John Edwards

anyway edwards has presentation problems i think. he seems a bit jolty and awkward. but nothing compared to kucinich (sp?) who is hopeless.

still though i have the luxury of waiting a few months to figure out who i'll be "backing"--i can view this from a safe distance while i'm in europe.

more later maybe, but for the moment - though it's still relatively early, I'm skeptical about his ability to raise his current low single-digit poll numbers through town mtgs in IA and NH. he does have lots of $ to spend on TV, of course, but no (public) plan to do so early on, whereas Kerry and Dean are already on the air. is he really running for President or Veep or just Senator (Erskine Bowles to thread)? not that he doesn't have some basis for such confidence in waiting, but if i were really cynical, i'd say he's a way for the party to raise trial lawyer money (which he certainly has done).

apparently, his Clinton communications connection (one of his chief assets thus far) is ex-non-chief-speechwriter Jonathan Prince.

Centralized primary thread, anyone?

http://www.johnedward.net/

Some things Edwards has said have made me like him. I have no doubt that he has positions on things that I disagree with enormously, and even if he doesn't, will have to DEVELOP them if he makes significant headway through the winnowing process.

My dad was in Chicago this weekend, at the AFL-CIO. I asked him who they're going to support. Gephart? He's been their boy. "Whoever they think can win," he said.

Edwards is the Democratic Leadership Council's boy, right? The New Triangulator? Or is Lieberman their boy? (He used to be head of it, I think.) I love that Dean has provoked the DLC to coordinate all these warning shots, getting Lieberman and a bunch of Senators to calling on Democrats to act like Republicans. Not to go back to "the old ways" of liberalism. It sounded hollow, given Gore's ultra-centrist meltdown, and given that under the leadership and direction of the DLC (the Clinton years, basically), The Democrats lost both houses. They need to shut up.

"Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will go Republican every time" - Harry S Truman

Jeezus christ, some good news for these people, please?

otherwise i shouted from the highest hilltop, well, a friendster bulletin board and i think somewhere on here, that i thought edwards would have been the stronger PRESIDENTIAL candidate. now we'll never know.

Seems a fair bet that he would be a front runner for 2008 to me...

I mean who else? Dean is hardly likely, nor Hillary - can anyone really see the whole of America accepting her at all: it is not a country of Pinefoxes, even Mr Tom Mays. :)

Edwards seems to have the edge on any other *prominent* Democrats. People could emerge, aye, but in terms of people remotely established, who is likely to do much good? The Republicans will now have plenty of time to set up their candidate, though admittedly, splits could enter the frame were Bush to embark upon a term just as extremely right-wing as his last... Considering the debt the GOP now owe to the fundamentalists, it seems entirely possible they could select a hardliner next time... and one not quite as paltable to the mainstream as Bush; especially so if the coming term is as divisive as some fear.

Edwards will have to build up cred in the House or maybe run for governor in NC (though he didn't appear to be a real draw there) before he could be considered a good candidate.

Edwards reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton minus the scandals, which is a damn near unbeatable combo.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuou_n_66070.html

that second story doesn't make much sense but piques the detective in me

A source close to the woman, whose name is being withheld by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER...

the woman, whose name is being withheld, is blond and rather tall and spindly in appearance.

coulteresque

Did she once call Edwards a "faggot"?

xp

peace out John Edwards

http://www.enough.org/inside.php?tag=8J8WW5894

anonymouschickswithdouchebags.com

edwards is so much the best candidate i'm kind of shocked anyone would support anyone else (obama's RFK-esque persona aside).

Pramgatism?

Because his policy differences from other candidates are largely manufactured marginal or even rhetorical distinctions designed to capture the only available space in the primary and are arguably just as inauthentically political as moves he made a few years ago that would be opposed by a majority of his current supporters (not that I'm gonna pretend that NC statewide isn't very different from Dem potus primary, or claim that I think he was more authentic then than he is now)? Because his life story (itself tweaked a bit) suggests to me a search for a stage to stand on more than a search for powerful tools to push towards more good ends than bad (HRC) or an effort to use one's particular gifts/understanding to bring the dark side into cooperation with the light (BHO)? Because he's more of a non-entity, at least on paper, than Bill Richardson, even if he's a better a bullshitter (though the polls have the latter gaining ground so who knows). Because I'd rather have a beer with not only Joe Biden but also Dennis the K? Because at times I find him almost as phony and sanctimonious as his holiness of the nutmeg state? Because of the squint? I mean, not that I've done anything with my life even close to what he has, and I'm sure he's a much better dude than I am, but since you raised the question...

I don't dislike him, I've just never had any inclination to support him. Part of this is ideological, sure - I feel no compulsion to be on the left side of the field, but if that were really what I cared about I'd be for Kucinich or at least Dodd. Ok, maybe Edwards is far more electable than one or both of those, and if I were the paranoid type I might well be wary of Obama. The thing is, while polls often give me a lot of pause on this score, I sorta have serious doubts about Edwards' electability (on non-ideological grounds).

gabbneb your repeated insistence that expressions of idealism or principle or hell anything besides the clinton-centrist party line are just phony "politics as usual," as ever, just kinda baffles me.

i mean if edwards' refusal to follow the clinton-centrist party line is "inauthentic," then what is the ACTUAL AUTHENTIC you're accusing him of deviating from? i'd guess kucinich-style leftism, but since you say you're not in favor of that what sort of criticism is that? i sort of wish you'd just come out and say "i disagree with edwards on ____" instead of just trotting out the poll numbers and making vague pseudo-scientific guesses about who's "electable" and who isn't (if only someone'd noticed in 1860 that lincoln was completely non-electable, we would never have had a war! shame.).

as for "non-entity," well, carter was a non-entity in 75, clinton was a non-entity in 91...

gabbneb are you drunk?

gabbneb - drunk or otherwise - not quite otm but not far off it. to me he seems disingenuous, fighting to appear different from the other two for presentational and political reasons only, without being a paid-up subscriber to those things he purports as making him different.

maybe i should be less cynical about him but that's my perception.

Maybe he's just too good-looking.

ppl who know who's "electable" a year in advance = roffle. "JOHN KERRY REPORTING FOR DUTY"

He talks too much about the poor, BOOOOOOORING!

I think anybody who doesn't want a Republican president should chill and realise that any of the Democratic candidates are actually pretty good, given the fact that they're politicians.

Last night I watched a John Edwards town hall on C-SPAN. He was in New Hampshire, but he seemed to think he was in West Virginia. Two bluegrass bands played before he spoke, and he was introduced by former Georgia Congressman Ben Jones, a.k.a. Cooter from the Dukes Of Hazzard. And instead of saying "Thanks Congressman Jones," when Edwards came on stage he said "thanks Cooter." Maybe it's just me, but the whole charade seemed utterly ridiculous. I felt like I was watching The Country Bear Jamboree at Disneyland.

