by mtg44234, Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:40:51 PM EST
Is it me John Edwards or are you are damn idiot!
All the news stations are quietly reporting on your confession on how you are the father of this beautiful baby girl. But I am going to say it....what's on every Democrats mind....YOU ARE A DAMN IDIOT!
You inspired me in 2004 with your speech on poverty the night of the Iowa Caucus.
I voted for you in the Ohio Primary in 2004. And you are a DAMN IDIOT.
You stood on those stages during the debates in 2008, pointed to your parents, your hard working parents, and stated how much they inspired you. You did this while you wanted to lie about a paternity test. While you were sleeping with another woman, while your wife deals with breast cancer. YOU ARE A DAMN IDIOT.
You blasted Hillary about double speak on the topic of illegal immigrants while you were sleeping with another woman? SERIOUS? Double Speak Yourself you Ass. YOU ARE A DAMN IDIOT!
No one is saying this. Not Chris Matthews, not Rachel Maddow, not CNN....hell not even the Republicans and/or conservative news shows. I WILL SAY IT....YOU ARE A DAMN IDIOT.
Back room negiotians on the V.P. slot or Att. General slot while you were sleeping with another woman...oh and by the way...YOUR CURRENT WIFE HAS BREAST CANCER.
YOU ARE A DAMN IDIOT.
Finally, looking at you during the debates, going after Hillary, knowing what she has lived through, because remember, you were sleeping with another woman at the time, and you still attacked and attacked and attacked. Well she is Secretary of State and you are ......well..... A DAMN IDIOT!!!
by Charles Lemos, Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:13:36 PM EST
The other tell-all book being released is Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe's aptly named The Audacity to Win. Today, Ben Smith of Politico had a confession to make well because it was about to be divulged anyway. Smith's source for the John Edwards $400 haircut story was the Obama campaign. Here's the original post from March 2007 entitled The Hair's Too Perfect:
Well, John Edwards' campaign for president spent $400 on February 20, and another $400 on March 7, at a top Beverly Hills men's stylist, Torrenueva Hair Designs.
The expensive haircut is, of course, a perennial. Bill Clinton got zinged for getting a cut from Cristophe, and Hillary was found at one point to have buried a stylist on her campaign payroll.
Obama, on the other hand, gets his cut cheap and frequent -- but he does take the process seriously enough to hold his calls.
Only Edwards, however, has had the care he takes with his hair memorialized on YouTube.
Edwards' campaign also spent money at two spas: Designworks Salon in Dubuque, and Pink Sapphire in Manchester.
Note that Smith's reporting juxtaposes Edwards' expensive haircuts with Obama's cheap ones. Perhaps that comparison should have been the tip-off in hindsight. That post on the cost of the Edwards haircuts derailed his candidacy. I'm shocked that Obama campaign or any Democratic campaign would engage in such pettiness and silliness. Perhaps I'm just bitter because as a die-hard Edwards supporter anytime I tried to engage in a Two Americas debate all I got back was a retort about a haircut.
Yes, I realize the messenger was flawed but that does not negate the message. There are Two Americas and it behooves the Administration to address this fact if only to atone for such trivialities as the cost of a haircut.
by Charles Lemos, Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 10:07:51 AM EDT
The New York Times is reporting that former Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards is considering declaring that he fathered a child with a former campaign aide, Ms. Rielle Hunter, on the eve of his run for the Presidency. The attorney for John Edwards, Wade M. Smith, said in a statement that "there may be a statement on that subject at some point, but there is no timetable and we will see how we feel about it as events unfold."
I could care less. Either John Edwards is the father or he is not. A DNA test would resolve that matter or Mr. Edwards might simply opt for the truth that he has long eschewed. Whatever the case, John Edwards is a persona non grata in the Democratic party. This sad and sordid episode continues to devolve simply because John Edwards cannot admit to the truth. Instead, Mr. Edwards choses willfully to save whatever grace he may yet possess. It is not as much the affair nor the child out of wedlock, though there is that, but the hubris with which Mr. Edwards has acted since the allegations were proven to have a certain validity. Moreover, how does one even contemplate a run at the Presidency given a personal life in disarray?
