David Gregory on Edwards: "Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?"
On the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, host David Gregory baselessly suggested that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) disclosure of an extramarital affair has some relevance to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Gregory opened the show by saying, "Tonight, more on Edwards and the fallout from his admission today about a sexual affair: Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?" Gregory also said that, "now, questions about his [Edwards'] future abound in the party and whether this creates another shadow over Barack Obama as he gets ready for the conventions."
From the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House:
GREGORY: Tonight: the Edwards affair. He admits an extramarital affair dating back to 2006, telling ABC News, wife Elizabeth learned of it that year. He lied repeatedly to cover it up as a presidential candidate. And now, questions about his future abound in the party and whether this creates another shadow over Barack Obama as he gets ready for the conventions. All of this, as the race for the White House rolls on.
[...]
GREGORY: Welcome to Race for the White House on a busy Friday. I'm David Gregory -- happy to have you here. It's your stop for the fast pace, the bottom line, and every point of view in the room. Tonight, more on Edwards and the fallout from his admission today about a sexual affair: Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome? Will Edwards appear at the Democratic convention? All of that ahead.
OK - WHAT does John Edwards' love life have to do with the Obamessiah's presidential campaign? Is the Breck Girl on his campaign staff? Presidential ticket?
Oh I'm sorry - I was supposed to talk about something irrelevant.
The Philadelphia Eagles lead the Pittsburgh Steelers by 3.
How does "Obamessiah" make me a Dittohead? If I was a Dittohead it would have been "His Excellency, Lord Barack Obama".
Besides, The High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth has been using "Obamessiah" long before it was adopted by "The MegaDittohead"
The Wuss doesn't want credibility.
He probably hates that he was uncovered right when his screen name first appeared here. I wouldn't be surprised if he's Science101 trying out a different persona.
The office pool is heating up, trying to guess when he's going to drop this screen name and come back as someone else with a different version of the same crapola.
I don't think y'all get it -- Dawuss may be a wingnut but he's actually criticizing the whole notion that what Mr. Edwards did has any bearing on the Obama campaign.
He may be a wingnut, even use wingnut terms, but he's not totally nuts. Not yet anyway.
So I'm not allowed to make fun of myself? You know, self-parody?
I tend to do that from time to time.
And yeah, I may use wingnut terms, but wingnuts applies to both wings. And as I said, I'm somewhere in the middle.
If MMFA posted liberal misinformation (which I think they need to do a little more often IMO), you might think I'm a liberal!
Besides, if I was a right-wing hack, I would have forced the Edwards issue on Obama's campaign, right?
Only posters who are here rarely and haven't seen much of you in action have any doubts about you.
You're out to disrupt this site any way you can. By helping other trolls like Science101, by derailing threads by posting first on a disconnected topic, by going off on tangent after tangent after tangent, by posting an extra space inbetween every off-topic or irreverent one-sentence paragraph, trying to claim as much space and notice as you can.
You're a rightie aiming at trying to dilute the messages that Media Matters is trying to promote. You're a goon who should be truly embarrassed by the way you behave - Lee Atwater comes to mind as someone who finally admitted his scandalous behavior. You'll just go away and come back as another screen name with a different personality to see how you can diminish the power of Media Matters.
You're out to disrupt this site any way you can."
You've seen me around here quite a bit for these past few weeks - how have I been disrupting this site? I'm just another poster who happens to have an opinion on the various topics that have been raised by MMFA.
"By helping other trolls like Science101, by derailing threads by posting first on a disconnected topic, by going off on tangent after tangent after tangent, by posting an extra space inbetween every off-topic or irreverent one-sentence paragraph, trying to claim as much space and notice as you can."
Take it up with the other people if you want, but I'm here to provide material for people of all sides of the political spectrum. That includes the right wing, the left wing, and the centrists who post here.
"You're a rightie aiming at trying to dilute the messages that Media Matters is trying to promote. You're a goon who should be truly embarrassed by the way you behave - Lee Atwater comes to mind as someone who finally admitted his scandalous behavior. You'll just go away and come back as another screen name with a different personality to see how you can diminish the power of Media Matters."
OK - for the -----th time, I'm not a rightie and I'm not a leftie. I'll admit I'm to the right of most of the people here, but I'm more towards the center than I am the right wing. Heck, I've criticized members of the GOP and members of the right-wing on MMFA on a few occasions.
And when I have tried to "diminish the power of Media Matters"? If that were the case, I would be recitating the GOP talking points about Media Matters - something that I've disagreed with and have stated before.
And now look, I'm having to talk about me instead of the original topic.
And now look, your purpose, pretending to post a relevant item, albeit with an Obama smear mixed in just for fun, followed by a purposeful off topic post, has garnered you the result you wanted.
The way you were trying to distract from this posting by Media Matters worked. No one is fooled by your denials.
Hear Hear!
It's about time someone speak up about these guys-- their sole intent is to throw the thread, immediately. Within a few comments, the topic completely changes.
I bring a lot to the discussion on most occasions, more than most I'd humbly suggest, so your assertion that you'd be hard-pressed to find substance from me here on Media Matters is laughable at best.
I believe that ridiculing dishonest posters is sometimes the best course of action when their clear effort is to derail threads and distract from the real point and disrupt this site because they fear its power and influence.
The next time I need advice on how and where to post here, I'll go to someone whose history I respect. Don't expect a call, Philbin.
For a good example, there's an 80 post thread on FoxNews Brian Kilmeade's crapola about a non-existent link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Wuss got the first post in, and it wasn't until the start of the second page that I brought it back to the subject that the posting was about. He directly replied to my post, taking it off subject again. It wasn't really until the last page that it got back on subject again.
First he brought up the purported alternative theory of why we invade Iraq, and said that this posting by Media Matters proved that theory correct, which is totally off topic and untrue, because this posting doesn't do anything to prove any alternative theory true. It was just a distraction.
Then he brought up the issue of whether or not Gore would have done things differently. Again, that has nothing to do with the lies of the people who were in office, but it was a great tool to distract other posters. I debunked that lie too, and also addressed why it was a lie.
For you to claim that I don't have a leg to stand on is laughable, like I said. I've proven that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
"First he brought up the purported alternative theory of why we invade Iraq, and said that this posting by Media Matters proved that theory correct, which is totally off topic and untrue, because this posting doesn't do anything to prove any alternative theory true. It was just a distraction."
Simply from what you say here, he talked about the subject of the thread. You disagreed with him, then claim he was off topic. It seems simply because he didn't fall in lock-step like you (and others) wanted, then his opinion was off topic. That's bunk, but expected.
