He only has $250 million? He deserves so much more. We need to set up a fund to help him out!

I'm smart enough to see that you will drag Hillary into anything if you think it will be harmful to her. You are right there.

As for the rest of this post I am quoting.. what does any of that verbosity have to do with my response to you ?

what doesn't it?

Paul Begala just said on Air America that there is NO way Hillary will attempt a coup
by the way. He said, he was her biggest fan, but it's over Hillary.

It is over for Hillary?

I think most people here have known that for well over two months now.

this sing songy routine reminds me of the Munchkins from the Wiz of Oz

If as you say it defnitely is over for her, then after the next Thursday nite, with Obama as the Presidential nominee, and a non-clintonite as the VP,
we can all sing their favorite song

I will probable sing whatever my eight-year old daughter is singing.

I probably will actaully go and beat my record of Hallelujah's posted on one thread

"...best of both worlds..."

my hallelujah's would trump the best of both worlds

This morning it was $200 Billion, later this morning it was one billion, now it's $250 Million, either John Edwards has set a new world record for percentage loss in a day by a billionaire or a poster is factually challenged.

obviously a typo
b=m
It depends what finaincial article you look at how many millions he has...If its over 10 million, he don'[t need another penny the rest of his life
(unless his wife sues him for every last cent he ever made and will make)
You can't take it with you

His McMansion alone could house the entire world Olympic teams, its so huge (and an eyesore to the rest of the down home community).

Obviously not an honest reply, it would be possible (but unlikely) if it was just the $200 Billion and the $250 Million, add in the one billion posted in between and it's clearly a case of making up "facts" on the fly.

its millions

As Billy Joel sang, it's still rock and roll to me, 100 million, 200 million, 100 billion is way above any of us have.
It's not like I have Tim Russerts' propaganda erasable chalk board to keep track of the figures
One googles, writes, then hopes to remember later on

If Mr. Edwards wants, we can send a CPA in (marine?) and get an exact dollar total.
Probably if a divorce happens, they will do just that.


either way, he probably could feed 1 million of those poor people he talks about every week and not miss the money ever in his life
(and he could always get a new book deal or something later on)

I may be old but I'm not getting into an endless discussion of b=ms.



AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITES---GET THIS FOLKS----JOHN EDWARDS CLOSES DOWN HIS "POVERTY" CENTER

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/11/12...1060/322/566141
Edwards Closes "Anti-Poverty" Center
by mdb
Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:16:35 AM PDT
According to an article in Harpers, now that John Edwards is no longer a viable candidate for president, he has shut down the non-profit organization that was (ostensibly) established to help poor people. The article also points out that the organization seemed to be more about advancing his political aims than helping poor people.

Here are some snips from the article.

mdb's diary :: ::
Harpers excerpted this one from a NYT article from June, 2007:

The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show...

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was "making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation," its federal filings say it financed "retreats and seminars" with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.
They grabbed this from the Raleigh News Observer:

Edwards’ presidential hopes have evaporated. And he recently informed Greene County officials that he would end the pilot program at Greene Central High School. "We sent a communication out to upcoming seniors and their parents," said Randy Bledsoe, principal of Greene Central High. "Some are saddened that the opportunity is not going to be there for their children. But we’ve had a lot of positive reaction over the years."

Edwards started the "College for Everyone" pilot program at Greene Central High in 2005, shortly after he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee. It was a privately funded effort designed to increase the number of students at a rural high school who attend college. The program provided the cost of tuition, fees and books at a public college for one year. In exchange, students had to work at least 10 hours a week while in college, take college preparatory courses in high school and stay out of trouble.
Harpers sums it up:

Incidentally, it doesn’t look like Edwards’ Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation did any other notable anti-poverty work, and the group itself appears to be largely defunct. The foundation has no website and after examining tax records, my colleague Sebastian Jones determined that it was largely indistinguishable from the College for Everyone program.
My take... beware the populist.

NOW if this don't take the cake...what a freakin' phony
This is as freakin' unreal as Bush's photoop ranch

John Edwards Ends Fling With Anti-Poverty Center
By Ken Silverstein
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/08/hbc-90003382
Once upon a time John Edwards wanted to be president. “Poverty,” he said back then, “is the great moral issue of our century,” he told a group of students at Berkeley in 2005. “People living in poverty need you. And another thing: America needs you.”

