Powered by TypePad

« Working For The Big "O" | Main | What's Wrong With "All of The Above"? »

August 08, 2008



I can think of no reason for anyone, certainly not one's friend, to pay a former mistress, except for the kid. Looking forward to the paternity test.

As to that 2007 Father of the Year acceptance speech, both at 1:00 and around 2:20, it seems reasonable to believe that Elizabeth had already been apprised of the affair, one way or another. If so, apparently they were able to overcome it at least as well as the Clintons were.


Supermarket tabloids. That got it right, Tool!


I can't decide if he denied the picture was him or not. He claimed the picture looked like him but he didn't hold the baby at that meeting. However, he never denied, I don't think, that he had never held the baby. And I don't think NE has said that picture was taken that night. They have said he was at the hotel at another time within the last 2 months.


Well hell, how are the tabloids reporting a story any different than reporters on a Bush story? Shuester made himself the laughing stock reporting Joe Wilson/Jason Leopold BS.


He admitted he was cornered by the supermarket tabloid. He admitted to the affair. So far, NE has told the truth. The Tool hasn't.


We see them [the newspapers] laid bare for the liars and withholders of truth that they are.

It is interesting to observe the reaction to this sort of thing in the local regional rag. There are all sorts of letters to the editor or the ombudsman about bias this way or that. Invariably they refer to the paper's editorial position or editorial page.

That's entirely the wrong thing on which to focus. It is the news filtering that you describe that is the issue: what is reported, what is not, where it is located, and how it is reported. *That's* the issue, not whether a paper runs idiots like Krugman or Dowd.

To me it says that the hoi polloi does not get it yet. Soon, I hope.

Tom Maguire

Dems want the story to be about Edwards. Reps want the story to be about the media silence in favor of a Democrat.

And I love this from S Clown, who doesn't want us distracted from the anthrax case:

Now we'll never know why it took seven years to check the genetic fingerprint of the spore evidence to determine the source of the infection; a government run lab.

Well, we'll never know if we don't even read the news reports - this was in the Times:

A second clue was developed from the new ability to sequence, or decode, the chemical letters of DNA. Scientists at the Institute for Genomic Research, a pioneer in genome sequencing, sequenced the full genome of the anthrax recovered from the blood of Robert Stevens, the first victim of the attacks.

The genome of various stocks of the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks were almost identical in all the 5 million chemical letters of their DNA. But researchers found enough differences in the attack strain to provide a reasonable chance of identifying its source.

The chief difference was that a stretch of DNA was flipped head to tail in some bacteria in the attack strain, but not in any other samples.

Further, the attack strain contained bacteria with both the flipped and the unflipped DNA, showing that it was a mixture of two strains, which analysts later found reflected a mix of origins — 85 percent from the Dugway Proving Ground of the Army in Utah and 15 percent added at Fort Detrick, according to one person close to the investigation.

To make sure the case for the distinctive features of the attack anthrax could hold up in court, agents collected thousands of samples of Ames strain anthrax from labs around the world, said scientists familiar with the F.B.I.’s thinking. “This is the step that took so long,” one scientist said.

Decoding the genome of a bacterium like anthrax may have cost around $500,000 in 2002, and even the F.B.I.’s budget would have been strained to decode thousands of genomes. A new generation of sequencing machines can now sequence bacterial genomes for around $500. But those machines did not become available until about 2005, which may have been another reason for the delay.

So now some of us know.

But really, isn't the anthrax suicide a distraction from the failed hunt for Obama? Or have the talking points been shuffled?


His wife didn't know about the meeting at the hotel until the Tool told her, the next morning. Interesting that. He felt she should know because she knew everything else. Oh really? How about you thought you should tell her before the pictures surfaced?



I think because Edwards is a trial lawyer and in a bubble he thinks they can out smart him - I think the NE outsmarted him by only releasing a grainy picture from a previous visit - Edwards thinking they didn't get current shots.

I think the NE has been waiting for this moment and the shots of that night will surface.

How did NE get pix of the inside of he room though, the drapes appeared to be closed?