No, he wasn't on topic in that previous posting. I documented that. You're doing the same poor job that Milbank did two weeks ago.
The topic wasn't what caused us to invade Iraq. It was the media misinformation.
The fact that one reason for war was debunked, it doesn't mean that it validated his listed reason for the war. Others later on the thread ably pointed that out.
You saying that he was on topic doesn't mean that he was on topic, Philbin.
None of that takes away from the methods he used on this thread. He was almost on topic, enough so that had he not used the smear Obamessiah, and then followed it with another post ridiculing the idea of staying on topic, no one would have criticized his behavior. But he didn't refrain from making a denigrating comment (Obamessiah is not praise) and then he didn't refrain from purposefully negating that comment with his reply to his own comment.
I can't imagine a good reason to be defending The Wuss.
"The topic wasn't what caused us to invade Iraq. It was the media misinformation."
And, according to YOU, he did mention mmfa. That proves he stayed on topic because there is as much misinformation coming from mmfa as there is from the MSM.
"You saying that he was on topic doesn't mean that he was on topic, Philbin."
Your saying he was off topic doesn't make it true. When you can post messages about the topic, like this Edwards topic, then you have a case about his posting. But, while all you do is whine about a right winger posting on your precious left wingnut site it makes you look like a fool.
"I can't imagine a good reason to be defending The Wuss."
I reckon you wouldn't. Unless, you've ever come to the defense of a fellow leftwingnut poster, then you wouldn't know why. I've found that you liberal posters are as hypocritical as they come, especially when whining about the right to post denigrating posts. You liberals have NO problem going off topic and use some of the most vial names for people (who you don't even know), then whine when the shoe falls on the other foot. Blonde is a good name for those who don't know. There's even a phrase that describes the mental condition of blondes.
Sorry, but we don't live in US-of-mmfa, free speech is still alloted to all who request it.
And when you post inane stupidity, the rest also have the free-speech right allotted to them to call you on it.
Over and over again, and you still are incapable of learning. And you continue to make the most stupid posts this side of the completely knowledgeless Science101.
I'll stand with BottleBlonde on this, I'll talk about Edwards. At least his sex scandals don't involve underage pagess or hook-ups in men's bathrooms. So much for Culter's fa&&ot nonsense, eh?
And despite Edwards' betrayal and deceit of his wife, he still would have been 100 times better a president than McCain or Bush, or any corporate prostitute Republican, for that matter. I say this because Edwards understood our economy. He knew that, with no disposable income for workaday folks, low wages steals money from local economies, which are the foundation of our economic stability across the country. He knew that tax policy which aggregates the majority of wealth at the top, is the staple of oligarchic rule. He knew that our infrastructure is indeed OUR infrastructure, it belongs to us, not the UAE or GE or any other for profit interests. A sound, well funded and a freely accessed infrastructure is the key to our sustained prosperity.
Edwards was hip to more than the economy and I'd be happy to go on about how he is still a better man than most any jerkwad Republican.
With his admission of the affair, I disagree that Edwards would have made a better president than Bush2 (who I believe should be impeached).
It's not my business if Edwards cheats on his wife. However he made it my business by looking disarmingly into the news cameras and denying it with lies calculated so as not to lose my vote. Supposedly he had already confessed to the Mrs., meaning he involved her in passively lying to voters too.
He's a disappointment, just the same.
We democrats have got to be able to do better with our candidates. Regardless of the low caliber of persons on the opposition side (hmmm cheaters who cheat on their ill-but-otherwise-lovely-yet-vulnerable wives, where have I heard this before?)
At least let us (let me) pick people who don't lie so effortlessly. The "Breck Girl" -- I can't recall any lying-ass Breck Girls! He isn't even in the same category. I wish these damned liars and cheaters would have the common sense to stay out of the process, and not drag us all down with their lies.
Kudos to dems who didn't back Edwards, that's all I can say.
But, look Bush lies like most people breathe and turns everything to shit like Midas on Ex Lax. Yet Bush is no philanderer. If we measured Presidents in accordance to their faithfulness to their spouse, Bush, Nixon and Reagan would rank among the best Presidents in history. It just ain't always so. It's a false equivalence to use the private lives of public servants to gauge their public lives. We don't, can't and probably shouldn't know enough about the Edwards' marriage to make a good judgment on this.
Yes, I was a big time Edwards supporter. Not because I believed he was a sterling moral figure, but because his view of what it means to be an American most closely fit my view.
Roundhouse, thanks for your courteous replies (not really getting the underwear sniffing comment, but hey!), and sorry to keep harping on this ... but ... my point has apparently been lost, so I am compelled to restate it.
Edwards philandering and Mrs. Edwards forgiving Mr. Edwards is their private family matter and not the public's business. Sen. Edwards contributions to public life should not be judged on his philandering, on this you and I agree.
Sen. Edwards, during his presidential campaign, responded to direct questions about rumors of his philandering with absolute denials. He lied; this apparently followed his private confession of his private infidelity to Mrs. Edwards. The first distinction I make is that Edwards perfidy was aimed not just privately at Mrs. Edwards, but at the public of Democratic primary voters.
I abhor the philandering ... but lying about it to the voting public places Edwards at Bush2 level circa 2001. And making Mrs. Edwards a passive accomplice in the lies, by forcing her to acede in his campaign under false pretenses (what else was she supposed to do?), places Mr. Edwards well below Bush2 level circa 2001 (my second distinction). While I agree with you that Bush lying and manipulating our country into an unneccessary war that has been evily destructive is heinous ... unlike you, I'm not willing to give Edwards a pass because he's not up to the Bush-2003-lie-scale ... yet. He may very well understand the pernicious effects of oligarchy, but he apparently didn't care about possible pernicious effects of forcing his sick wife into covering for him.
I suggest you and I agree to disagree. 2008 marked a primary season wherein many good people (and at least one unpresidential person) got left behind and we can only HOPE we are left with the pick of the litter.
"OK - for the -----th time, I'm not a rightie and I'm not a leftie. I'll admit I'm to the right of most of the people here, but I'm more towards the center than I am the right wing. Heck, I've criticized members of the GOP and members of the right-wing on MMFA on a few occasions."
"The cheque is in the post"
"Of course i'll repect you in the morning"
All really believable statements.