I hope we can avoid all of the dog and pony show that helped kill Kerry last time.

The more and more I think about it, the more I like HRC. And I hope she goes all "I don't give a fuck - I'm rich, I'm experienced, I'm really smart, and I'm incredibly hard working. If you don't elect me, you are all fucking idiots."

Seriously. The American public - myself included - has been pandered to for long enough. And I think Hill is the one to bring some of that old fashioned Mom medicine to the White House.

And its been too long since we've had a lot of coverage of Chelsea. Rowr.

You lost me with that last sentence.

I don't give a fuck - I'm rich, I'm experienced, I'm really smart, and I'm incredibly hard working. If you don't elect me, you are all fucking idiots."

She's implied this not so subtly for two years!

TWO years?

It's what she works hard AT that damns her.

In your eyes.

Tracer is right that most of the candidates are pretty good, but i don't see how trying to figure out the best one hurts us. it's hardly an inconsequential election.

JD, I expect Morbs to intentionally misread me, but it seems like you read what i wrote through a gabbneb-is-DLC-man filter...

gabbneb your repeated insistence that expressions of idealism or principle or hell anything besides the clinton-centrist party line are just phony "politics as usual," as ever, just kinda baffles me.

what is the clinton-centrist party line? which Clinton? what does "centrist" mean? i might regard that line as a good one for a national candidate to toe, but it's not necessarily a necessary one, depending on the candidate, nor is it necessarily my personal politics, and in any event it's hard to say without knowing what it actually is. and unless you're speaking really broadly (so as to sweep most of the candidates, probably including edwards, into it), i don't think clintonian centrism actually is the party line, because there is no such thing, as becomes obvious when dems actually have sizable majorities (and can be seen in the debates when you get to a certain level of specificity). if i insisted that "expressions of idealism" were "politics as usual," i certainly wouldn't be an obama fan. people like to throw "principle" at me without ever describing the principle involved, or questioning whether mine might be different (as if there is only one legitimate principle - theirs).

i mean if edwards' refusal to follow the clinton-centrist party line is "inauthentic," then what is the ACTUAL AUTHENTIC you're accusing him of deviating from? i'd guess kucinich-style leftism, but since you say you're not in favor of that what sort of criticism is that?

um, no, i didn't say i wasn't in favor of kucinich-style leftism. i said i didn't demand it in a candidate, didn't regard it as an especially important factor in evaluating a candidate. as uptoeleven said, i don't regard edwards as actually deviating from this party line - he's making only minor and often artificial or rhetorical distinctions. (and if you want to make marginal distinctions, he could be deviating from dodd-style leftism, which i'd probably prefer, or richardson-style leftism on the war, which i probably wouldn't at least in part because i'm not sure richardson isn't even phonier than edwards.) i'm not saying he's being inauthentic, but i am saying that given what he's said and done in the past, i don't know what ACTUAL AUTHENTIC is with him. i think it's entirely possible he was a cautious red-state politician before and that circumstances have now allowed him to be authentically who he is as a matter of ideology and rhetoric, but i'm not willing to just sign off on that because his personality and manner, not his ideology, have always felt a little phony to me - he rubbed me the wrong way even when he was much more the cautious red-state guy. who do i think john edwards is? i think he's a guy who's spent his life trying to make himself someone who could persuade a jury, and even if he's now a cancer-fueled crusader for truth (i'm not being entirely sarcastic here), he's still mr. presentation skills in how he does it. so i'm still skeptical about who john edwards is. and if you want to know what i really think, i wonder if, for instance, maybe the things he talks about don't actually fuel him deep down inside, but that he's using the skills he's developed to speak for the issues that motivate his possibly dying wife, who he loves more than anything.

and anyway, if i were for what people here like to imagine is cautious centrism, i wouldn't have been on the edwards side in the fight with kerry about whether to contest the election (though i really do think that they lost, unlike '00), and i wouldn't have picked dean over edwards in the primary.

as for "non-entity," well, carter was a non-entity in 75

well i wasn't around then of course. are you saying carter was a great president? or that i would have been for ford? in '80, i imagine i would have been for Teddy. you know, the northeastern principled idealist, not the southern moderate religious nut 15 years after the civil rights act.

clinton was a non-entity in 91

and i was for tsongas - there's an electable name - until clinton proved himself as a winner, something johnny sunshine has yet to do. and i only really got on board with clinton when he demonstrated depth that edwards has yet to demonstrate.

i sort of wish you'd just come out and say "i disagree with edwards on ____"

as i said, the policy differences here are minor, and i'm going on personality/background, like many or most people. if you want to pick an issue, and demonstrate a distinction, i'll play.

Maybe he's just too good-looking

if he were actually especially good-looking i might like him more. but i do think his 'looks' play an electability role - he seems too concerned about them (that presentation skills thing again), something i think the culture writ large doesn't especially like/trust in men, at least outside the entertainment industry. it plays into the phony/slick and feminine/weak attacks.

He talks too much about the poor, BOOOOOOORING!

he talks a lot and never says very much. not that this is an uncommon trait in primary candidates, i realize. but you should ask if maybe this helps him in the primary voting pool.

and don, i might not get enough sleep sometimes, but i don't get drunk.

and even if he's now a cancer-fueled crusader for truth

don't be a dick

Chelsea = former ballet dancer, thus rowr.

And yes - Hillary will, at very least, present you with not only what she is arguing for, but where she came up with it, the facts upon which it is based, and why you're a fucking idiot if you can't see the truth in what she's talking about.

Unlike our current "leader" who is more like the dad who says "Because I said so, that's why."

To return to thread topic, I have no real problem with Edwards, but he does seem a little to slick for my tastes - we all know that there is some serious work that needs to be done to make things better in this country and in the world, and I'm not sure if he's the guy we can take hearing that from.

I need to read up on Obama, though - I feel I am discounting him without actually understanding his stances/ persona, apart from the whole being black thing.

i don't see how trying to figure out the best one hurts us

OK maybe not. But after having looked into their plans -- such as they are -- I honestly can find very little daylight between them on any issue. I think they're all pretty good, and all "electable". So I just have other things I would prefer to do.

And the tone here -- and all over the "liberal" web -- is rarely the positive, encouraging one you strike in the text I just italicized. It's far more often a kind of dramatic announcement of betrayal, or thundering declamations of false consciousness, or wheedling nitpicking about the trivia of how one statement was worded or whatever.