To show his own dedication, Edwards “created a tax-exempt nonprofit dedicated to fighting poverty”, reported the New York Times. Except:

The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and—unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students—the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show…

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors—as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do—and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

In other words, the Center may have done some good, but its primary purpose was to serve as a vehicle for Edwards’ political career. Indeed, it appears to be very similar to the bogus “Reform Institute” that John McCain set up after his defeat to George W. Bush in 2000, and which was designed to keep alive his presidential ambitions and reward his cronies.

Edwards of course lost his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, and guess what happened to his big anti-poverty initiative? That’s right–it appears he pulled the plug on it.

About a week before Edwards acknowledged having an affair with Rielle Hunter, Edwards quietly shut down a “scholarship program he started at an Eastern North Carolina high school–a program he once promised would be a model for the nation under an Edwards presidency,” reports the Raleigh News & Observer:

Edwards’ presidential hopes have evaporated. And he recently informed Greene County officials that he would end the pilot program at Greene Central High School. “We sent a communication out to upcoming seniors and their parents,” said Randy Bledsoe, principal of Greene Central High. “Some are saddened that the opportunity is not going to be there for their children. But we’ve had a lot of positive reaction over the years.”

Edwards started the “College for Everyone” pilot program at Greene Central High in 2005, shortly after he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee. It was a privately funded effort designed to increase the number of students at a rural high school who attend college. The program provided the cost of tuition, fees and books at a public college for one year. In exchange, students had to work at least 10 hours a week while in college, take college preparatory courses in high school and stay out of trouble.

But now Edwards is no longer a presidential candidate, and with revelation of his affair, his political career is probably over as well. And no more College for Everyone. And incidentally, it doesn’t look like Edwards’ Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation did any other notable anti-poverty work, and the group itself appears to be largely defunct. The foundation has no website, and, after examining tax records, my colleague Sebastian Jones determined that it was largely indistinguishable from the College for Everyone program.

I don't like to make definitive statements about what might have been. If Edwards had not been in the race, it would have changed the playing field in Iowa and New Hampshire, and who knows what might have happened? Maybe everything would have changed, maybe nothing would have.

Wolfson has admitted that Iowa wasn't an accurate statement . (he apparently cited Iowa as the example originally) He was shown exit polls on Fox and had to admit that Clinton wasn't Edwards' voters second choice in Iowa. Obama was.

IA and NH would have been the two states primarily affected, as Edwards had no impact in NV and not a whole lot in SC and dropped out of the race just before Super Tuesday.

Maybe Obama would have wrapped up the race in NH, maybe not .... I will say though that he should be thankful he didn't. He'd be much more of an unknown to the public and would not have the kind of national organization he has a result of the long primary race.

Good point there but he also wouldn't be facing the redux of the Hillary attacks that he is facing now from McCain. They wouldn't have the impact they do now if she hadn't levelled them in the Dem Primaries.

McCain is trying to box Obama in now. His latest ad screams for the race accusation to be levelled. Harold Ford style white women and girls drooling over Obama. Obama responds to it and he's accused of playing it, redux again.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,185369.column
John Edwards and the death of mainstream mediaBy Rob Tornoe

Tim Rutten:
Old media dethroned
Edwards' admission signals the end of the era in which traditional media set the limits of acceptable political journalism.
Tim Rutten
August 9, 2008
When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.

From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.

Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd. Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story. Like the Enquirer's reporting, the special-treatment charge is largely true, as anyone who recalls the media frenzy over conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett's high-stakes gambling would agree.

Edwards, 55, now admits that he had an affair with Hunter, now 44,in 2006, but denies that he is the father of the child she had in February. Andrew Young, another former Edwards aide, has said he is the baby's father. In a statement released Friday, Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test; doubtless we'll hear more on that issue.

So far, so sordid.

But what's really significant here is the cone of silence the nation's major newspapers -- including The Times -- and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign. Next, the Enquirer reported that the unmarried Hunter was pregnant. Still no mainstream media interest. Indeed, never in recent journalistic history have so many tough reporters so closely resembled sheep as those members of the campaign press corps who meekly accepted Edwards' categorical dismissal of the Enquirer's allegations. Late last month, Edwards came to Los Angeles, and Enquirer reporters trailed him to the Beverly Hilton hotel, where he met Hunter and her daughter in their room.