The last should read:
"Of course i'll respect you in the morning"
I have been logging onto this site since 2004. I have read comments from posters both left and right, and while l have a left leaning side at this time l have agreed on occasion with comments posted by Tommy and Jeter. Others who have had long disagreements with them have also deferred to their agruements when they have been valid. The one thing l can definately say, without fear of disagreement that the only people here who use right wing wingnut terms are RIGHT WING WINGNUTS. That is why they have that name. people with Liberal viewpoints posting on Right wing websites are called moonbats.
BTW on your great idea of MMFA posting more Liberal misinformation?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
It's on the front page of the website. It tells you what this site is about. If you want to read about "Liberal Misinformation" i'm sure that there is a man called Bozell who has a website where you can read all about that.
Personally.... I think that DAWUSS is just a 30something year old punk that comes in here to MMfA to do nothing more than to say crap that attempts to keep people on the message of the thread!
He seems to be sucessful at times...... I say, we should all just ignore him unless he actually has something to contribute.... I mean come on now DAWUSS... even Science101 can say something occasionally that stays on message!
Stop sounding like a child in a mans body and grow up already!
"keep people on the message of the thread!" ---->
should have read: "keep people off the message of the thread!"
There's infinite space here to post every single thought. So smack 'em down and move on. Say your piece AND kick some a**.
Stand toe to toe with these bullsh*t cons. If you really believe in yourself and your principles, smash them in their sniveling mouths and watch them blubber like the sissies they truly are in their heart of hearts.
May they kiss your entire *ss. Republicans have nothing to offer you, so let them remember that they are entirely undeserving of our consideration to lead.
I mean really, "Obamessiah"? What a pant-load.
Obama was born to lead. He was born to lead the American way; the liberal way. The way that presided over the greatest expansion of the middle the class the WORLD HAS EVER SEEN.
So, f*8k McCain and his p*ssy *ss Bushenomics and his Bush foreign policy and his Bush sucking, Rove loving fundamentalist ad campaign.
HE.
IS.
NOT.
THE.
MESSIAH!!!
Yet the MSM has no problem promoting him as such.
And the conservative talking heads are having fun making fun of it.
I haven't heard too many people try to dispel the "Chosen One" or "celebrity" image that Obama carries. John Rove McBush doesn't carry anywhere near the celebrity status that the Obamessiah possesses.
African American running for POTUS: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Blonde air-headed right wing news model : Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
African American running for POTUS: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Moronic viewers of Murdoch morning cable show who believe everything right wingers tell them: He is! He is the Messiah!
African American running for POTUS: Now, fcuk off!
[silence]
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: How shall we fcuk off, O Lord?
====================================================
Does that sum up the point you keep trying to make?
How about a real life example?
Fox News has decided which story is worthy of more coverage. Today, host Gregg Jarrett interviewed PBS’s Bonnie Erbe. “We have these huge stories going on like the one you’re reporting in Georgia,” Erbe noted when asked about Edwards. Jarrett, however, completely ignored Erbe’s comment on Georgia and continued to talk about Edwards, offering praise for the National Enquirer:
Throughout the segment, Jarrett refused to talk about anything except for Edwards’s affair:
Erbe called the Edwards story “water cooler talk,” noting again that Edwards’s affair is “not the stuff the American public wants to hear about in this election cycle.” Again, Jarrett wholly ignored her, responding with more Edwards talk:
Jarrett, however, completely ignored Erbe’s comment on Georgia and continued to talk about Edwards
Remember, Fox News thinks Georgia is where CNN is in Atlanta, and they never want to plug the competition.
First of all, those are two completely different images: calling someone the "Chosen One" or "The Messiah" is miles away from calling someone a celebrity. (Unless you think Jesus was just a celebrity...) As for whether or not Obama is a celebrity, he strikes me as no more a celebrity than John McCain has been -- and McCain even has a celebrity nickname, "Maverick".
As for the claim that Obama is "The Messiah" -- it's a sarcastic attack by his critics. Why should his supporters or bystanders even dignify it with a response? It's absurd. Obama is more charismatic than his rivals. Period. He's inspired a lot of excitement. That's it. Calling him "The Messiah" is, at best, sour grapes; at worst, it's what David Gergen recently suggested -- a subtle and racially tinged suggestion that Obama is 'uppity' and doesn't know his place.
I already have a Messiah, what I'm looking for is a President to lead our country. Just because "we can" doesn't mean "we should". I thought MM was supposed to be "fair" and show media bias happening on both sides of the aisle, but I'm a newbie and that doesn't seem to be the case. They don't defend the wrong done to McCain by the media, just the wrong done to Obama. I'm a dem and like the other person you've been shreading here (DAWUSS ?) I don't need a Messiah wanna be, I already know the real deal, I just need a President, one who's not too radical, maybe center or to the right of center.
So, just because not everyone who posts here is a radical lefty in love with Obama, doesn't mean you have to spew such hatful language. Where's the unity, where's the love for one another, where's the freedom to allow others with different opinions to share them freely and without fear. Keep an open mind and think about what's best for our country, not for ourselves.
I thought MM was supposed to be "fair" and show media bias happening on both sides of the aisle, but I'm a newbie and that doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't know where you got that impression, Hawk. The following is from the top of MMFA's "About Us" page:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/
There are plenty of other sites out there thay try and "prove" that the media has a liberal bias, such as the totally bogus Media Research Council. MMFA's very existence provides balance to those known liars.
This falls into at least three of the several categories of conservative misinformation. It's probably best filed under misdirection. It does touch on other categories though, hypocrisy and persecution complex.
Misdirection.
Obama is popular. He's popular with Americans AND with those dirty foreigners. Here's the misdirection.. this is some how connected to his ability [inability] to lead. Further, it ridiculously infers that an Unpopular President would be more effective (huh???)
A means B when they have nothing to do with each other.
Hypocrisy.
John McCain has been famous since Obama was a teenager. McCain has published 5 books and had more written About him. He's played on the Great American Hero angle since he was released from captivity. John McCain is at least as well known as Obama if not more so.
John McCain is also significantly more wealth and powerful than Obama. By leaving his wife for a wealthy mistress, McCain's estimated net worth is north of $400,000,000 (though we don't know for sure because his wife refuses to release her financials). Where Obama is a jr. Senator, McCain has the power of a 20+ year incumbent.
$540 Dollar shoes?.. is that Britney or McCain. Apparently both.
Pot meet Kettle.
Persecution Complex.
This is the one constant in the right wing repertoire. Everything is so unfair.
Poor John McCain. He's only a fabulously rich Sr. Senator who is known around the world. How dare people support Obama. Not loving John McCain is so unfair to him.
