It is all connected
Everything is connected once you find the connection, which I already did some time back
AS long as there is news to be found, I will find it, post it, and report it back to headquarters
When you have people defrauding the taxpayers, using campaign funds, getting hit with
dirty tricks (which come on taxpayer time and money), all parties are guilty until proven
innocent now.
One still has to marvel how Hillary came up looking better after this all broke, one of those
oddity's dontchathink,huh?
Remember too, John Edwards worked and made millions in the Hedgefund industry
...think about that...
And anyone is entitled to ask a moderator for a pinned thread.
Full Version: BREAKING NEWS AP: John Edwards admits affair
Ask away Graham. I just gave you my answer, but then I am not Number One around here.
We will just keep it active for the next four years
After all, the #1 song on the hit parade is McCain, Palin,Hillary,Bill, McGreevey, Edwards and Spitzer
they are all inter-connected.
After all, the #1 song on the hit parade is McCain, Palin,Hillary,Bill, McGreevey, Edwards and Spitzer
they are all inter-connected.
John Edward's still in the news- see this article
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/345
Why do women see through Sarah Palin more easily than men do?
Submitted by Chad on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 2:49pm. Be-Elected
There is a strong backlash among women to the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. If you Google [Women against Sarah Palin], you get organized places where you can go to feed your interests.
Here were the top 3 in my Google search:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.org/
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
http://snoringkatz.vox.com/library/post/wo...arah-palin.html
Though I am not a woman, I can imagine there are plenty of reasons for women to find disfavor with Gov. Palin, regardless of political ideology. The severe thoughts on abortion, the whining, the hiding from the press, the way she willingly outed her unwed, "pregnant" teenage daughter.
And there is talk of cats against Palin here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/1...-against-palin/ and here. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_3_of_4_f..._wont_0908.html
But men seem to like her, and since I am a man, I can address this issue. From the CNN Opinion Poll from September 9, 62% of men had a favorable rating of Palin vs. 53% of women. There was a 7% difference in unfavorable (30% for women, 23% for men).
If you Google [Straight Men against Sarah Palin], you don't get an outlet. So there isn't this realm of organization against her. (To distinguish, I picked straight men since gay men are less likely to be influenced by her physical beauty.)
But is it just her looks? Yes, this is dangerous ground: judging a political candidate based on looks. But honestly, didn't John Edwards seem to have an advantage based on his hair? John Edwards had great hair, but also had ideas, passion, and experience. Didn't John F. Kennedy have some advantage over Richard "Five O'Clock Shadow" Nixon? JFK was considered handsome, but he knew what to do at 3 a.m. Edwards and Kennedy had to prove that they were solid thinkers underneath the good hair.
I noticed the family portrait against the mountain backdrop, and did pick up on her attractiveness many months ago. But I'm not the only one. I still recall sitting at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo on August 29 when Palin was first introduced by John McCain, and the responses from the men besides, "Who is she" were variations on "She's hot."
Plus, her family released the now famous photo of Palin in college, of her wearing a T-shirt that reads: "I may be broke but I'm not flat busted"?
The Republicans played up the "hottest VP" element on buttons in St. Paul. These are the same people who now think attacks on Palin's background and trouble with the truth are sexist.
picture from here
And there are other traits that she has that appeal to men: she likes sports -- she is a hockey mom and she likes to hunt, even if it takes some bizarre turns. You get the impression that Sarah lets Todd be his own man.
There is more to a candidate than hotness or comfort with sports. If they were serious considerations, then Pamela Anderson could be vice president? (She is old enough but she's Canadian.)
But the reaction from women has nothing to do with Palin's looks or "hotness," but knowing that where a candidate stands on the issues and the example of leadership that is set is crucially important.
So why was there the talk of Hillary Clinton supporters jumping over to the Republican ticket because they added a woman to the ticket?
The SNL sketch with Palin and Clinton was played up for laughs, but there was a lot of truth to it. There is a backlash against Palin because the pick is seen as patronizing toward women ("Just find me a woman, any woman") and because Clinton was seen as qualified to be president and Palin isn't.