But really, isn't the anthrax suicide a distraction from the failed hunt for Obama?

Is Obama lost? ::grin::


CAN'T - should have said "he thinks he can outsmart them" though.


The Tool left open the theory that picture is photoshopped. Him holding some kid in the last 3 years and then placed in the room. I don't know. I need to see the transcript because he talked out of both sides of his mouth during this part of the interview. I couldn't really follow him at that point. Intentionally probably.

hit and run

But really, isn't the anthrax suicide a distraction from the failed hunt for Obama?

He's in Hawaii!


Tops, I remember Elizabeth Edwards sabotaging Ann Coulter on Hardball. I think it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xYcUQiJ3sk

My computer keeps crashing when I try and view it, but can you find out the date of the show/tape?


He did say that Baron knew Hunter and Young personally. So maybe he answered that for Byron York.

"I'm saying you asked me about that photograph. I don't know anything about that photograph, I don't know who that baby is. I don't know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it's a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby…I have no idea. I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken I can tell you that."

See, there is his non-denial denial that he is holding the baby in that room on that night. He clearly says he was not posing for the picture. ::grin::


I forgot the link. LUN.


The commenters at ABC are pissed at Woodruff and Nightline. Go figure. Edwards calls them, asks them to do the interview, tells them when they can run it, and Woodruff and Nightline are the bad guys. Democrats. Pheh...


can you find out the date of the show/tape?

June 26, 2007, according to the YouTube stamp



It isn't working for me either.


Yes Sue, all he said there is he did not "pose" for the picture, therefor he can not say if the picture is in fact him

a variation of the

"it depends what the definition of is is"


I keep thinking about this character, Young. What kind of man would say the child was his if it wasn't? And what kind of wife would allow her husband to say that? This is the most bizarre story I've ever heard. Some billionaire pays your mistress, without your knowledge, to stay quiet? And the silliest thing of all is it might be true. Otherwise, the Youngs are just as guilty of dooping the public as the Tool is. Distinct possibility. Money has been known to do strange things to people. Like lose your integrity if it turns out the Tool is the father.



I told you I couldn't follow him at that point. He was spinning me around like a top, no pun intended. ::grin::



I don't get it either - I am betting the Youngs' are just that - young - and he was either pressured and/or naive enough to go along.


What kind of man would say the child was his if it wasn't?

The kind of man persuaded by a trial lawyer ::grin::


I am at a loss to understand how Young could allow his name to be used in this way, if it wasn't true. He has children. How would they explain to their children about a baby sister that wasn't their baby sister? And he moved his wife and children to Santa Barbara according to the NE. Just freaking weird. I'm not buying the story being told. NE is claiming Hunter is in love with the Tool and expecting to marry him. What does she do now that he has told the world he didn't love her? What would any woman do if her married lover said that? This is a Monday night movie if I ever saw one. And not a very good one at that.


I'm sorry if I have offended any men here with, as JMH paints it, heaping disdain on them. I didn't see it that way. I've raised boys, my own and several foster boys, 95% of my closest friends are men and I prefer their company to that of women and after hanging around with them, I think I've heard just about all, and I've worked in Washington for a number of years, so I guess I thought I was just stating facts.

I happen to agree with Elizabeth that it is a private matter and she apparently figured out that for her, it was the smarter move to keep Johnny boy around, and use his guilt to her advantage, since she was out on the campaign trail with him. Why get mad, get even.

I object to the judgmental attitude of people, in particular the cable news women, who act so superior and offended. And as I stated earlier, it really pissed me off when they cut off a report on the Russia/Georgia situation to go BREAKING NEWS to tell me for the umpteenth time today that Edwards admitted he'd had an affair.

Having worked on a presidential campaign up close and personal, I would find it hard to believe there wasn't sex going on at every level. And I don't find it strange at all that there is someone picking up the tab for Hunter.

So he lied about having sex. It isn't like he is a drunk. There are plenty of those holding court on the floors of Congress. And this has been a rumor for more than a year, he confessed to Elizabeth 2 years ago, yet everyone is acting like it happened yesterday. He was yesterday's news all thru the primaries and so I say who cares?