I think politicians have a great and sometimes infuriating way of confounding expectations. Instead of worrying about how someone's voice or facial tics might play in Peoria, let Adam Nagourney and their campaign strategists worry that and just vote for the person who says the things you agree with most and who does the things you agree with most.

xpost - Yeah, why would we want an experienced, smart, hard working president anyway? :)

re: Edwards, Cooter, etc. - Maybe it's just me, but the whole charade seemed utterly ridiculous.

You know, I'm practically from West Virginia and bluegrass is great and all (there's lots of live bluegrass shows in my hometown now!), but for crying out loud that is absurd re: Dukes of Hazzard. I recall hearing about this and I kind of tried not to hear, hoping it was someone's idea of a joke. What it probably is, is Mudcat Saunders' idea of how to win the redneck vote. Like hell they are going to vote for Edwards. He's no Bill Clinton. Who, as I recall, didn't try to appeal to people based on resentment and acting like everyone was out to get us. Am I crazy or are the voters he's trying to reach with this stuff going to instantly realize they're being insulted to their faces.

Joe Trippi + Mudcat Saunders = Edwards campaign crash and burn

As for the distance btwn their plans, Rodham is a proven liar to a much larger degree than Obama or Edwards, so what "her plan" is doesn't interest me much.

daria sounds like Republicans damning incitement of "class war" -- no surprise

Tracer, otm. I think that this is one of the main reasons Dean was such a strong contender for so long. He seemed to be a guy that you could get a straight answer from, and unlike a person who, regardless of WHAT they say, you start with a "Should I trust this guy?" reflex about.

I am not optimistic about a lot of what's going on - but I'm certainly not giving up, either. At this stage of my life and career, I have a long time before I can just be an isolated rich person. Thus, I am concerned that whoever we elect will actually work to help things. And a great start would be to actually talk about the things that need changing, which are legion.

Hillary scared a whole lot of people as this really powerful, intelligent, and driven WOMAN/MOTHER when she came on the scene in the early 90s. She was a modern Elanor Roosevelt, who a lot of men had a problem with back then. Now, after what appears to be a succesful turn as a Senator, she's making a run with much more understanding of who she is and what she's capable of.

Powerful women scare a whole lot of the men in this country - I know. My wife is a fucking rock star, and scares the shit out of a lot of people I know because of her intelligence, drive and independence.

Which is not to say that she's Hillary Clinton - she's not a politician AT ALL. But she has a lot of the same stuff about her that I think some people find threatening about Hill.

It's not about class war it's about being sick of politicians playing on stupid redneck stereotypes because I think the people I grew up with might be hell of more conservative than me but they still deserve better than that shit!

Maybe I sound as resentful as Mudcat thinks I am but really, just tell the people you'll do something about the good jobs with benefits and economic opportunities all gradually vanishing from your town and prove that you can do it.

"and even if he's now a cancer-fueled crusader for truth"

don't be a dick

Yeah. That's mean and uncalled for.

She was a modern Elanor Roosevelt

Seriously BLAM, educate yourself, or post less disgusting things.

i'm just being summary, dan, esq

Morbs, educate me. Draw some distinctions b/t ER and HRC for me, if you are so inclined. Obv., there were differences, but what I was saying was meant to point out similarities - apparent, as I was not alive during ER's lifetime - between public opinion about HRC and ER's role w/r/t their husbands.

How this is disgusting, I have no idea, but please - show me where the disgust comes from.

And please don't be so condescending - I'm very well educated, but will READILY admit when I'm wrong (which is often) when shown the error of my ways.

If you just assert my wrongness, you're a hell of a lot less likely to get me to admit it, much less change my ways.

one only hopes whoever gets elected will be able to actually get the fucking troops home, make some appointments to repair the massive brain drain in government, deprecate some of the executive privileges Bush gave himself, and implement some kind of stopgap for the depression looming on the horizon. With a lot of luck, a third of the supreme court will die in the next four years and we can try to spackle that up a bit as well.

I honestly don't care who anymore. Just somebody stop the bleeding.

I'm reading Jean Edward Smith's FDR now, and her influence on FDR's social conscience (and, despite being probably the best politician of the 20th century, he did have a developed sense of noblesse oblige) was incalculable. And her "poll numbers" were almost as high during her husband's lifetime.

BLAM don't you know about those murders Hillary committed? It was all over the radio back in the 1990s. For years. I can't believe you don't know about that. Seriously, read up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=hillary+clinton+murders

I was at a Hillary organizational event last night and one of the people in my breakout group was a career civil servant in one of the government agencies, commerce dept. I think, and she was super gung-ho about Hillary because she was convinced it'd be much like Bill's administration - a golden age for them because they put in serious, competent people at every level so they could actually get stuff done. She also said Bush appointed some buddy of his from Texas to run their part of the department and dude was not only crazy and incompetent but also possibly a cokehead.

BLAM, I don't know where to begin. Start with the Kyl-Lieberman vote and work backward as far as being on the board of WalMart, if you care, and contrast with Eleanor's commitment to the poor and minorities.

AGAIN - please pay attention to the framing of my statement. I'm not saying that, on the whole, they are the same. I am WELL aware of ER's amazing work with social causes and with Hill's self-serving ways from way back.

HOWEVER - both seem to me to raise or to have raised, during their time as First Ladies, the hackles of the more "traditional" male population as being out there and doing things - whatever those things are.

Personally - I am not one to merely assert or make statements without them being backed up by something, and do like learning a whole lot. I will hunt down both of these things you mention b/c, while I seem to remember at least some details about them, I do not remember ALL of them, and probably should.

I will also look up Hill's role in the murders, Tracer.

Tracer is being sarcastic, HRC only has the blood of Iraqis on her opportunistic mitts.

and now back to EDWARDS! who saw the Lehrer interview yesterday?

When Hillary sat on Wal-Mart's board it was a very different company to the one it is today, Morbius.

I did not see the interview - what transpired that I need to know?

Tracer - but different how? Weren't they still strongly anti-union? Wasn't the Rose Law Firm the same way, or am I making this up?

Yes I think they were anti-union, but in the way the management of almost every big company is anti-union. But it was nothing like what they became after Sam Walton died in 1992 (according to Bill Clinton's autobiography).

From what I understand, Hillary's role at Wal-Mart was to work on getting more female executives hired and working on equalizing pay between male and female employees.

I thought she was already fighting an uphill battle for gender equality without rocking the boat enough to be declawed. Happy mixed metaphor day!

None of this matters to Morbius. We can debunk whatever but Hillary has got right up his ass and I think he almost likes her up there.

So, she was already a practicing politician? At least she's experienced.