When I talk to women, I get that they hate Sarah Palin in ways that are beyond politics, and they're confused as to why any Hillary Clinton supporters would jump to Sarah Palin. But I think I know why.
Most of the Hillary/Palin support is anecdotal and exaggerated by the MSM to create conflict where it doesn't exist. But there is one more reason: some of those Hillary Clinton supporters weren't dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.
When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, there were many supporters who liked her for a number of reasons. But it's reasonable to believe that some of them wanted her to win because she is a woman. Even those that disagreed with her on the issues were excited about the prospect of having a woman be commander in chief.
So when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Party primary to Barack Obama, the supporters were upset. When Obama didn't pick a woman, it opened the door for McCain to pick a woman, and he did.
McCain is 72, and it's reasonable to expect that Palin would have a very good chance to take over, temporarily or permanently, in the next 4 years if elected. If having a woman in the White House is your issue, then the Republicans or Cynthia McKinney is your ticket in 2008.
But for the vast majority of Clinton supporters, they wanted her to be president because they believed she would be the best leader for the horrible times in which we live. And this is what the McCain campaign didn't realize.
Sarah Palin is great for energizing the base, but she has very little crossover appeal among independents. What appeal she does have is predominantly for men.
But there are many reasons straight men shouldn't fall for Sarah Palin, even if these reasons are a little patronizing. Sometimes, patronizing works for straight men.
Her stance on abortion isn't cool if you don't want to have a child. She likes fighting wars, which is bad if you get asked to fight those wars. You might come back injured or killed.
She lies with ease, an unappealing trait. She doesn't know how to control her spending, an undesirable trait. She is loyal, almost to a fault, but if she perceives that you double-crossed her, she will get revenge.
To all straight men out there, yes, Sarah Palin is pretty, but you have to consider her record and approach to our nation's problems. Don't vote for her because she's pretty -- she's not running for junior class president in high school. You can't date her, she's married.
Vice President of the United States is a very important role: if the VP did a good job, I wouldn't care if that person looked as horrible as Dick Cheney.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/345
Why do women see through Sarah Palin more easily than men do?
Submitted by Chad on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 2:49pm. Be-Elected
There is a strong backlash among women to the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. If you Google [Women against Sarah Palin], you get organized places where you can go to feed your interests.
Here were the top 3 in my Google search:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.org/
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
http://snoringkatz.vox.com/library/post/wo...arah-palin.html
Though I am not a woman, I can imagine there are plenty of reasons for women to find disfavor with Gov. Palin, regardless of political ideology. The severe thoughts on abortion, the whining, the hiding from the press, the way she willingly outed her unwed, "pregnant" teenage daughter.
And there is talk of cats against Palin here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/1...-against-palin/ and here. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_3_of_4_f..._wont_0908.html
But men seem to like her, and since I am a man, I can address this issue. From the CNN Opinion Poll from September 9, 62% of men had a favorable rating of Palin vs. 53% of women. There was a 7% difference in unfavorable (30% for women, 23% for men).
If you Google [Straight Men against Sarah Palin], you don't get an outlet. So there isn't this realm of organization against her. (To distinguish, I picked straight men since gay men are less likely to be influenced by her physical beauty.)
But is it just her looks? Yes, this is dangerous ground: judging a political candidate based on looks. But honestly, didn't John Edwards seem to have an advantage based on his hair? John Edwards had great hair, but also had ideas, passion, and experience. Didn't John F. Kennedy have some advantage over Richard "Five O'Clock Shadow" Nixon? JFK was considered handsome, but he knew what to do at 3 a.m. Edwards and Kennedy had to prove that they were solid thinkers underneath the good hair.
I noticed the family portrait against the mountain backdrop, and did pick up on her attractiveness many months ago. But I'm not the only one. I still recall sitting at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo on August 29 when Palin was first introduced by John McCain, and the responses from the men besides, "Who is she" were variations on "She's hot."
