I don’t see how this can be said to be pushing Edwards “under the bus” in any way.

those words for some time now.

I was so looking forward to hearing Edwards tell us about Obama’s government run plan to provide childcare for single mothers that couldn’t get the father to step up and take responsibility.

I wondered what Edwards thought about politicians that cheated on their wives, Google is your friend.

*From a CBS News interview broadcast on December 19, 2007:

Katie Couric: Harry Truman said, “A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other.” Some people don’t feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

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

Couric: So you think it’s an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

Edwards: Yeah. But I don’t think it’s controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the … stories we’ve all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don’t think it controls the issue. But I think it’s certain … something reasonable for people to consider.*

Edwards: “Where do I plug in my Hairdryer?”

If Elizabeth Edwards has known about this since 2006 then she is part of the lies that John told during 2007 and 2008.

She kept supporting his presidential bid while he lied about it.

The fact that she didn’t know that he was still seeing the woman behind her back should come as no surprise to her as she has let him know that lying is okay with her.

He used her for a prop and she let him. Then he goes behind her back again. Sad.

If Elizabeth Edwards has known about this since 2006 then she is part of the lies that John told during 2007 and 2008.

She kept supporting his presidential bid while he lied about it.

The fact that she didn’t know that he was still seeing the woman behind her back should come as no surprise to her as she has let him know that lying is okay with her.

He used her for a prop and she let him. Then he goes behind her back again. Sad.

Elizabeth Edwards is part of the lie if she has known about this since 2006. She kept supporting his presidential bid while he lied about it.

It should come as no surprise to her that he would continue to lie to her and go behind her back in 2008.

That being said I still feel sorry for her and wish her well.

Elizabeth Edwards is part of the lie if she has known about this since 2006. She kept supporting his presidential bid while he lied about it.

It should come as no surprise to her that he would continue to lie to her and go behind her back in 2008.

That being said I still feel sorry for her and wish her well.

Elizabeth Edwards is part of the lie if she has known about this since 2006. She kept supporting his presidential bid while he lied about it.

It should come as no surprise to her that he would continue to lie to her and go behind her back in 2008.

That being said I still feel sorry for her and wish her well.

Although there is nothing in the news reports as yet to suggest Obama knew, consider a few facts that suggest perhaps he did:

1. It is routine for Presidential contenders to do negative opposition research on the primary opponents, and after Clinton, Obama’s only serious primary opponent was Edwards.

2. It is routine for Presidential nominees to do negative opposition research on their potential veep picks, and it is implausible to suggest that with Edwards popularity he was not on that list.

3. Obama’s comment that this was “not the John Edwards I knew” almost exactly echoes his lie about Rev Wright being “not the man I knew for 20 years.”

4. Remember back to January, when Edwards jumped to Obama’s aid in a debate and acted mostly like an attack dog for Obama against Clinton? The press were all over it, saying they were “ganging up” on her. I remember thinking that made no political sense at the time and there was something funny going on there.

5. Then, despite the fact Edwards was poised to bring in a solid 15% or so in state after state and solidify his “kingmaker” status. Then he inexplicably dropped out. Without Edwards have done so when he did, Clinton would easily have held on in February and Obama would never have built the momentum he did.

6. Then, Edwards did not endorse Obama. Even when NC came up he did not. Pundits could not explain it. He did not endorse Clinton either, but eventually he endorsed Obama after it no longer mattered and his wife endorsed Clinton’s health plan and tacitly her. My belief is that Clinton cottoned on that something was up and her people figured the secret out too. Neither one wanted to be the one to “out” Edwards, but they both had the goods on them, and that’s why he did not play the kingmaker role he could have played this spring.

Circumstantial? Yes. But if Obama (and Clinton for that matter) knew, then others knew they knew. Perhaps this could be further investigated or someone will come forward.

1. Now that Edwards’ secret is out Obama no longer has leverage over him (assuming my theory is true). In fact, Edwards has leverage over Obama if Obama did in fact know and Edwards could point that out. If Edwards gets a speaking spot at the convention, that might suggest Obama has no choice but to help him.

This is not Edwards I knew
This is not Jermiah Wright i knew
…………

Although there is nothing in the news reports as yet to suggest Obama knew, consider a few facts that suggest perhaps he did:

1. It is routine for Presidential contenders to do negative opposition research on the primary opponents, and after Clinton, Obama’s only serious primary opponent was Edwards.

2. It is routine for Presidential nominees to do negative opposition research on their potential veep picks, and it is implausible to suggest that with Edwards popularity he was not on that list.

3. Obama’s comment that this was “not the John Edwards I knew” almost exactly echoes his lie about Rev Wright being “not the man I knew for 20 years.”

4. Remember back to January, when Edwards jumped to Obama’s aid in a debate and acted mostly like an attack dog for Obama against Clinton? The press were all over it, saying they were “ganging up” on her. I remember thinking that made no political sense at the time and there was something funny going on there.

5. Then, despite the fact Edwards was poised to bring in a solid 15% or so in state after state and solidify his “kingmaker” status. Then he inexplicably dropped out. Without Edwards have done so when he did, Clinton would easily have held on in February and Obama would never have built the momentum he did.

6. Then, Edwards did not endorse Obama. Even when NC came up he did not. Pundits could not explain it. He did not endorse Clinton either, but eventually he endorsed Obama after it no longer mattered and his wife endorsed Clinton’s health plan and tacitly her. My belief is that Clinton cottoned on that something was up and her people figured the secret out too. Neither one wanted to be the one to “out” Edwards, but they both had the goods on them, and that’s why he did not play the kingmaker role he could have played this spring.

Circumstantial? Yes. But if Obama (and Clinton for that matter) knew, then others knew they knew. Perhaps this could be further investigated or someone will come forward.