So, what happened on the Lehrer interview with Edwards, Morbs? I did not see it.

I heard about 2 minutes of it; said what he's been saying.

You people excuse any sin with "oh, they're politicians," it's a nonstop moving of the goalposts. These poli threads are exceedingly pointless.

Who died and made you god?

Paul Wellstone?

Last I checked Wellstone was about inspiring people and working toward progressive social change, not sitting around telling people on the Internet that everyone in politics is a piece of shit.

I don't wanna speak for a sober Gabbneb, but it seems to me that what he (and others) is advocating is winning first and implementing liberalism second. A liberal (or conservative) fantasy candidate is unelectable, you're going to have to compromise (a lot) along the way to election wins, but in the end the only way to implement your ideals is incrementally. It's political reality. It's also why we get what we get in our government.

Morbs, it seems you're baiting. I'll bite, as I can just as easily withdraw and detach if you aren't.

In my case at least, I'm not excusing. There is a fundamental difference b/t excuse and explain. This is by FAR the main reason that I a) will NEVER be a politician above the local level or b) practice criminal law. Compromises within such contexts are explainable - politicians reach compromise in order to move thier issues closer to satisfaction/resolution. Criminal defense lawyers can explain why they practice what they do b/c, under the American justice system, everyone is due a defense (supposedly, but that's another issue entirely). Thus, they are serving the American justice system by playing a vital role.

I am unwilling to compromise in these ways. I don't want to have to explain myself any more than I already do (I'm married - see above). But certain people see this type of compromise as a) inherent and unavoidable in a society of our size and type and b) are drawn to serve the country by manipulating these and other mechanisms for the furtherance of their constituent's goals. As such, just as is the case with criminal defense lawyers, there is an ugly, deplorable element to their work. Does this excuse it? No.

But find me a better form of government that will at least ATTEMPT to meet the needs of such a wide variety and number of people while not sacrificing as many ideals in the name of compromise.

Everyone has done bad things - even your mom. These are not things that should be held against her or anyone else if they are still trying to do the right thing.

However, if you feel that any compromise should not be forgiven, you probably shouldn't take Democracy as a process in which you can play a realistic role.

one only hopes whoever gets elected will be able to actually get the fucking troops home, make some appointments to repair the massive brain drain in government, deprecate some of the executive privileges Bush gave himself, and implement some kind of stopgap for the depression looming on the horizon. With a lot of luck, a third of the supreme court will die in the next four years and we can try to spackle that up a bit as well.

I honestly don't care who anymore. Just somebody stop the bleeding.

-- El Tomboto, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:09 (1 hour ago) Link

TOMBOT FOR PRESIDENT, YO!!

yeah, you're not speaking very well for me, don. i don't think a "liberal fantasy candidate" whatever that is is per se unelectable. do i have to say again how much electability has to do with personality and skills and rhetorical style? sure i often err on the cautious side given a not-incredibly-liberal electorate and agree that incremental change is not a sin (but also not the only path), and absolutely agree that compromise is necessary in governance. i also think that this specific moment continues to be gripped by an issue that overrides the basic liberal-conservative choice.

Gabbneb - OTM. There are some serious issues that need to be dealt with on a bipartisan level, above party choices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=151245

boy, mickey kaus is really milking this for all its worth---

-- Like many bloggers, Atlantic's Marc Ambinder sneered at the unidentified "tabloid ... trash" story about John Edwards (which is here). It was left to commenter Alison to note that the

the Enquirer broke the Gary Hart story; Jesse Jackson's love child; OJ's Bruno Magli shoes and found the knife

Don't forget Gennifer Flowers, Max Gold says. (He adds that what the Enquirer added to the Hart story --broken by the Miami Herald--was the photo of the senator with Donna Rice on his lap. But that was a key addition.

John Nichols on Edwards bucking W-Pelosi-Obama on the Peru Free Trade Agreement:

Trade Fight: Edwards is Right, Obama's Wrong, Clinton's Useless

The deal's backers are either confused or corrupted.

They are, as well, wrong.

As Illinois Congressman Phil Hare, a former textile union leader who has led the fight against the Bush-Pelosi line, notes: Peru is currently threatening striking miners with the loss of their jobs if they do not return to the mines. That's not protecting the rights of workers. Indeed, says Hare, "The striking miners were fighting for, among other things, an eight hour work day. In addition, we recently learned that there are 2 million children working in Peru, many in these very same mines."

Thankfully, John Edwards is reading the issue right...

"The fact that the Peru trade deal is supported by a bipartisan group of insiders, including George Bush and senior officials from the first Clinton Administration – many of whom are now lobbyists, corporate lawyers, and business consultants – should be proof-positive of why members of Congress should join with me and oppose this deal. The benefit to corporate lobbyists from both sides of the political aisle will come only at the expense of hard-working families. Senator Obama has chosen to support this bad deal. I strongly disagree with his position, but at least he has taken one. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has refused to take any position. I urge Senator Clinton to publicly announce, today, her opposition and join with me in encouraging members of Congress to vote against the Peru trade deal."

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/209544/58768.jpg

oops

daaaaang

what is he doing the photo above "EX"

o-face

http://www.dbtechno.com/images/DNA_Paternity_Test_drugstore.jpg

Stranahan - n. A you-can-make-them-deny-it troll.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/06/edwards-getting-a-bad-rap-on-enquirer-photo/

I wasn’t planning to blog the story otherwise, but honestly, the more I look at that blur the more it looks like a Photoshop filter. (“Denial!” snarks Deceiver.) I’ve used the paint and blur P-shop filters myself on occasion when working on a satirical image that I couldn’t get to look quite right; the filters help soften and obscure the hard lines that indicate where the “stitching” is. Same here, maybe? Not good enough? All right, let’s try another angle. The encounter in the hotel allegedly took place on July 21. Here’s an AP photo of Edwards taken earlier that same day in Los Angeles. Compare the sideburns and the distance between his hair and his right temple. Hmmm. Still not good enough? Well, the original Enquirer story claims he was wearing a “blue dress shirt” when he entered the building. There’s no collar on the shirt in the new Enquirer photo (in fact, in the smaller photo — which clearly is Edwards — it looks a bit like a hospital gown), although I guess he could have changed for whatever inexplicable reason when he got to the room. Still not good enough? Okay, then — how’d they get a camera into the room in the first place? The photo with the baby couldn’t have been shot from outside through the window; not only are the curtains closed, but they’re behind him. The original story did say that the Enquirer had “learned ahead of time” about the meeting and suggested that they might even have known the room numbers in advance, but there’s conspicuously no mention of hidden cameras even though that would have been a blockbuster detail.

the more I look at that blur the more it looks like a Photoshop filter

duh. tho the most obvious giveaway for me is how concerned they are that you understand that the curtains are the same as in the hotel room.