This all goes in hand with themes like: talking about McCains record is liberal bias, the tarring of Obama with everyone he's shared a train with by the media is unfair to McCain because they're spending too much time talking about Obama... and so on.
The celebrity schtick is really about two things:
1) McCain and his campaign are pissed off because McCain isn't popular, particularly among those people our next President will have to negotiate with. Even conservatives don't like him. He's a bitter pill who's only the nominee because the other candidates were so weak that they were unelectable. When your party is a failure, go with the Jingoist angle.
2) Rather than debate positions honestly on their merits, it's a whole lot easier to imply that Obama is vapid like Brittney and Paris.
It can't be about policy because the republican policy has been disastrous. Even His Holiness Ronald Reagan was a failure to core conservative ideals [though they'll never admit it]. He doubled the national debt and was party (implictly or complicity) to treason when his administration sold high tech weapons to our enemy [in order to funnel money to drug-lords who killed 12,000 civilians in their effort to overthrow a democratically elected but socialist government].
Obama a 'celebrity'? Yes. What of it?
Would America prefer another President who is disliked, or at least dismissed?
Last time I checked, being liked is a benefit.
... or we could just look for another George Bush.. then we could continue the universal hatred of America by the rest of the world. That seems to work great.
Dawuss -
Your use of the term "Breck Girl" to refer to John Edwards confirms my suspicions - you're nothing more than a brain-dead dittohead. Maybe you should go over to hannity.com, where the morons there might appreciate your inane posts.
And the chances are better that the McCain camp will have to worry about "closets" also.
This is stupid. The guy cheated on his wife. He MUST pay the price...HE, Edwards must pay the price. I don't think McCain wants to comment on this one.
If McCain does have skeletons in his closet, it'll have to come from an Obama supporter, since anything Rush and Hannity have found back when they didn't like him would have surfaced by now.
And if no one's worried about what's in McCain's closets, why are we making what's in Barack's closets such a big deal? Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, periodically Michelle (she usually becomes a skeleton in his closet when she's taken out of context)...
"If McCain does have skeletons in his closet, it'll have to come from an Obama supporter, since anything Rush and Hannity have found back when they didn't like him would have surfaced by now."
You are aware of McCain's own marital infidelities, aren't you? How is what he did any different than what Edwards did? And if what Edwards did is relevant to Obama (and I realize that you're saying it's not, so this isn't directed at you), then why isn't what McCain did relevant to McCain?
The NY Times already tried to dig a skeleton out of the closet of McCain (front page, the lobbyist story in February), and it fell flat on its face! The NY Times story was totally discredited.
BTW, while the NY Times went front page over their false story of McCain and the lobbyist, they completely ignored the Edwards story (which was true) until today!
Actually, they reported that McCain aides were worried that the story could be true. But whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
The two stories aren't comparable.
There was clear evidence that the lobbyist and John McCain had been together often. There wasn't clear evidence about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.
One story was covered by the NY Times and other MSM sources. Another was covered by the National Inquirer.
I have standards. Looks like you don't.
BOTTLEBLONDE said:
One story was covered by the NY Times and other MSM sources. Another was covered by the National Inquirer.
I have standards.The National Enquirer is what it is and we know the tabloid standards it maintains.
But what then about the New York Times with all of its resources and the respect people give it? Not only was it scooped by the National Enquirer about a person who ran for Vice-President 4 years ago for one of the two major parties, but the NYT did not get on track even after the Enquirer published their scoop, until now.
So for "unpleasant" info in the future about Democrats, we should turn to ....?
Shoes
Would you ever really expect the NYT, the liberal paper of record, to address the Edwards story. The entire liberal media ignored it. It took a tabloid to do the job the liberal media long ago decided to never do,.....report a negative story about a democrat.
Right, that's why they can't stop talking about all of McCain's past affairs, on his first wife.
What kind of drugs do you need to take to see things from your 'point of view'?
You mean other than the fact that Edwards was having an affair during his campaign and with someone on his staff.... with his wife at his side with terminal cancer?
- Science101
That never happened then, or with a member of his staff. It was in 2006. Get your facts straight.
2 things:
Timings: Long ago versus news.
Hubris: Edwards has been on this pedestal, father of the year for 2007, lovey dovey with the wife at Wendy's on their anniversary, his recent quotations about the importance of family, and others. Lies to his staff, who trusted him and took a hit to their own credibility as they mistakenly defended Edwards.
I mean, I do not expect perfection, but the level of deceit and doubletalk from Edwards on this has been remarkable.
McCain lied his way through his affairs as well, and then even when fessing up he told conflicting accounts. McCain is running for president, Edwards isn't running for any office. IF Edwards' infidelity is news, then McCain's is as well. If Obama has to answer for Edwards' indiscretion, then McCain has to answer for every Republican caught in personal scandal. You can't have it both ways.
Meanwhile, McCain's camp has been busy scrubbing all traces of Alabama Attorney General Troy King (who actually did work for the McCain campaign) from their website. Why isn't anyone asking if King's gay sex scandal will hurt McCain?
C'mon, Snoop. The media totally ignored this story until today. If the name were Karl Rove, this story would have been front page in every newspaper weeks ago.
If a tabloid story had been front page news, I would have objected to that.
Until it stopped being unconfirmed hearsay, it wasn't something the MSM should have covered. They did it right.
Bottle
I dont remember you filing that same complaint when the NYT did a hatchet job on an alleged McCain affair just a few months ago.
Did someone ask for an opinion on coverage by a tabloid (not the NY Times), and I refused to acknowledge that the MSM should not cover a story that has as little evidence as the National Inquirer had until Edwards admitted it? No, I didn't. So no, you have no point. As usual.
Edwards had a short affair with the woman in 2006. She got pregnant in 2007. It's not his kid. He knows how babies are made, and he knows that there's no chance that the kid could be his, and so why should he have taken a paternity test? But the National Inquirer and FoxNews commentators are acting like that's a big deal. It's not. Other commentators are asking if a short-lasting affair by a guy whose wife has forgiven him should reflect poorly on another candidate in the race! If that's the case, then how should John McCain's own well-known history of multiple affairs, including getting a marriage license to wed his current wife before he was even divorced, count against him?
This question, this posting by Media Matters, is a great example of conservative misinformation. It furthers the conservative's agenda of unfairly smearing Obama. McCain is responsible for what he does with his own d!ck, and Obama is not responsible for what Edwards does with his own d!ck. If the media covers this story like it reflects poorly on Obama, they're doing a great disservice to the nation and its voters. Many men have difficulty keeping it zipped. That's no reflection on Obama. It doesn't matter that Obama is a Democrat, and so is Edwards.
quote:He knows how babies are made, and he knows that there's no chance that the kid could be his, and so why should he have taken a paternity test?