The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence. The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton. As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been "confirmed."

Well, there's confirming and then there's confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, "Find somebody and have them make a few calls." Then there's the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada's and says, "Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion."

Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer's story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.

Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside.

First, it was less than unlikely that Elizabeth Edwards was unaware of the allegations. (She says now she knew of the affair in 2006.) Second, Edwards' name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Barack Obama and as a possible attorney general or Supreme Court nominee -- posts in which character and candor matter. Finally, throughout his political career, Edwards has made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaigns.

It's interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed "95% to 96%" of the tabloid's reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception.

With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

I think my daughter sings better than you, because she sings in the spirit of good-natured fun.

This is a good reason why he needs it. What if they hold the Olympics in North Carolina?

you gave me the perfect opening

If they gave the Olympics in NC, I am sure they would cheat (just like I would not be surprised to find out the
swimmers on the US Team have cheated...either some new designer steriod or hormone (most likely), or somehow
cheating...you don't break all those records all at once (as impossible as the exit polls in 2004 being wrong)
After all NBC has cheated us with phony fireworks, lies on it being live, and only showing Americans...I for one
want more than that

So if they gave it at John edwards home, I would be 100% sure cheating and lying was involved.

FRIEND OF WOMAN IN EDWARDS CHEATING SCANDAL SAYS JOHN EDWARDS IS 100% LYING ABOUT THE DETAILS AND IS THE FATHER OF THE BABY

BREAKING NEWS!!!


http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122008/news/...ying_124045.htm
CHEAT JOHN IS STILL 'LYING'
TRYSTED MONTHS BEFORE HIRE: PAL
By EMMETT BERG in Elko, Nev. BARRY BORTNICK in Boulder, Colo., and DAN MANGAN in NY
BIG SLEAZY: John Edwards, who says his affair with Rielle Hunter ended in 2006, is accompanied by her in New Orleans on Dec. 27 of that year.

PHOTO GALLERY: Top Political Cheaters
Last updated: 10:10 am
August 12, 2008
Posted: 3:52 am
August 12, 2008

John Edwards lied even when he "came clean" by claiming his affair with vixen videographer Rielle Hunter began after his presidential campaign hired her, a friend of the mistress said yesterday.

"The affair began long, long, long before she was hired to work for the campaign - almost half a year before she was hired to work on those videos," said Hunter pal Pidgeon O'Brien in an ABC News interview.

After months of denials, Edwards finally 'fessed up to the adultery in his own ABC interview Friday - but was adamant that he started sleeping with Hunter only after her firm was retained in July 2006 for $114,000 to produce Internet videos on him.

"She was hired to come in and produce films, and that's the reason she was hired," insisted Edwards, whose wife, Elizabeth, suffers from cancer.

But O'Brien said Hunter, 44, began speaking about the former North Carolina senator in amorous terms shortly after they met in a New York City hotel bar in late February 2006 or early March 2006.

Hunter, a devotee of astrology and New Age spiritualism, said she had met "an amazing man from North Carolina named John," O'Brien told ABC.

"She said they had a very deep connection and they were spending time together in a romantic and sexual way, very, you know, very early on, in a very intense way."

Edwards claims the affair ended in 2006, but the National Enquirer is set to report that his trysts with Hunter continued well beyond that and led to the birth of her daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, last February.

Edwards denies fathering the baby, but Hunter's younger sister, Melissa Druck, has called on him to fulfill his offer to take a paternity test - something Hunter says she doesn't want.

"If he would just come forward and tell the whole truth, I think then this would all go away," Druck told The Post yesterday.

Asked whether Edwards is the daddy, Druck sighed, "I've probably said more than I should."

Andrew Young, a former Edwards campaign aide, has claimed to be the father.

Druck said she did not know where Hunter - who has been in hiding for more than a week - is now living. Hunter is being paid a reported $15,000 per month by Edwards' former campaign finance boss, who had originally set her up in a $3 million California house.

Hunter's ex-mother-in-law, Harriet Barker, told The Post yesterday that she is tired of media focus on the "beautiful and loving" woman.