LOL

o_O

Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

http://www.amnews.com/clay/cold%20ice%20blog.jpg

that line is one of the best things I've read in a while

So just chill, til the next episode.

brutal

its hard out here for a pimp

http://webcontent.harpercollins.com/images/australia_large/0007198213.jpg

How could he do this to his wife ?? How could he do this while running for president ??? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted By: George | August 08, 2008 at 03:16 PM
REPORT ABUSE

It's not a pretty picture for the Dems in any case. Spitzer was a pretty big embarrassment, but this could be bigger.

how?

It's going to be big news - everyone knows the story of his wife battling cancer, then to add this to the mix- it's an explosive combination.

dude's not in office or on a ticket this will blow over. but his public service career is finished.

yeah seriously--i haven't heard Spitzer's name in months

I guess, on the bright side, there's only Presidential candidate in this race who has a history of cheating on an ailing spouse.

Talk about keeping it simple:

http://www.eliotspitzer.com/

"I guess, on the bright side, there's only one Presidential candidate in this race who has a history of cheating on an ailing spouse."

But of course the MSM won't touch that story with a 10-foot pole.

c'mon, it's not news that McCain is an adulterer, so why should the *media* touch this?

McCain's past may not be news to political junkies. Neither is today's revelation about Edwards news to people who've been following the story on blogs for weeks or longer - but most people will find out about it today or in the next few days.

David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid, said Friday he was disappointed and angry after hearing about Edwards' confession.

"Thousands of friends of the senators and his supporters have put their faith and confidence in him and he's let him down," said Bonior, a former congressman from Michigan. "They've been betrayed by his action."

Asked whether the affair would damage Edwards' future aspirations in public service, Bonior replied: "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."

i'm sure bonior knew tho

I guess I mean that McCain's shenanigans were like 30 years ago (shit, you could make a good ad here, combine *old* with *cheater*) unless the Vicki Iseman thing is true

I think Edwards should give a speech at the convention and come out moonwalking to "Billie Jean" /custos

shit, you could make a good ad here, combine *old* with *cheater*

Maybe I'm a bad person but if one of those liberal 527 organizations wanted to make effective use of their money, a "Swift Boat" style attack on McCain that dredged up those old adultery stories might get some attention - especially if Obama swiftly denounced it.

if he had had the affair several years ago, why was he running around the hotel two weeks ago???

dude if you're gonna tell the truth, tell the whole truth

that wouldn't work, swift boat style shit on repubs just plays into their persecution complex

xxpost

The evangelical wing of the GOP base is already uncertain about whether McCain is their kind of Republican, dredging up the adultery stories couldn't help him there.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m15/djyusef/SloppySeconds.gif

Bonior replied: "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."

ahahahahahah priceless

You can't lie about things morons actually understand

What he should have said is that he couldn't have fathered this child because he ALWAYS WORE A CONDOM. But he is unable to say that, isn't he? Sounds like he had unprotected sex with this woman for a while. And around the time of conception, this woman had sex with at least TWO men ... and obviously EVERYONE forgot about protection. John should get checked for AIDS and other STD's. It is very likely that this woman never uses protection, has indiscriminate sex with several men at the same time and is a carrier of some disease. John's wife Elizabeth should insist that he get tested. Last thing a woman battling cancer needs is a disease that attacks her system when her immunities are already down!!!I'm so sorry for the turmoil this will cause Elizabeth. It brings back really bad memories from my own situation of being cheated on. This makes me want to hide in a corner and cry for her .. and myself. I'm so sorry.
Posted by:
dreamqwn 4:39 PM

qwnt

kind of satisfying to finally have confirmation on JE's dbag status

ugh yes

Edwards reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton minus the scandals,...

-- Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 18:16 (5 years ago) Link

Alas . . .

never made up my mind about the book 'Story of My Life'. as in, it was terrible, but I finished reading it, and over the next ten years met a few people that reminded me of the character, so he must have gotten something 'right'

http://www.ephblog.com/category/jay-mcinerney-76/

Guys?

You're forgetting something.

His father worked in a mill.

john edwards, what's on your ipod?

mill work makes ya horny

at least now we know he's not a gay

http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/thevideodrome/i_feel_pretty_screen_shot.JPG

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29806768427&ref=mf

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

August 8, 2008

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.

lol @ 99% honest = saying "I did not fuck that woman", when I did fuck that woman

ith my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly.

Ha -- talk about boilerplate prose.

this isn't boilerplate though: "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic."

But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

That's the biggest 1% EVAR.

The fact he went out of his way to point out Elizabeth's cancer was in remission when he was fooling around, like it fucking matters one iota, is the most slimeball thing I've heard a pol say in quite some time.

Yes, the egocentric/narcissistic line is startling in such a note.

If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself.

What do you mean was egocentric, John?

fuck this guy for trying to be president when he had all this shit just waiting to come out. if obama wasnt in the race he couldve sucked up all the anti-hillary vote and we'd be finding this shit out 3 months before the election - thanx a lot you douche

^^^truth bomb, my thoughts exactly

he was saying a few weeks ago he wouldn't take the veep slot, right? i wonder if he saw this shit coming.

or if he just wanted to be free to fuck around with the press now focused on obama.

who says he tried to win?

if obama wasnt in the race he couldve sucked up all the anti-hillary vote

yeah, the 'anti-hillary vote' is a smaller percentage than you think (way to credit barack too), and i wouldn't want to put a whole lot of money on his supporters leaning more towards O than H

well, I suspect Obama knew already, and kept a polite distance.

these guys are more privy to rumors about their rivals than we plebes.

He's seen this shit coming since October, when the Enquirer first made noise about the story. He knew THEN that if they got that close, they could definitely get every bit of it. Then he continued the campaign like nothing bad ever happened.

we plebes have been privy to these rumors for 10 months

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3553/teenagekicksrr2.jpg

This plebe doesn't read The National Enquirer at the grocery store. I'm an "Us Weekly" guy.

Andrew Sullivan reminds us:

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen," - John Edwards, on Bill Clinton, 1999.

oh snapz

ethan otm

xpost

well nearly EVERYBODY is on record as a complete hypocrite on the clinton stuff

fuck this guy for trying to be president when he had all this shit just waiting to come out. if obama wasnt in the race he couldve sucked up all the anti-hillary vote and we'd be finding this shit out 3 months before the election - thanx a lot you douche

wow ethan totally OTM - this did not immediately occur to me but it is right on

someone should actually compile quotes expressing moral indignation at clinton's behavior by people (dems, repubs) who were subsequently revealed to have been doing much the same kind of stuff (if not worse).