Maybe Maury Povitch will be willing to do the DNA test and announce it on one of his shows.. LOL
How in hell do YOU know that Edwards isnt' lying about that too? He's been lying about the affair for over a year now. Oh- that logic only works if he was a conservative, right?
Shoes, do you actually think Karl Rove hasn't done many things far worse than messing around on his wife? Do you live in a hollow tree in the forest?
On the hypothetical side, do you think that if Rove was not an asexual goblin, and he somehow crossed paths with somebody who was willing to have sex with him,he wouldn't do it?
I don't care about Roves personal life, BTW, any more than I do Edwards'. I just wish the Republican media would have taken an interest in Roves crimes of the past decade. That didn't happen, of course, but he got a job on the cable tv arm of the GOP, Fox News, to lie about non-Republicans several nights a week.
I really don't understand how you wingnuts can even type the words "liberal media" without falling on the floor.Whether it's dishonesty or stoopidity, it's just amazing to normal humans.
Yes, what IS the difference between what Edwards and McCain did?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-doesnt-john-mccains-a_b_117811.html
I don't know, Dave. Is this another skeleton in the Republican closet that John McCain must struggle to overcome?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/12/31251/6095/794/550430
The question, which I'm surprised no one has commented on before now, is this:
Why is it that Gregory will ask whether the Edwards admission of an affair might negatively impact Obama, but he WON'T ask whether what Larry Craig or David Vitters or numerous other Republicans have done will have a negative impact on McCain? The very premise of Gregory's question -- Obama has to answer for the misdeeds of other Democrats, but McCain doesn't have to answer for the bad acts of other Republicans -- is blatantly, apparently, obviously skewed to favor McCain.
Liberal bias in the media my ass.
I guess you've forgotten the Foley debacle right before the '06 elections? The Repub's were tarred and feathered with that scandal. Let's not get your knickers in a knot, it's just politics.
Tell me when David Gregory or any other member of the so-called liberal media has suggested that John McCain's campaign has a "skeleton in the closet" when it comes to Republican sexual misdeeds, whether it's Mark Foley, Jim Kolbe, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Dan Burton, Bob Livingston, Connie Mack and Mary Bono...
The answer, of course, is that they haven't.
I restate my point for emphasis. The explicit premise of Gregory's suggestion is that Obama has to account for the sexual affair of John Edwards. On the other hand, by omitting any mention of them, Gregory implies that McCain does not have to account for the sexual misdeeds of his fellow Republicans. Gregory's framing of the issue is therefore one-sided in a way that favors McCain.
I guess you've forgotten the Foley debacle right before the '06 elections? The Repub's were tarred and feathered with that scandal.
Republicans deserved to be tarred and feathered for ignoring an ADULT MALE sending sexual explicit e-mails to underage BOYS and showing up drunk, trying to get into the US Pages dorm room where underage BOYS were sleeping.
Consensual sex between adults is just that, consensual sex between ADULTS.
It is really very simple. Of course this is a problem for Obama. Hello, the convention is just a few days away. Edwards was to have a major speaking role, was a serious candidate for vp, and a serious candidate for a cabinet position if Obama wins.
How any of you can say with a straight face that this does not pose a problem for Obama, at least in the short term, is beyond believe. Further, how any of you can claim that the main stream liberal media did not try to buey this story is also beyong believe.
Well, there are so many lie-filled baseless smears thrown out there by the right that the MSM rightfully didn't report on this til they had some concrete FACTS.
Forgive me but I am really struggling to control myself today.
I am so sick to death of these people and their hubris in presenting information however they see fit. Pissed off about some imagined slight a politician may have committed against htem, then slant the information aagainst them. I actually heard Jonathon Alter (UGH)admit bias and slanting of stories on the Clintons, Hillary Clinton citing that journalists were just tired of them, wanted them gone! Moments later he went off on how bad the accomodations her campaign provided for the media and how controlled the Clintons always were with access.. he was very pissed off. It was startling to seeashow entitled these people think they are and how they use their "power" to make and break people... and believe its A-OK . They admit it!
sheesh.
I have been sputtering all day at the punditr.media cllass all day as it has covered this and the Democratic convention.
It is striking to notice how the stories escalate from speculation to fact as the cycle continues.
What is particularly galling is this idea they put out that somehow a story or something is damaging because it will be talked about now, or dominate the "news cycle as if it isn't THEM doing the talking and keeping it alive.
Anderson Cooper has had his entire show on John Edwards. And you know what sucks the most?
It doesn't even occur to them to ask why is it our business, why does this HAVE to be reported.
AC even had the fricking publisher of that rag the Enquirer on justifying his story wioth his smug, supiorior crap and AC is talking to him as if he is some kind of paragon of journalistic integrity.
WTF?
OK, time to have a drink and relapse.
of course I have nothing to drink.
LOL
It doesn't even occur to them to ask why is it our business, why does this HAVE to be reported.
Err...because he was having an affair during his campaign while his wife was terminally ill, denies it until he gets busted....but is still in the running for VP. Thats a pretty good reason.
yeah, I can tell you have sympathy for his terminally-ill wife.
The wife who said she had hoped it would stay private. How do you dare mention his wife when it's undeniable that she didn't want this to come out?
If you truly were an empathetic person, instead of just a pathetic person, you wouldn't try to hide behind her skirts while you throw barbs at someone who was not running for VP, who had said he didn't want it, and who violated his marital vows.
God, you're a smear merchant who doesn't care if what he says hurts the already agrieved wife yet uses her pain and suffering to make a point. Your lack of character is criminal.
Criminal? What is criminal about discussing this? Why don't you just have done and call the previous poster treasonous -- you'd sound slightly (but not much) more like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh and it would be equally ineffective as a discussion squelcher.
IMO it's fair to question the actions of both Senator and Mrs Edwards. He lied to the public about his affair, and she did nothing to correct the lie as they both pursued his presidential aspirations. He lied to the voting public and she fell in with the lie, knowing better. And it is very likely that Edwards obtained votes that wouldn't have accrued to him if he (or she) would have told the truth when questioned about his affair. Do you also think that is criminal? because IMO the harm both of the Edwards did in schmoozing the primary process due to lying about a matter of material importance to voters far outweighs the damage done to Mrs. Edwards by her loss of privacy.
I wish Mrs. Edwards the best with her health and with her marriage.