As to being vulnerable to some form of foreign blackmail, well, the rest of the world laughs at us here in America for our puritanical attitudes.



He had ample opportunity not to lie and he directed or mislead his dedicated staff to lie on his behalf. He took campaign funds from dedicated supporters knowing he was lying and had he clinched the nomination, this would come up and hurt far more than himself.

I said earlier had he not lied, he would have maybe jeopardized his immediate political future but would have had a future, nonetheless. Look at Ted.

But had this been Mitt Romney, the media would have never accepted staff denials and would have presued the story with a vengeance.

It is a story. Period.


Also, Sara

I would argue that if the media had actually covered the story, they wouldn't be doing saturation catch-up, cover-up.


Now here is a fitting piece to end this sex-ridden day:

Via the Denver Post in an article on how to beat the thinner air at high altitude for convention goers:

Viagra boosts muscle oxygen

Erectile-disfunction drugs such as Viagra and Cialis help those going to very high altitudes by relaxing blood vessels and increasing the amount of oxygen to muscles.

Think about it. A rather frightening thought, a convention hall full of democrats on Viagara. Shudder!


TSK9, I guess I'm not so bothered about him lying, but I won't say again why, since that is taken as heaping disdain on men. At least he didn't send Elizabeth out to do his lying for him and blame it on the VRWC. It is really none of our business anyway.

And he was never a viable candidate. He didn't have a snowball's chance to get the nomination and the idea he might be the VP pick has always been wishful thinking by the far left. He was yesterday's news yesterday.

You all realize, don't you, that if the baby isn't his, then while he was cheating on Elizabeth, his girlfriend was cheating on him.


Anyway, I'm outta here. The Olympics have opened, the Iraqi athletes got a rousing welcome, Bush and Putin have had their heads together for near the entire ceremony, which was absolutely fantastic. And tomorrow the games begin, which for me is one of the great treats in life.


Sara hates this story, which is no one's business, is boring, is relevant to nothing, interrupts the real news, and is unworthy of attention, comment or judgment.

But she has been posting here about it for how many hours now?

Mike G in Corvallis

Here's another example of why the words of a personal injury trial lawyer should be parsed with extreme caution:

WOODRUFF: I know this is a very difficult question, but were you in love with [Rielle Hunter]?

EDWARDS: I'm in love with one woman. I've been in love with one woman for 31 years. She is the finest human being I have ever known. And the fact that she is with me after this having happened is a testament to the kind of woman and the kind of human being she is. There is a deep and abiding love that exists between Elizabeth and myself. It's always been there, it in my judgment has never gone away.

Even Mickey Kaus -- who should know better! -- is saying "Was it smart for Edwards to potentially annoy Rielle Hunter by saying he 'did not love her'?" But he didn't say that! Parse it like a trial lawyer's statement -- or Bill Clinton's -- with the mental qualifications included:

"I'm in love with one woman. But not only one woman. I've been in love with one woman for 31 years. And I've been in love with another one for three years. She is the finest human being I have ever known ..."

I don't think Edwards is going to deliberately do anything to piss off Rielle Hunter. I read his explanation for why he was at the Beverly Hilton as "I had to see her -- she was going to blackmail me" ...

I was at the Beverly Hilton. I was there for a very simple reason, because I was trying to keep this mistake that I had made from becoming public.

Thanks loads, Bob Woodruff, for not following up on that!


I am at a loss to understand how Young could allow his name to be used in this way, if it wasn't true.

Follow the money!

I was at the Beverly Hilton. I was there for a very simple reason, because I was trying to keep this mistake that I had made from becoming public.

I smell payoff.



How come you put a post up about this on your blog?

I don't agree that this was none of our business. And I also don't think Johnny Boy thought so either, since he sited extra-marital affairs as one way to judge the character of a candidate.



Rick Ballard

"I smell payoff."