Byron York's been bleating about this story for months. Now he can drool:

Edwards has made some pretty definitive assertions in his new statement. If any of them are not true, he could be in a pretty hazardous spot, because there are a lot of moving parts in this story. There is Rielle Hunter, who knows the whole thing. There is Hunter's friend Bob McGovern, who, according to the National Enquirer, played a big part in setting up the Beverly Hilton meeting. There is Andrew Young, the Edwards aide who, through a lawyer, claimed paternity of Hunter's child. And there is Andrew Young's wife, who will have her own perspective on things. And those are just the people who might have pretty direct knowledge of events.

And finally there is, of course, the Enquirer. Speaking to Enquirer editor David Perel the other day, I got the impression that his number-one reason for withholding the photos from the Beverly Hilton is that he wanted to see how Edwards would react. (And then there was the matter of the upcoming Democratic convention giving a big showcase to the story.) The Enquirer appeared to be waiting for Edwards to make some sort of wide-ranging statement. Now he has. We'll see what the tabloid does next

so i'm guessing edwards is NOT making a speech at the convention now...?

i look forward to republicans gloating about how we almost nominated a guy who fucked around on his wife while she suffered serious health problems

Who do you hang around, ethan?

i dont hang around republicans. the joke is that republicans nominated a guy who fucked around on his wife while she suffered health problems. that's what i was joking about.

i can actually imagine the NYT or someone using the edwards stuff as an excuse to finally get that mccain episode in the news again.

did andrew sullivan go along with the whole clinton impeachment thing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

he called him "reckless" while posting personal ads for hiv-positive bareback anal

I knew he left her for Cindy Lou or whatever her name is, I forgot about the medical aspect.

John McCain cheated on and later abandoned his first wife, who was crippled and disfigured. One of the women with whom he committed adultery during that time is his current wife, Cindy Stepford Botox Budweiser.

Posted By: We Must Never Forget | August 08, 2008 at 04:55 PM

Don't get Sully started on Clinton.

Cindy Stepford Botox Budweiser.

lol

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/t1home.edwards.split.gi.jpg

these guys are powerful, you'd think they'd get better skank than this.

ergh

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/t1home.edwards.split.gi.jpg

she kinda looks like him

she didn't spend $400 on that haircut

the haircut that says "fuck yeah i would cheat on my cancer wife"

Indeed - if Edwards were already a RethugliKKKan, we'd be treated to an endless stream of sycophantic surrogates in the media pleading for "Christian understanding" of this man's failings.

Gah, their hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Posted by Your Uncle Bastard
August 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink

lolz "Uncle Bastard"

YOUR uncle bastard

major lolz to all of this, but I'd like to point out that Edwards could have been totally genuine in meaning what he said about Clinton, considering it was years before his profile went through the roof and he became a household-name Democrat (presumably also before he became an out-and-out megalomaniac as opposed to a budding megalomaniac)

Okay that's all the fairness I wanted to interject, plz continue making me lol

public statements about the infidelities of people you don't know are pretty dud, whatever their substance.

or people in general, i suppose.

Yes, but political figures are asked to talk about others in the political realm all the time, particularly when scandals bubble up. I've been away from news media for a while due to work but I'm sure a little digging will show most of the major political players and a few minor ones making Edwards pronouncements.

So, ok...I'm thinking about whether it's worse because she has cancer or not. And I'm wondering if this attractive woman comes onto you and says her husband has some terrible disease and can no longer function sexually ("function sexually" - ok, not good, but you get my drift) but that she still has..er...needs, would you tell her to go back to her ailing husband and hold his hand or would you be more "understanding"?

jesus christ I wouldn't screw around on my wife no matter what, especially if she was sick wtf

what if it was rachel ray who was becoming "understanding"

yeah, just go jerk off or something. dipshit.

er xpost.

you know if you go back to the original post that spawned this long-running and hilarious meme that I have a thing for Rachel Ray, you will note that I said something to the effect of "my wife and I enjoy speculating about what Rachel Ray sexual relationship with her spoonula"

x-post

"sexual relationship Rachel Ray HAS with her spoonula"

dipshit

Hey, I'm just speculating on his mental processes. I'm not actually telling you to do this ffs.

lol totally took me a minute to realize that fbook group was started by Marc Loi

He may have screwed around with his wife because she was sick. Have you guys never read any fiction?

i.e. Newt Gingrich's biography?

Daryle Dbm (North Jersey, NJ) wrote
at 3:47pm
Him and his Obama posse are falling apart left and right. This is the guy who Obama praises and was even considering to be VP? ROTFL. Too bad this didn't happen after he chose him, then Obama would be done for sure.

lolz can't find the original post I don't even remember what thread it was on but I did find this

weird, I think Rachel Ray is probably the one person on the Food Network I really can't stand (apart from Emeril)

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, June 13, 2005 11:11 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Link

ROTFL

why hello john edwards would you like to blap?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x18/gr8080/Picture384.jpg

dipshit referred to mr. edwards, not to anyone here. sorry if i wasn't clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair

^^comprehensive

He looks like a lesbian in that Wikipedia mug.

i think politics attracts (and in fact necessitates) personality types that lend themselves to this kind of behavior, ultimately. the type of personality that succeeds in politics is the kind that is good at convincing you that what he/she is saying is right and correct; taken to any extreme this lends itself to the egotism and narcissism that Edwards (and Clinton before him) talked about. So ultimately this story wasn't very surprising to me because I'm not a child who thinks that people in authority are there because they are flawless.

I imagine keeping this secret for 2 years must have been stressful for Elizabeth.

"Supermarket tabloid"

What a jerk.

That's if you believe he told her two years ago.

Jerk park OTM.

i just noticed the 99% comment in edwards' statement. how bizarre is that. did he estimate 100 truth claims in the enquirer article, of which just one (he slept with the woman) was accurate? or is this more of a subjective assessment that the one true claim is of much less importance than any of the other, supposedly specious claims.

fuck a john edwards.

Pure speculation here but I wonder if Edwards and his wife had "an arrangement" so to speak. The initial gossip about the affair began right after she announced that her cancer had returned.

Isn't that what everyone sez every time a public figure gets caught?

Alex is frisky tonight!

yeah how many married people do you know IRL who have this kind of "arrangement"? I know exactly NONE

yeah how many married people do you know IRL who have this kind of "arrangement"? I know exactly NONE

There are definitely loads of couples who come to an "arrangement" when one partner can't or won't perform due to illness -- ask any sex therapist. It may seem cold, but it's also a pragmatic recognition of human nature. I'm sure Carol McCain would rather her husband had done something along those lines, rather than trade her in for a trophy wife.