Err...because he was having an affair during his campaign while his wife was terminally ill, denies it until he gets busted....but is still in the running for VP. Thats a pretty good reason.
While you're wallowing in another man's sex life, RUSSIA HAS INVADED GEORGIA!..... ALL OUT WAR IS POSSIBLE!..... HEAVY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!......OIL
I know it's hard for Republicans to give up their hypocrisy whine about ANOTHER MAN'S SEX LIFE but, hey, pay attention. We might you guys to stage another "sit in" in case oil prices rise. LOL
RUSSIA HAS INVADED GEORGIA!..... ALL OUT WAR IS POSSIBLE!..... HEAVY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!......OIL
Oh well, who cares.
Last night it was wall-to-wall Edwards' affair on the cable teevee. No news about the war in Georgia, which is infinitely more important in the global scheme of things.
Thank God for CNN International!
While you're wallowing in another man's sex life, RUSSIA HAS INVADED GEORGIA!..... ALL OUT WAR IS POSSIBLE!..... HEAVY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!......OIL
We did the reverse in the '90's. How priorities change in a decade...
uhhh.
First off his wife was in remission, they thought the cancer gone as it had been awhile... or hoped so..;. but whatever.
My question still stands.
Why isw it our business despite running for President.
Whoo cares who screws who?
Why is personal sexual foibles and flaws anything to do with us?
this has to do with Elizabeth, his famiily and him and no one else.
Well, the woman too.
So what.
So many fine and strong leaders of the past had mistresses. I don't condone it but it is not our business, this isn't anything that should be discussed by the media over and over, and over!
You're right, it's an intensely personal matter to the families and friends of the persons involved.
Marital infidelity is not a crime: if someone wants to call it "immoral" or "unethical" or some other word that signifies an offense that's not a crime, then they just cast stones at others, over a supposed offense or "sin" that doesn't harm or even involve them in the least: if it is a harm and a foul to anyone, it's an intensely personal harm and foul, to those involved and to no one else: it's no matter of public business, and certainly no matter of Public or National Policy.
There is always the matter of the lie and the denial, that they love to cluck about: they prove how stupid and immature they are, by charging a man whom they now know to have cheated on his wife, with being a liar for denying it in public... how ignorant! Only an idiot babbles publicly, about intensely personal matters, whether marital infidelities, or marital or family business of any kind: if it's personal and nobody's business, then you shut your mouth about it in public: and if it involves intimate matters of your marriage (such as infidelity), then you would happily lie and deny it, to a nosy none-of-their-business public, than to spill the beans, and in the process, mortify family and friends, by turning a personal betrayal into a public one.
This is no fine hour for the thing that fancifully loves to call itself "journalism" and a Press: they crow out today (as The Huffington Post does, in deliriously large and pround front page type):
"We did it! We uncovered the truth about John Edwards! All praise and thanks for a diligent and watchful Press, and for journalists in pursuit of truth: Mr. Edwards' marital infidelities are now a matter of the Public Record!"
"The Press and journalism are alive and working in America, for the American People: we have uncovered for those People, the intimate and embarrassing personal details of John Edwards' marriage!"
Let's have a parade, and declare a holiday, in honor of a Press and "journalists" who have uncovered this important truth for the American People... a truth that were it a matter of their own marriage and their own infidelity, they would no doubt think it was an intensely private and personal matter, and that it was nobody's business but their own, and of their family and their friends.
Amazingly well said DEM
If only the MSM were so diligent about uncovering the TRUTH about Iraq...
Very well said.
I'm glad you mentioned Huffington Post.
They have becopme f tabloed journalism for the so called "progressives."
I say so called because of their smearing "neocon" mentality and hate mongering behavior over there.
In fact during the Primary I'd say that many in that faction could have taught the neoC's a thing or two.I don't know why I torture myself by going over and then, worse yet, spend time ranting at the nuts on BOTH sides of the Obama and PUMA divide for their hatefulness and divisiveness. They boths see conspiracies... though I do tend to agree that the DNc/powers that be picked their man in a sense with a wionk and a nod. OH Well, its over.
Whatever.
Anyway, I fault the media for that as well.
AND Huffington Post as well. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say that Arianna is still a neocon in "Progressive" clothing with her vendetta on all things Clinton and her large type headlines, often misleading and sensationalized.
I see that Roy Sekoff on Verdict sometimes and his grin and eagerness seem almost salacious to me when discussing any Repub wrong doing and any Clinton foibles, whether real or manufactured.
Its the Enquirer for the "Progressive" set.
Makes me want to go back to my Liberal" designation. not that I have ever left it, it apparently left me!
LOL
What was your take on Bill Clinton? I voted for him twice inspite of the womanizing allegations, and I thought he did a great job as president. His dinking around with Monica was one thing, between him and Monica and Hillary of course, but his LYING to a GRAND JURY about it put the issue on the "IMPEACHABLE SCALE". I think it was reprehensible that the GOOPers took advantage of the situation, but so is LYING after you've sworn to tell the truth.
It seems the voters can trust John Edwards to lie to us, if and when he thinks that telling the truth is going to cause him too many problems.
Apparently this is the talking point for the weekend. I saw Bill Salmon on Fox News this evening proclaiming that the Edward's revelation "will hurt Obama badly." Of course, the anchor of the show didn't bother to ask Salmon to explain his assertion. So the new media talking point is that this is OBAMA'S problem?
WOW...
David Gregory doesn't even try to appear unbiased. He looks like a rabid neo-con. What happened yesterday. happens everyday- no matter what the issue is, he always ask how will this hurt Obama.
HANNITY & colmes tonight was an entire hour of Edwards.OK, I turned on Fox when I got home from work, and checked in between shower, shave, other assorted leaving-the-room stuff, and I left to go to dinner 10 minutes before the hour was over, but I didn't see any other subject discussed.
I don't give a flying funk about any candidates or potential running mates sex lives, any more than I care about movie stars babies or athletes prostitution habits. It's unbearably boring to me, all of it.
The only interest I have is in the hypocrisy, if Edwards made a big deal of "family", point it out, but while you're at it, mention McCain's womanizing and abandonment of his first wife, mention Newt Gingrich's brutal treatment of his wife as he preaches morality on Fox.
I look forward to all of the wingnut posters here , who will explain exactly why it's "different" for Edwards, with the same arbitrary and convenient list of reasons that completely dismissed the McCain/Hagee connection while slobbering over Obama/Rev, Wright.
If the sex lives and other personal details of famous people fascinate you, that's your business.Pick up the National Enquirer, turn on E! TV,, but please, don't bother the rest of us with it.