1. Now that Edwards’ secret is out Obama no longer has leverage over him (assuming my theory is true). In fact, Edwards has leverage over Obama if Obama did in fact know and Edwards could point that out. If Edwards gets a speaking spot at the convention, that might suggest Obama has no choice but to help him.

I mean, after all, from all reports we are almost certainly going to have an adulterer giving the acceptance speech at the GOP convention.

McCain’s first wife waited faithfully for him the entire time he was in Vietnam. She didn’t let anyone tell him that she had been horribly injured in a car crash because she was afraid it might add to his burdens in his North Vietnamese hell hole.

He gets out to find a wife who, while loyal, was not the woman he left (I believe the description in his book says something about her being shorter and heavier after the disfiguring accident). Beyond that, he had spent a lot of his youth incarcerated, and had some catching up to do.

From all reports, his activities in the 70s, while still married, were pretty wild, and faithful is not a word I’ve seen used to describe them. I’m not sure he’s ever used the A word to describe his activities, but I don’t believe thinking people harbor many doubts.

That’s all long past, and it seems like the only one with a real stake – his first wife – long ago forgave and forgot. (And let me note that I don’t believe for an instant the unfounded insinuations of a more recent affair published with no credible back up in a supposedly reputable newspaper.)

All the same, here’s the point: let’s not get too enthusiastic waxing moralistic about John Edwards’ incredibly sleazy behavior. The longer the Edwards story plays, the more we are going to hear about McCain’s youthful indiscretions.

In general, it’s a mistake to think our office seekers are less likely to fall prey to the lure of illicit sex than theirs. Politics attracts people who crave external validation. A need for external validation can be met through seduction. There are monogamous men and women in politics (I’m betting Mitt Romney is one) but you don’t have to go too far down the list of leading players in either party to find plenty of known adulterers.

Does anyone think that Edwards, even now, is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I don’t, not for a minute.

If the Enquirer has you nailed, the first line of defense is to belittle tabloid journalism. That’s what Edwards has done throughout. The fact is, though, that tabloids are sometimes right, and way ahead of the MSM (think Monica Lewinsky blue dress, Gary Hart and Monkey Business, etc.).

Then there’s the financial support of this woman through bogus contracts, and her being put up in a supporter’s house. Why would that happen?

I don’t know whose kid it is, but I’m pretty sure Edwards has not told all. There may be more to come out on this story.

Obama would be an idiot to get within ten miles of Edwards. Right now, it’s not Obama’s taint, but if he lets Edwards get close, it will be. Under the bus and far away from the convention is exactly where Edwards belongs.

My guess is, beyond not inviting him to speak at the convention, Obama is suggesting that this might be a good time for Edwards and clan to take a nice sabbatical in one of the more remote regions of Australia.

NEWS FLASH!

The definition of Bop is getting hard to pin down with the Edwards affair.

Date line Cyberspace 8/09/08 5:20pm EST

Bam Bam Obama’s http:www.BOP-O-METER.com tops 27,000 Big Mac McCain now leads with fewer Bops!

Bops for Obama break past Big Mac McCain!!!!!! Is this the Paris Bop effect?????

Google bop-o-rama to see what is in the news!

Movement to paint the White House PINK grows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voters and Boppers seen defecting to Paris, and we don’t mean Paris France!!!!!!!

McCain’s http://www.BOP-O-METER.com tops 23,000.
Obama’s http://www.BOP-O-METER.com tops 27,000

Hey she is totally hot! –Diddy Widdy unofficial spokesperson for The Paris Hilton for President campaign.

Obama campaign has no comment at this time. A real celebrity in the race now. Panic in Hawaii????

Meanwhile, the McCain camp had the following to say.

“Bop-O-Nomics! Could we please get someone in here to explain Bop theory of economics!”

Paris is now talking more than painting the white house PINK. “Congress is a bit drab. No wonder they can’t get anything done.” PINK it is!!!!! I

Your Bops Count!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Goooo PINK!!!!!!!!!!

“Bop early and Bop often.” –Alphonso Carponzo
http://www.bop-o-rama.com

NEWS FLASH!

The definition of Bop is getting hard to pin down with the Edwards affair.

Date line Cyberspace 8/09/08 5:20pm EST

Bam Bam Obama’s http:www.BOP-O-METER.com tops 27,000 Big Mac McCain now leads with fewer Bops!

Bops for Obama break past Big Mac McCain!!!!!! Is this the Paris Bop effect?????

Google bop-o-rama to see what is in the news!

Movement to paint the White House PINK grows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voters and Boppers seen defecting to Paris, and we don’t mean Paris France!!!!!!!

McCain’s http://www.BOP-O-METER.com tops 23,000.
Obama’s http://www.BOP-O-METER.com tops 27,000

Hey she is totally hot! –Diddy Widdy unofficial spokesperson for The Paris Hilton for President campaign.

Obama campaign has no comment at this time. A real celebrity in the race now. Panic in Hawaii????

Meanwhile, the McCain camp had the following to say.

“Bop-O-Nomics! Could we please get someone in here to explain Bop theory of economics!”

Paris is now talking more than painting the white house PINK. “Congress is a bit drab. No wonder they can’t get anything done.” PINK it is!!!!! I

Your Bops Count!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Goooo PINK!!!!!!!!!!

“Bop early and Bop often.” –Alphonso Carponzo
http://www.bop-o-rama.com

to distance himself from every Democrat that he knows! After all, either they are morally corrupt, or criminally corrupt! Wait for it…it’s coming…

Hillary must be seriously wanting to bop Obama’s http://www.bop-o-meter.com on this news. Clearly Edwards made a calculated decision to stay in the race causing her to loose.

“Bop early and Bop often.” –Alphonso Carponzo