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.

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.