But, if you simply can't help yourself, if you're so sexually frustrated and lonely that these intimate details of others' lives are important enough to you that you must bring them into the discussion, at least be consistent. You'll still come off as a maladjusted pervert, but you'll at least be seen as an unbiased maladjusted pervert,
You actually watched Hannity and Colmes?
I am very disappointed.
Watching Hannity and Colmes... gotta know what the "enemy" is up to on occasion. I didn't watch Fox for years but the Primary campaign was so obnoxious on all of cable I had to see what they were doing was any worse. It wasn't. LOL!
I caught Colmes recently giving hell to someone and I was pleasantly surprised.. the guy who just wrote one of the smear books on O.
As soon as H came back on I sickened quickly and turned it off.
You actually watched Hannity and Colmes?
I am very disappointed.
Sorry to disappoint you, UK. ;0)
I got a litttle complacent during the 90s, thinking that our electorate had wised up a little. After Bush's coronation, 9/11, and Bush's 2nd appointment to office, I've started to keep an eye on the enemy a little more closely.
Infidelity is a character issue which makes it relevent for those of us who think character is important. It's also a barometer on self discipline, which should be considered important as well.
They should all be exposed for who they really are, I could care less about party affiliations. If they want privacy, then get the #$%^ out of politics and go away.
"Infidelity is a character issue which makes it relevent (sic) for those of us who think character is important. It's also a barometer on self discipline, which should be considered important as well.
"They should all be exposed for who they really are, I could care less about party affiliations. If they want privacy, then get the #$%^ out of politics and go away."
- bruce1ace
Well said, Bruce.
So I take it that you'll be voting against the lecherous adulterer, McCain, and for the apparently loyal husband and father, Obama. ¿Right?
We don't have to say the republicans are worse, you people show it every day that you're the party of lie, cheat and steal.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
I see you and the Colonel are still selling Kentucky Fried Ostrich, huh? Is that the best you can do? LOL
Anyway, a friend of Edwards was trying to help him and was paying off the woman in question. Edwards didn't know it was happening allegedly. We'll see what shakes loose in that one.
it doesn't bother me particularly, other than the fact that Edwards has portrayed himself as the "moral" candidate time and again. Plus you again seem to miss the point where this isn't a matter of infidelity as it is a matter of corruption- i.e. the hush money. Ignoring that, to make it into a "republicans are worse" is a poor weasel attempt to shove the issue aside. You have a man who has been touted as perhaps being in in line for the AG position in an Obama cabinet. He ran for your party's nomination. He once ran as the VP candidate.
The fact that the "other woman" was "kept" in high style, and claiming it was "friends" doing it without Edward's knowledge is at best an exercise in self delusion on your parts. If he denied the situation, and hadn't confided in anyone, then that means he either is lying about arranging it, or he was paying her off himself. You can't take the stink of cover-up away from that no matter how much liberal air freshener you spray on it.
Trying to distract from the issue doesn't bother me one little bit. It only proves the hypocrisy that I repeatedly point out here when I come to point and laugh at the rantings that take place on MMfA.
Oh, and I thought at first glance, you were describing San Francisco, and not Republicans in your little diatribe about deviant behavior there.. LOL
One thing l have noticed is that on both sides of the pond the people who protest the loadest about so called "deviant behaviour" normally turn out to be Conservatives.
You lot have Larry Craig, we had Stephen Milligan the former local Conservative MP who was found dead wearing stockings and suspenders with an orange in his mouth and a bag on his head!! I won't even go into the behaviour of the former privately educated fops from all boy dorms like Erton and Harrow who learned to get their tounges around the hard parts of Latin vocab, but still try to deny their sexual orientation while trawling for sex in public pack toilets.
Tell me Dee - why should I worry about Edwards (in your eyes) "corruption" when you prove time and time again that you are only interested in targeting democrats with your "moral crusade"? You conveniently ignore the fact that the entire republican party runs as the party of morals yet as I've demonstrated time and again when it comes to morals, they have none. So don't whine to me about me not taking ONE DEMOCRAT to task (and for that matter, one who doesn't even hold office right now) when you continue to vote for the most corrupt individuals in the most morally bankrupt party in the world because you are so concerned about "morals". Chances are if Edwards were to ever run again we wouldn't vote him back in office. If he were republican though you'd be pulling the lever without a 2nd thought.
Plus you again seem to miss the point where this isn't a matter of infidelity as it is a matter of corruption- i.e. the hush money.
Of course you have solid proof, NOT
You don't have a clue where her money came from, your just repeating what right wing nuts are repeating, hoping someone will buy it.
Edwards' Net Worth: $54.7 million
One more time. Edwards' Net Worth: $54.7 million.
I think if he chose to pay his mistress HE can afford to pay with his OWN money.
"...other than the fact that Edwards has portrayed himself as the "moral" candidate time and again. " (MissDMinus)
Hey, MissDee, how about that? Another claim you should back up before blabbering on again.
1. Liberals call GW Bush a genius
2. Obama said inflating out tires will make us independent of foreign oil
3. Edwards portrayed himself as the moral candidate, time and time again
You really aren't used to being with sane people, are you? You may want to reconcile some of your "facts" with reality before you start accusing others of having psychological problems. Do you understand that most crazy people think everybody else is crazy?
Mary Elizabeth Williams: Maybe as someone who's been married and had kids and truly believes Elizabeth Edwards is the bomb, I should be all outraged that John Edwards has admitted an affair. But I'm outraged at the outrage.
We are one screwed-up, sanctimonious society, with more tools to rip into every shred of an individual's privacy than we know what to do with. I wouldn't want to be the dude's wife, but hey, I'm not. When we start blurring the distinctions between a person's life and his work, we can rule out FDR or JFK or Clinton (who is looking better and better, isn't he?). You don't stop being human and flawed and vulnerable because you go into public life.
The two wars we're currently waging are what's immoral. The way that Wall Street and the banking industry peddled an unsustainable mortgage system to the American people is unethical. The No Child Left Behind Act is unconscionable. Where John Edwards puts his penis is low, low low on my list of wrongs I can feel "disappointed" about.
Science101, etc., I haven't heard you mention Jeff Gannon in any of your moral pouting. Isn't he a hooker who snuck into the White House in the dead of the night of many occasions to see a friend..Who?? Karl Rove or maybe even the President. While Edwards was running for office, these guys were IN OFFICE....I erred above, he didn't sneak into the White House, he was authorized by???? Karl, George, Dick...Don't your inquiring minds want to know.