It's also worth remembering that there are places in the world where people don't automatically freak the fuck out over the idea of extramarital affairs, of course.

you know if you go back to the original post that spawned this long-running and hilarious meme that I have a thing for Rachel Ray, you will note that I said something to the effect of "my wife and I enjoy speculating about what Rachel Ray sexual relationship with her spoonula"

Nah, man. It was funny because your line was about you and the wifey fantasizing about 'sexually assaulting' Rachael Ray.

And last fall, in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, Edwards himself cited infidelity as a character flaw voters might well count as disabling in a potential President:

"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character - whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them."

smooth

Mr. Edwards denied making any payments to cover up the affair but told ABC News that others may have made payments to Ms. Hunter on his behalf without his knowledge. On Friday, Fred Baron, who was chairman of Mr. Edwards’ presidential campaign finance committee, told The Dallas Morning News that he paid relocation and housing expenses for Ms. Hunter. “The money was purely and simply to get them out of North Carolina and to get them into a stable place,” Mr. Baron said.

In an interview last year with EXTRA that CNN just broadcast, Ms. Hunter said she spent about six months following Mr. Edwards around for the filming, including traveling with him to Africa. “The whole experience was life altering to me,” she said. “One of the great things about John Edwards is that he’s so open and willing to try things in new ways.” She did not mention the affair.

tmi

I wonder to what extent marriage is just a prop for a lot of politicians. Type A personality power trip alpha males seem like just the type to tend towards dipping their quills in any available inkwell, but they also recognize how far the appearance of a secure and happy marriage can take them. On the one hand, I feel like saying, "Stop being so disingenuous and just own up to being an insatiable fuck machine who shouldn't be dragging some poor woman into a monogamous construct that you have no intention of upholding!" But on the other hand, that's the same as saying, "Give up any hope of your type A personality power trip alpha male-ness getting you anywhere in the public sphere!"

you think John Edwards is a "Type A personality power trip alpha male"?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_releases_excerpts_of_Edwards_nightline_0809.html

i don't give a shit about politicians sex lives. AFAIC this is just another exercise in media self-righteousness.

yeah the MEDIA has been all over this lol

thank god for blogs LMAO

mikkii kau$ and that douche eric bowlert will be dining on this for the next month. bone appetite!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5546813&page=1

you think John Edwards is a "Type A personality power trip alpha male"?

Yeah, kinda. Dude doesn't become a vice presidential candidate in this day and age without having some of that juice, although he does a good job of dressing it up in faux-sensitive metrosexuality. His public face in particular strikes me as being particularly disingenuous (and there's plenty of evidence to support that perception). Why, what do you think drives him?

So, does this mean he's still a gay/breck girl?

I think Edwards is driven in part by wanting to do good and in part by wanting to persuade people through argument/personal style (however plain it might seek to be) - this is where the narcissism part comes in, though I think in his case it may simply be weakness. I think he's gotten where he is because he's good at persuading at least some kinds of people, and various Dem bigs saw it and held him up as a pretty face for the party. I've never been a big fan, because while I think he's fairly sincere in his politics (or at least, as I've said before, his wife's politics), I've always regarded him as more style than substance. I also wouldn't use that description for Bill Clinton, who is an extremely smart guy (unlike Edwards) with people skills that are married to and a byproduct of an enormous craving for connection with and approval from people.

you think John Edwards is a "Type A personality power trip alpha male"?

You mean along with every other male pol w/ a national profile? yup.

lol to see you all turn into moralistic church ladies at this, esp our own Van Wilder gr8080!

i thought everyone was mad cuz he was fucking up chances to avoid repub presidency, not bcuz of his 'moral failings' or whatever

never mind that, uh, cheating on a spouse w/ cancer is pretty shitty beyond anyone's behavior here that im aware of

morbs i always loved you :(

To his credit when he had that hard-on for Rielle in 2006 I'm sure he wasn't thinking of the ramifications of Republicanizing 2008. But what was he doing 2 weeks ago?

And when did Lisa become "Rielle"? This is just lols

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/edwards-mistres.html

Edwards' Mistress Rielle Hunter the Model for Character in Gen-X Lit

August 09, 2008 10:35 AM

This may only be of interest to Gen-Xers or fans of the literary brat pack in the 1990s, but it turns out that a fictitious character based on Rielle Hunter, the former mistress of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has been making its way through several novels.

Author Jay McInerney told the New York Post that Alison Poole, the protagonist of his 1988 novel “Story of My Life,” was based on Hunter, whom he dated for a few months in the 1980s back when she was Lisa Druck.

"She's a nice girl," McInerney told the Post’s Page Six. "She used to be a real party girl. When she wasn't out at nightclubs, she was taking acting classes. We dated for only a few months, but in that period, I spent a lot of time with her and her friends, whose behavior intrigued and appalled me to such an extent that I ended up basing a novel on the experience. It was narrated in the first person from the point of view of an ostensibly jaded, sexually voracious 20-year-old who was inspired by Lisa. I certainly thought of Alison Poole as a sympathetic and ultimately endearing character."

Radar magazine has delved back into the book for ostensibly relevant passages about Poole's liaisons with men who have "high-powered jobs" and whose "idea of wild is argyle socks,” including "Most of the guys I know have really high-powered jobs and make up for lost time when they're not in the office. The Berserk After Work Club. I seem to attract them in a big way, all these boys in Paul Stuart suits with six-figure salaries and hellfire on a dimmer switch in their eyes." Poole also said, "Men. I've never met any. They're all boys."

New York magazine notes that Poole has also appeared in novels by McInerney's pal and fellow brat-packer, Bret Easton Ellis, including “American Psycho” and “Glamorama.”

- jpt

To his credit when he had that hard-on for Rielle in 2006 I'm sure he wasn't thinking of the ramifications of Republicanizing 2008. But what was he doing 2 weeks ago?

and what was he doing when he decided to run for prez in 08???

he was doing and what??

:-O

Alison Poole!

but seriously, fuck u morbs- there's a lot of ground between calling out a guy for running for president when something like this is creeping in the background and being a MORALISTIC CHURCH LADY.

i dont care about politicians sex lives either, but a lot of people do- enough to kill a political career. and when you cheat on your cancer wife and then go and run for president with that still lurking in the background you are a dbag.

also yes it is satisfying to find out something like this about a guy who always rubbed you the wrong way.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/edwards_080809_mn.jpg

^^^wishing jhoshea was around for that jpeg :((((

also yes it is satisfying to find out something like this about a guy who always rubbed you the wrong way.

true dat

what was he doing 2 weeks ago?

like he said, trying to make sure she wouldn't blab

cheat on your cancer wife

I think this phrase belongs on the I Love Poetry board

also morbz where's your outrage at the fact that this lady had no filmmaking experience, met edwards at bar, and was given >$100k to make 4 youtubes for him?

