Watching the John Edwards story unfold is, to adopt an over-used metaphor, like watching a train-wreck in slow motion. I never thought he would be a good President. His populist political views seemed contrived to me, and insincere, in the face of his lifestyle. (As a Christian who lives well, I concede that there is a disconnect between what I espouse and how I live. I believe myself to be sincere, and I should concede that to Edwards. I should say, then, that I think his political views are simply wrong, and leave it at that.)
Edwards appears to me to be working very hard to contrive some sort of story, with the cooperation of people who very well may love him, to confine his adultery to a relatively short period of time and to exclude any certainty that he fathered a child out of wedlock. Is it simply embarrassment for himself and his loved ones that motivates him or does he believe that with a successful contrivance, he will be able to get past all of this and emerge with reasonable prospects of being an influential political leader, even President some day? I can well agree that it takes a very large ego to aspire to the Presidency, but can Edward's ego be not only that large but also totally blind. Why would he think that he can "get past" all this, and emerge politcally intact, if he holds that belief.
There is an answer.
And if you compare Clinton's exploitation of a young woman in his employ and his efforts to discard her later with Edwards' affair with a mature woman in her 40's and what appears to be his subsequent, significant support of her and her child, at least financially, then Edwards moral repugnancy begins to fade. I am not arguing that Edwards is to be excused. (Frankly, the man must be in utter Hell right now.)
Clinton, on the other hand?