"I wish people would concentrate on Russia and Georgia and not on whom John Edwards screwed," said Barker, whose son was married to Hunter before the pair split in the 1990s.

Hunter has had other famous boyfriends, including author Jay McInerney, who has said he based the promiscuous character in his 1988 novel, "Story of My Life," on Hunter. Boosted by the scandal, the novel is out of stock after shooting up to No. 470 on Amazon.com's best-seller list - prompting its publisher to print another 2,500 copies.

Also getting renewed attention is a November 1992 Sports Illustrated article about a series of killings of thoroughbred horses. The brutal murders were committed for insurance purposes by a hit man who learned his trade from Hunter's late father, James Druck.

Druck, a Florida lawyer, in 1982 taught Tommy "The Sandman" Burns how to rig wires to electrocute Druck's prize show jumper, Henry the Hawk, for a $150,000 insurance payout, the magazine reported.

dan.mangan@nypost.com

We already know that Edwards has not "come clean" in the most satisfactory way.

I guess additional information is always useful, but we don't know how reliable what this friend is saying.

And I just cannot get too excited about this.

Of course stuff is going to dribble in for a while, especially if Edwards lied when he "came clean".

But is there really likely going to be much else to say?

I suppose there would be if it turns out that Rielle Hunter was really a spy for the Russians, Georgians or South Ossetians.

WHY should I care about the Russians, Georgians or South Ossetians, when YOU don't care about the forged document about getting into Iraq or the Patriot Act being influenced by a murder
of a person in the thraxxx case who did not do it, or impeachment in general

The world SUCKS big time, and its all because of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the gang...so you care about your issues, I'll care about mine

We are all 10 minutes at some point away from being history.

Even if your gross distortion of my views happened to be accurate your lack of logic here would still be astounding. (I do care about that document, as is documented on the relevant thread. And I want an investigation in the whole anthrax case as the FBI seems to have handled it rather poorly.)

People have actually died in that war in the Caucasus. I know of none who have died at that hotel in Beverly Hills. Whatever my views are on these other things does not mitigate that in the least.



You know my son spilled food on the kitchen floor yesterday. He was so upset about it that he told me about it this morning. Is Hillary to blame for that too?

Anyway, it is not that the Edwards thing has no importance, or even that nothing else should be said about it. If you have more information on it go ahead and post it. I simply think that you seem to have a rather outsized assessment of its importance, based on your hatred of John Edwards. That is my real point here.



Or having food spilled on the floor. If only Hillary and Bill weren't so evil we would never have to worry about that.

It sounds like Ms. Hunter's father was engaged in the most cruel and despicable conduct.

the war thingydingy over there all could have been avoided if Bill Clinton quit 10 years ago, and Al Gore became President
everything is connected
accept the consequences of the situation
symetry
it's a bitch, ain't it?

So I can tell my son don't cry, it is all Bill and Hillary's fault?

You really aren't all that much less ridiculous than that.

symetry
it's a bitch, ain't it?

yas get what yas pay for

everything we have gotten is in direct line in both directions from that moment of Karma.

Bill Clinton.

same people defending Edwards, defended Clinton.

If one had just sacrificed one sleazy President, told him to get the HELL out of his office, and Al Gore came in, life could have been something.

karma bites you in the rear, when you don't make the right decision when one had a chance

and there is NO return from the abyss.

God threw us a life jacket, and we drowned not realizing that it was a life jacket

Arne...............obviously it was Bush's fault that your son spilled that food. G4A has forgotten that the Bush cabal has been drugging the water to make children spill food; part of the republican grand conspiracy to drive up the cost of us feeding ourselves.

And is that all part of the symmetry, karma thing as well?

mockery is a form of uncivility

So says Mr. Pot!

Look, stuff you are saying is being torn apart here, not you. And you have said some pretty outrageous things. What do you expect?

How do you think all of the people here who supported Hillary for President feel about the way you keep linking Hillary to this, with absolutely no evidence and against any kind of plausible reasoning? Do you think that they feel good about that? Do they think that you are showing them the same respect that you seem to be asking for, for yourself and what you say?