Yeah. The thought of an extortionist being blackmailed gives me a nice warm feeling. The concept that the blackmailer doublecrossed the extortionist and sold him out is (IMO) even more heartwarming. The additional knowledge that it was another scummy ambulance catcher making the payoff is a cherry on top. Does that mean I'm an evil man?

Obama's ability to get Ryan's divorce records unsealed and placed on display is one reason that the Zero Hero is the Democratic nominee. I'm still holding out for pictures of him chasing a member of the choir at Hate Whitey United around the chancel. If that or something similiar does occur then I will state quite clearly that facts pertaining to the character of an office seeker are always relevant. If you wish to become a public servant then you need to go through your closets very carefully. Everyone else will.


Hmmm. Two dozen posts in one thread by the same woman, defending Edwards.

hit and run

I'm still holding out for pictures of him chasing a member of the choir at Hate Whitey United around the chancel.

Maybe the pastor of Hate Whitey United can show us where to look:

But what truly struck Wright from that meeting was Obama's astonishment over the black caucus event in Washington. It opened Wright's eyes once again to just how innocent and idealistic Obama could be about the world of politics. [snip]
"He had gone down there to get support and find out who would support him and found out it was just a meat market," the pastor said in an interview, breaking into a laugh. "He had people say, 'If you want to count on me, come on to my room. I don't care if you're married. I am not asking you to leave your wife - just come on.' All the women hitting on him. He was, like, in shock. He's there on a serious agenda, talking about running for he United States Senate. They're talking about giving [him] some pussy. And I was like, 'Barack, c'mon, man. Come on! Name me one significant thing that has come out of black congressional caucus weekend. It's homecoming. It's just a nonstop party, all the booze you want, all the booty you want. That's all it is.' And here he is with this altruistic agenda, trying to get some support. He comes back shattered. I thought to myself, 'Does he have a rude awakening coming his way.'"

Rick Ballard

Gee, Hit, Wright almost sounds a little cynical there, doesn't he? Not to mention his dispensation in anticipation of anything that might "happen". He's as much a "minister" as TUCC is a "church".

It's truly unfortunate that many people are going have their views concerning churches in predominantly black neighborhoods distorted by this caricature. He's as much a "minister" as John Edwards is a "man of the people".

Captain Hate

I thought to myself, 'Does he have a rude awakening coming his way.'

Oh yeah, this is the guy I want sitting across the table from Putin.


"Midline Groove"? Is that furrow a long row to hoe?


I find this statement by Obama odd:

If I'm not mistaken, I think that they already indicated, the Edwards family indicated that they probably wouldn't be attending the convention," Obama said, per ABC News' Sunlen Miller. "I understand that. This is a difficult and painful time to them. And I think they need to work through that process of healing. My sense is that that’s going to be their top priority.

What's that part doing in there?
Did Obama not want the Edwards at the convention? It seems gratuitous to throw that part in-- as if to tell John: no, you are not invited to the convention.

Hmmm...there is one candidate who does have a history of benefiting from the marital troubles of people he doesn't want in the race.
Did Obama want to force Edwards out of contention for VP or a cabinet position?


That is odd, MayBee. But couldn't Obama or the DNC have done that privately, by saying "look John, there are too many rumors - we can't take the risk"? Edwards would then just have to lump it.

Unless there would be too much hue and cry from rank and file Dems if Edwards wasn't offered some kind of convention slot? So it had to be made public.


The rumor that was still floating around yesterday was that Elizabeth might still make an appearance.
But the Edwards themselves could have announced definitively they weren't going, or Howard Dean could have said it.
I'm just fascinated that is Obama's first response. To tell both Edwards to get lost.


Apparently The silky pony has PO'd the Hunter family who are calling for a paternity test.

Be careful what you wish for Johnboy.



More to come and Edwards met with her at the Hilton in June too...



Silky blames his bad judgment on the fact that he was beginning to think he was "special." Does that say anything about Obama's judgment?


I agree with what Joan said. The men in government should have some integrity.


You really wonderful Thank you


I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy habbo gold .

The comments to this entry are closed.