assuming he's guilty.

But I am assessing the political ramifications as the story unfolds, and although his denial on Imus raises the potential for damage if the stories get substantiated, it's going to take more than a bunch of news items derived almost entirely from Drudge's "exclusive" to achieve that.

This whole thing could fall apart like the AWOL calumny.

Libertarian,

I was a Democrat. When I became an adult, I became a Republican.

I hope he's lying because I think he sucks. I think he is a political opportunist with no ideas. I think he'd make a shitty president.

If my happiness were to end and Bush ceased being our President, I'd rather have Howard Dean.

I would. Because, ultimately, I think he is more honest than Kerry. He is a fiscal conservative, and while I disagree profusely with him most of the time, I can name at least three things I like about him. I can't do that for Kerry.

Wow, Republican's for Dean. Now there's a John Kerry campaign slogan if I ever heard one.

Someone said "Kerry's been clean so far." Uh-uh. He divorced his first wife, played the field for a while and remarried another heiress. That's hardly "clean." If anything, he'd seem to have a history of sexuality much more checkered than Clinton's on face-value. After all, Clinton's only been married ONCE.

There is a reason that we have had only ONE president who was divorced. Fidelity matters to the voting public. Even if we have failed, we expect our leaders to be better than we are. I don't think that expectation is unreasonable. I certainly wouldn't vote for me based on my foreign policy expertise, or management acumen.

We want leaders who have PROVEN they are trustworthy in a variety of areas. And marital fidelity is one measure by which we judge the trustworthiness of a candidate. That is why a candidate's private life DOES matter. It is not that we expect perfection. But we do reasonably require enough evidence on which to base our judgement.

Politicians don't fail because some past flaw is uncovered. They fail if 1) they don't show that they have overcome or corrected the failing, or 2) the electorate doesn't have enough information to make an educated decision. It is why voters demand that political spouses show up on the campaign trail. Why should we support a candidate who cannot publicly demonstrate that his or her own spouse supports them.

Partisans on both sides a like to believe that elections are about the issues. But ulimately, the voters understand that unforseen issues are going to arise. They are looking for a candidate that they believe will be able to handle those issues when they arise.

Bush has already proven that he is capable of handling such crises. 9/11 was a huge crisis, and he performed admirably. Right now, people minds are in flux as they consider the different issues. But come November, people are going to remember that George W. Bush was competent in a crisis.

To give an example from the opposite side of the aisle, in 1996, though I did not vote for Clinton because I disagreed with him on issues, I refused to vote for Dole because I didn't think he could handle the job. I am a partisan Republican, so my non-vote certainly contributed to Clinton's victory. But I was more willing to accept as President someone I disagreed with than someone I didn't trust to handle the job.

And I'm a partisan who chose to abstain from voting. How do you think undecided voters who are not strongly party affiliated make their choices.

In Clinton's case, his performance on the economy overcame his infidelity. But voters had something - his economic record - to hang their hat on, (and Perot was a nut-job and Dole was out of touch.) Kerry has no such record to hang is hat on. Even Clinton's record as governer of Arkansas is much more impressive than Kerry's Senate accomplishments.

And that, my friends is why stories of marital infidelity matter.

Those who are passionately interested can enter alex polier kenya into their favorite search engine and learn that her parents claim JFK2 was sniffing around 'way back in 2001 and never got to first base. A web search on alex polier press proves that she works for AP and has a huge file of stories to her credit. Hardworking newshen has name bandied about by yellow press. That's about it. Stupefyingly boring story.

HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! I'm glad you like EvilDean better than Kerry. I like him, too. More honest, as you say. And, 3 more reasons:
1) Vermont civil unions,
2) Vermont concealed carry,
3) his _style_! What a MAN! "NYYYAAAARRRGHHH!" That's the way I often feel.