I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.
I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.
I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3810

tiding over until the obamer bukakke rape party scandal on Halloween 2008

from la times

Who's your daddy? Rielle Hunter says no paternity test on John Edwards or anyone

Well, so much for Sen. John Edwards' offer to take a paternity test to prove he did not father the infant daughter of his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Edwards admitted a 2006 affair this week, said according to his timing he could not be the father of the five month-old infant, Frances Quinn Hunter, and said he'd not paid any money to Hunter or the married former Edwards staffer who has said he's the father.

Saturday, Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, issued a statement for his client saying she wanted to forever protect the privacy of her daughter, whose birth certificate from Feb. 27 carries no name on the father line.

“Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future," Gordon said.

Edwards, who publicly denied the affair until he admitted it, has said, and his wife Elizabeth has confirmed, that the former Democratic senator and presidential candidate told her about his liaison with Hunter in 2006 and it was a difficult period for them.

Edwards says the affair was brief and occurred while his wife's breast cancer was in remission.

In his statement and an interview with ABC, Edwards said, “I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established.”

Looks like not. For now.

-- Andrew Malcolm

http://www.infin80.com/logo/logos/hushmoney.jpg

well they never proved it on warren g. harding either. there's precedent.

Nuthin' but a "G" Thang

you think John Edwards is a "Type A personality power trip alpha male"?

uh yeah no shit cumlord

gr80, it's no big deal, but...

morbz where's your outrage at the fact that this lady had no filmmaking experience, met edwards at bar, and was given >$100k to make 4 youtubes for him?

I didn't know any of that, cuz I don't read about this shit. Sounds like standard pol behavior.

Edwards has no "role" with The Saint, and won't now. If this is still enough to "Republicanize 2008," well, fuck you Dems.

Obama was proved as dbag by FISA vote (for those who weren't paying attention til then).

love the ILX "election deciders" list: A New Yorker cartoon, a non-candidate's affair... what else has been on the list? Was there a comet that I missed? How about which league winning the World Series?

Politico has 7 bad things on *its* list at the moment, 'gainst Gobama http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_politico/12433;_ylt=ApKMDVjVg2ANmlukBf0D0MGWwvIE

2. Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped. His chances of ending the Democrats 44-year losing streak in the commonwealth are pretty good – thanks to the explosive growth of the liberal D.C. suburbs, and a 147,000 spike in voter registration sure to benefit Democrats. But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50 and that the state is far from a lock-solid hedge if he loses Ohio and Florida.

6. The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what – but the Democrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. (Add Al Gore if you’re counting the popular vote.)

xpost

IMO, the only people dimwitted enough to think voting against the FISA bill would have been a good political move for Obama are the same ones who were so blinded by Edwards' painfully obvious and insincere pandering to the left that they couldn't see him from the beginning as a way-too-slick opportunistic creep.

the only people dimwitted enough to think voting against the FISA bill would have been a good political move for Obam

Er, like I said many times in June, voting against the bill was the SMART political move: voters reward politicians who keep their promises, even when they don't agree with the promises; they don't reward politicians who pander, and Democratic prez candidates have done nothing but pander for the last 30 years.

love the ILX "election deciders" list: A New Yorker cartoon, a non-candidate's affair... what else has been on the list? Was there a comet that I missed? How about which league winning the World Series?

-- Dr Morbius, Monday, 11 August 2008 13:44 (22 minutes ago) Link

can you read?? i dont think most of us are worried about edwards tipping the election away from obama, we're mad that edwards thought he could run for prez and NOT have this come out. fuck him for that shit - what if hed been nominated is the issue here

also knock it off with this 'the saint' shit its really fucking stupid

Yeah good luck with that, deej.

i just realized the first post on this thread says:

"Edwards reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton minus the scandals"

2. Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped. His chances of ending the Democrats 44-year losing streak in the commonwealth are pretty good – thanks to the explosive growth of the liberal D.C. suburbs, and a 147,000 spike in voter registration sure to benefit Democrats. But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50 and that the state is far from a lock-solid hedge if he loses Ohio and Florida.

6. The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what – but the Democrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. (Add Al Gore if you’re counting the popular vote.)

well, duh

who's claiming Obama has a better than 50-50 chance in VA?

also, it's CO, not VA, that gets him the election if he holds the Gore states

Wolfson says Hillary would have won if Edwards had been taken out earlier

I don't agree with that, especially, but I do think he helped her given the candidate field we had.

uh, helped him, that is

Obama's shocking secret!

Hillary would have won if Edwards had been taken out earlier

If so, a grateful nation salutes, you, horny creep.

is your standup routine funnier/more insightful than your ILX posts, morbs?

you mean was it in 1991?

Morbs, it seems you're baiting. I'll bite, as I can just as easily withdraw and detach if you aren't.

In my case at least, I'm not excusing. There is a fundamental difference b/t excuse and explain. This is by FAR the main reason that I a) will NEVER be a politician above the local level or b) practice criminal law. Compromises within such contexts are explainable - politicians reach compromise in order to move thier issues closer to satisfaction/resolution. Criminal defense lawyers can explain why they practice what they do b/c, under the American justice system, everyone is due a defense (supposedly, but that's another issue entirely). Thus, they are serving the American justice system by playing a vital role.

I am unwilling to compromise in these ways. I don't want to have to explain myself any more than I already do (I'm married - see above). But certain people see this type of compromise as a) inherent and unavoidable in a society of our size and type and b) are drawn to serve the country by manipulating these and other mechanisms for the furtherance of their constituent's goals. As such, just as is the case with criminal defense lawyers, there is an ugly, deplorable element to their work. Does this excuse it? No.

But find me a better form of government that will at least ATTEMPT to meet the needs of such a wide variety and number of people while not sacrificing as many ideals in the name of compromise.

Everyone has done bad things - even your mom. These are not things that should be held against her or anyone else if they are still trying to do the right thing.

However, if you feel that any compromise should not be forgiven, you probably shouldn't take Democracy as a process in which you can play a realistic role.

-- B.L.A.M., Friday, October 12, 2007 1:17 PM (10 months ago) Bookmark Link

owned

AP reporting Elizabeth Edwards has passed on.

NPR also reporting it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elizabeth-edwards-dies-age-61-battling-breast-cancer/story?id=12319133

It's really too bad she doesn't have her own thread.

I'll miss her.

horribly sad.

Oh, that's sad.