If you want to post more stuff about this thing, go ahead. There certainly still seems to be widespread interest in it. But don't expect that no one will react to some of the connections you are making, connections that seem awfully far fetched. Or some of your more outrageous judgments.

I have NO respect for war criminals and their abetters

Think I might have said it before a time or two

And you expect respect to be reciprocated when you use language like that?

Not that people should demean you the same way you have demeaned others. But you cannot expect that people will not use harsh language in response to your more outrageous stuff.

I am not the one going off subject and making it personal.

I don't know if you think this will detract from the issue at hand, but I think not.

The child at hand is John Edwards and Riell's. That is the important child.

The issue of blackmail, silence, payoffs, hush money, intimidation, etc...that's the kicker of it all

Graham, you are the one who claims to be personally attacked.



I think that you have been the one doing that with the kinds of things you are trying to relate this thing too.



You don't know it is Edwards'. Maybe it is, that is a plausible theory, but you don't know that.



Yes there has been silence, payoffs and hush money (of course hush money and payoffs are the same thing here) but what blackmail and intimidation? Or has Hunter been doing that to Edwards?

investigate
then let's see

we got time enough at last, being that no one is investigating any other stuff, might as well be this

Under oath of course.
the truth
the whole truth
nothing but the truth
so help me God.

Graham, just what would you investigate? Is there good reason to think a crime has been committed? Don't say that Edwards, Elizabeth, or Bill or Hillary, could have committed a crime. The guy in the next office could have committed a crime, but I know of no reason to suspect him.

Why should we suspect anyone here?

I have nothing against investigation in principle, but there are only so many resources available, and you need some reason other than you don't like certain people.

I want to know the chain of events, and how each suited HIllary, and how dirty tricks might be here

After all, Nixon was caught (so they say) in trying to beat his opponents in the 1972 election with dirty tricks(not that he needed them).

Follow who got this out
Follow the money trail
and the timing of the release of this info

Howard Wolfson was so quick to pounce, just like the Rove people know in advance what to pounce on
As if they were the ones who set it up themselves (and lots of time are).

On the basis of what do we conclude that there was a sufficiently good chance that a crime was committed by anyone that there should be an investigation? This is a serious question, if there is something out there I would be happy to agree that there should be.



There was evidence and testimony that he had done so. People did not just say that because he was "Tricky Dick" that he had to have done so.



Why?



I think Wolfson was just being an idiot.

they didn't get the evidence on Nixon til Woodward and Bernstein investigated

which is where this years W&B came in (the NE)

that is what an investigation is for

it's not as if any of the agencies that investigate important other stuff are doing their job, so as Marvin Gaye sang "Let's get it on" so that
we don't just say we "Heard it through the grapevine"
and then maybe when the proof comes in we can say "Mercy, Mercy Me"
and after we can all rejoice and have a "sexual healing" (can't think of another appropriate song)

They didn't investigate until WH aids were caught breaking and entering at the DNC headquarters. That in itself was a crime.



What crime did they find out about?



In this case the NE investigation seems to have been about an interesting news item, but no crime. (But I am open to being corrected here.)



So if they are not doing their job, they should pursue something trivial because you don't like someone?

equally important AS I SAID
WHERE AM I
YOU ARE IN THE VILLAGE

WHO ARE YOU
YOU ARE #6

WHAT DO YOU WANT
INFORMATION

I AM NOT A #, I AM A FREEMAN (though Morgan has also been found to cheat in the same week as Edwards)

the crime is bribery, hush money, blackmail, intimidation

and in watergate, when the tape on the door was removed and overlooked, they put another piece there

Nixon was set up, but that's another story (though symetry rears its head with this weeks war in Russia, and how Bush41's clan never liked Nixon talking to China)

I don't think that paying someone to keep quiet is illegal if no crime is being covered up. Nor would that be bribery. If someone pays me to not to say bad things about someone that is not bribery. If they pay me to judge someone qualified for a certain job they are applying for with the government that would be bribery, if I would not have judged them qualified without getting that money.

And again, where is the blackmail and intimidation? Unless it was coming from Hunter, who you seem to think is some kind of angel. (After all, she was instrumental in bringing about the downfall of someone you don't like, so she must be wonderful.)



For now I am going to skip commenting on this.

you speak up about everything else, why the silence? Must have hit upon a point you cannot dispute.