Why is it right for Bill Clinton to lie about sex, but not John Edwards?

Bill Clinton was obviously guilty of the very same sexual harassment laws his own supporters believed in, but when he was impeached, they said he was just "lying about sex, which is no big deal." 

If THAT'S the way they think, they have all the more reason to rally around John Edwards, who is clearly legally innocent of all charges and is only morally guilty of "lying about sex."

Why isn't Edwards getting the support Clinton did? Here's a theory:

Clinton was a winner who cheated on a controversial and much-disliked wife; Edwards was a loser (as VP nominee in 2004 and Prez candidate in 2008) who cheated on a wife with breast cancer.

Also, "campaign finance laws" are even a greater sacred cow than sexual harassment laws; Democrats want to apply sexual harassment laws on conservatives, but they want to apply campaign finance laws on everyone. Edwards is charged with violating campaign finance laws, so he's thrown under the bus.

Nevertheless: I don't have to like Edwards to maintain this he is innocent of the crimes he is charged with and that his persecutors/prosecutors are worse than he is.