In the New York Times story, there is this rich snippet:
According to people familiar with the grand jury investigation, prosecutors are considering a complicated and novel legal issue: whether payments to a candidate's mistress to ensure her silence (and thus maintain the candidate's viability) should be considered campaign donations and thus whether they should be reported. When Mr. Edwards was running for president, and even later when he still held out hope of a senior cabinet position in the Obama administration, two of his wealthy patrons, through a once-trusted Edwards aide, quietly provided Ms. Hunter with large financial benefits, including a new BMW and lodging, that were used to keep her out of public view.
The notion that Mr. Edwards is the father has been reinforced by the account of Andrew Young, once a close aide to Mr. Edwards, who had signed an affidavit asserting that he was the father of Ms. Hunter's child.
Mr. Young, who has since renounced that statement, has told publishers in a book proposal that Mr. Edwards knew all along that he was the child's father. He said Mr. Edwards pleaded with him to accept responsibility falsely, saying that would reduce the story to one of a political aide's infidelity.
In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young asserts that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.
Geez, John no promise of a White House wedding? You're dead to me John Edwards.
by Charles Lemos, Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:34:43 PM EDT
Not surprising I suspect in the grand scheme of things but former two-time Presidential candidate and a former Senator from North Carolina John Edwards is to admit fathering a daughter, now 18 months old, out-of-wedlock with his ex-mistress Rielle Hunter as he was preparing his second Presidential run.
The story from WRAL-Raleigh:
Sources have told WRAL News that they expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress' 18-month-old daughter.
Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, confessed last August to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who served as a videographer on Edwards' 2008 campaign. He has denied fathering her daughter, saying his relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.
The name of the girl's father isn't disclosed on her birth certificate.
Andrew Young, a long-time Edwards aide, initially claimed to be the father of Hunter's child, but he is reportedly writing a book in which he will claim Edwards is the father.
A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.
Hunter spent nine hours last Thursday at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, where the grand jury was meeting. She brought her daughter, Frances, with her.
Young was at the federal courthouse in July when the grand jury was meeting.
Sources said Edwards' public admission could come before the end of the criminal investigation.
Edwards' attorney, Wade Smith, couldn't be reached Thursday for comment.
As a strong Edwards supporter, I still feel deeply betrayed that John Edwards had the hubris to run for the Presidency after engaging in such reckless behavior. I don't expect those who run for higher office to be saints but I'd appreciate it if they weren't scum either.
by desmoinesdem, Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:07:36 PM EDT
Such as the revolving door between Congress and corporate lobbyists:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. [...]
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
So corporate groups are spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying to block a real public health insurance option, which most Americans want.
That's on top of the millions of dollars the same corporate groups have donated directly to Congressional campaigns. Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industries with the most at stake in health care reform.
Members of Congress claim lobbyists and campaign money don't shape their opinions, but Grassley should know better. He understands that big money from pharmaceutical companies can influence the conclusions of medical researchers--why not elected officials?
Nate Silver has found strong evidence that special-interest money affects Democratic senators' support for the public option in health care reform.
By the way, I wasn't too cheered by Senator Chuck Schumer's promise over the weekend that the health care bill will contain a public option. The current draft in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions excludes lots of people from choosing the public option over their current health insurance. That will limit competition for the private insurers that have near-monopolies in many markets.
Back in 2003 all the Democratic presidential candidates talked a good game on health care. Now Dick "this is a moral issue" Gephardt is lobbying for a pharmaceutical company. I'll stand with Howard Dean and hope that John Edwards was wrong about the system being rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington.
Final note: Moveon.org is organizing health care rallies this Thursday, July 9, at senators' offices in their home states. Sign up here to attend a rally near you.