Let us all get together and get to the bottom of each and every person in Washington including the White House. We did it before and got Clinton. Let's do it again. I also would bet that you are a little disappointed that Edwards had an affair with a woman.
I also would bet that you are a little disappointed that Edwards had an affair with a woman.
Its very surprising that he did.....I would have guesses he goes the other way, and Elizabeth is a political cover up.
TABLOID GARBAGE
The reason this story stayed out of the MSM for so long was the source, who in their right mind is going to quote the National Inquirer? Are we to believe that Batboy is also a true story? John Edwards cheated on his wife. So did John McCain and Newt Gingrich, both while their wives were suffering medically, so spare me the false GOP moral indignation. My issue with this story is Gregory linking this to Obama and that is why I sent an email to everyone in the contact column to the right of this article, MSNBC needs to know that we expect this behavior from Foxnews and the talk radio crowd but not from a serious news organization. I urge others to do the same if they haven't already done so.
If this marks the end of Edwards career then how the hell is Grampy McCain running for President with those exact same morals?
I would have guesses he goes the other way
I guess you go the other way, also, except in your case the way you avoid is called "truth."
Seems most "news" these days is either entertainment or propaganda. As long as news organizations make it routine practice to be obviously one-sided in their reporting or choose to "Photoshop" audio and video clips without explanation or clarification, we will have to look deeper for more information and the truth.
Of course, this also points out that we have become lazy and complacent in accepting the news from our favorite sources, despite the huge amount of information that's available in print, on radio and TV and, most importantly, on the "internets."
As an educator, a parent and a concern citizen, I think it's vital that we teach students in schools to be critical information consumers. Information literacy is, now more than ever, a key component of a democratic society. The MTV world of multimedia (even though information is often delivered in rapid-fire microbites) at least offers us multiple avenues for doing that.
Politics involves power and prestige. And groupies wanting contact with the candidate. Any politician that is seduced by all of this is compromised, and their message falls by the wayside.
Edwards had the right message: there are indeed two Americas, one for the wealthy and powerfully connected, and the other for everyone else. The working class needs help, jobs need to be living wage jobs, and unions support workers. Giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas and seek tax shelters in foreign countries is WRONG. The US needs universal health care.
Will anyone else speak out for the American worker????!!! We know that McCain won't. If we elect more progressives, and Obama is elected, we have a chance.
Dear(sic) Mr. Gregory
and any concern trolls.
Ms. Edwards put up a statement on fridays Daiy Kos. You might give it a read before you open you pie holes on the subject.
A very classy lady.
You all arn't.
The question is: will this draw votes away from Obama that might otherwise have gone to him?
Edwards was irrelevant when he was a candidate, otherwise the Clintons would've outed this story long ago. He is now just slimy and irrelevant. He shouldn't do any harm to Obama. I'd guess that Obama can pronounce forgiveness to him and bolster his messianic image with the Dem faithful.
Perhaps give McCain more ammo to skewer him?
When Gregory says "another shadow," presumably he means in addition to the fact that a sleazy, stupid hack like David Gregory is covering the race.
Now Obama will have to apologize for this.
And some people are still angry that he hasn't apologized yet for Martin Luther King Jr.
While what I think Edwards did makes my opinion of him drop considerably, it was 2 years ago. He and his wife talked it over, and guess what? They're still married. It must fry the arse of conservatives on here to think that someone can actually work out their issues. Again, I don't condone what he did, and don't think as highly of Edwards any longer, but he and his wife did apparently get over it, and moved on.
Here is the other difference. The republican party holds itself up as the most moral party, and the party of values and religion. I just thought that we democrats were supposed to have affairs and things like that... :-(
Anyway, going back to the topic. This shouldn't hurt or harm Obama at all. Why? As far as I know, Edwards wasn't a part of Obama's campaign. It's really pure and simple.
The more I see Gregory the more I see someone desperate for a story that will get him some attention. He is just so way over the top that any sensationalistic tripe seems to work for him.
His mouth is like a loaded gun being waved around – it could go off at any time and in any direction, as long as it gets him big bang.
Farm him out to Fox.
As was mentioned previously by someone, somewhere (maybe Jason @ TPM?) online today, David makes EVERYTHING into something about Obama! This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. John Edwards is no longer a candidate for President, and fershure, he probably won't be getting a Cabinet position if Obama is elected, so it's a dead end.
If anything, it should cause the MSM to talk about John McCain's poor judgment when it comes to adultery. But of course, as Bob Cesca said, there's a "Wall of Duh" when it comes to John McCain and the media, so it won't be relevant to any upcoming discussions.
As to The Antichrist garbage, it was Oprah Winfrey who first called Barack Obama "The One"; he didn't call himself that. And, if you read your bible, it says that the Antichrist will come from the EAST. America is in the WEST.
I would think that McCain leaving his crippled wife and children so he could bang a 25-year old blond beer heiress would more appropriately be a skeleton in McCain's closet than someone not associated with a presidential campaign would be a skeleton in the Democrats' closet.
Will Edwards appear at the Democratic convention? I don't know.
Will McCain appear at the Republican convention? I think he will.
Why not elect women?
How many of them have affairs? They are just as smart as men and maybe more compassionate. A lot more then one "compassionate conservative" that was elected a while ago. They don't seem to lie as much either.
Of course that may change once they start getting elected to positions of power, but so far their record is exemplary.
Oh I forgot. If their HUSBANDS have affairs, somehow it's THEIR fault.
"How many of them have affairs?"
Um...a lot? Most surveys place them not far behind men. There are a lot of good reasons to argue in favor of a female president, but this isn't really one of them.
How many of them have affairs?
As a Congressman once said about Representative Helen Chenoweth, "Helen proves that it is indeed possible to f|ck one's brains out."
To make things "fair and balanced," a tabloid once published a picture purporting to be Ted Kennedy having sex on a boat. One of his colleagues commented, "Apparently Ted has changed his position on offshore drilling."
The country does not need a ‘woman’ president any more than it needs a ‘black man’ for president. What it needs is a ‘good president’.
What the heck does Edward’s affair have to do with Barack’s campaign?
Unless Sen. Larry Craig’s indiscretions are a skeleton in McCain’s closet, than the assertion that Edward’s affair is a skeleton Barack’s closet is simply absurd.
Barack is responsible for HIS actions and policy and only somewhat responsible for the actions of his immediate family. Outside of that circle I do not hold him responsible.
Maybe if Barack was giving Edwards dating tips or something this story would have legs, but come on.. lol