Plus, her family released the now famous photo of Palin in college, of her wearing a T-shirt that reads: "I may be broke but I'm not flat busted"?
The Republicans played up the "hottest VP" element on buttons in St. Paul. These are the same people who now think attacks on Palin's background and trouble with the truth are sexist.
picture from here
And there are other traits that she has that appeal to men: she likes sports -- she is a hockey mom and she likes to hunt, even if it takes some bizarre turns. You get the impression that Sarah lets Todd be his own man.
There is more to a candidate than hotness or comfort with sports. If they were serious considerations, then Pamela Anderson could be vice president? (She is old enough but she's Canadian.)
But the reaction from women has nothing to do with Palin's looks or "hotness," but knowing that where a candidate stands on the issues and the example of leadership that is set is crucially important.
So why was there the talk of Hillary Clinton supporters jumping over to the Republican ticket because they added a woman to the ticket?
The SNL sketch with Palin and Clinton was played up for laughs, but there was a lot of truth to it. There is a backlash against Palin because the pick is seen as patronizing toward women ("Just find me a woman, any woman") and because Clinton was seen as qualified to be president and Palin isn't.
When I talk to women, I get that they hate Sarah Palin in ways that are beyond politics, and they're confused as to why any Hillary Clinton supporters would jump to Sarah Palin. But I think I know why.
Most of the Hillary/Palin support is anecdotal and exaggerated by the MSM to create conflict where it doesn't exist. But there is one more reason: some of those Hillary Clinton supporters weren't dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.
When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, there were many supporters who liked her for a number of reasons. But it's reasonable to believe that some of them wanted her to win because she is a woman. Even those that disagreed with her on the issues were excited about the prospect of having a woman be commander in chief.
So when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Party primary to Barack Obama, the supporters were upset. When Obama didn't pick a woman, it opened the door for McCain to pick a woman, and he did.
McCain is 72, and it's reasonable to expect that Palin would have a very good chance to take over, temporarily or permanently, in the next 4 years if elected. If having a woman in the White House is your issue, then the Republicans or Cynthia McKinney is your ticket in 2008.
But for the vast majority of Clinton supporters, they wanted her to be president because they believed she would be the best leader for the horrible times in which we live. And this is what the McCain campaign didn't realize.
Sarah Palin is great for energizing the base, but she has very little crossover appeal among independents. What appeal she does have is predominantly for men.
But there are many reasons straight men shouldn't fall for Sarah Palin, even if these reasons are a little patronizing. Sometimes, patronizing works for straight men.
Her stance on abortion isn't cool if you don't want to have a child. She likes fighting wars, which is bad if you get asked to fight those wars. You might come back injured or killed.
She lies with ease, an unappealing trait. She doesn't know how to control her spending, an undesirable trait. She is loyal, almost to a fault, but if she perceives that you double-crossed her, she will get revenge.
To all straight men out there, yes, Sarah Palin is pretty, but you have to consider her record and approach to our nation's problems. Don't vote for her because she's pretty -- she's not running for junior class president in high school. You can't date her, she's married.
Vice President of the United States is a very important role: if the VP did a good job, I wouldn't care if that person looked as horrible as Dick Cheney.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...ds-mccain_N.htm
Elizabeth Edwards attacks McCain health plan
Updated 16h 4m ago
Steve Helber, AP
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Elizabeth Edwards on Tuesday said Republican presidential candidate John McCain's health care plan would allow insurers to cherry pick individuals they want to cover, leaving those with cancer, diabetes and other diseases without coverage.
Edwards, who has incurable breast cancer, continued her criticism of McCain's plan to deregulate the health care insurance industry and give families a tax break to pay for care.
John McCain believes in the free market, and I believe in the free market when we're talking about refrigerators, but not when we're talking about health care," she said during a news conference at the Virginia Capitol. Edwards said McCain's plan could strip more than 580,000 Virginians of their health insurance.
Edwards only recently began speaking publicly following the revelation this summer that her husband, former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had an extramarital affair. She said earlier this month that her passion for reforming the nation's health care system has been "a great refuge" for her during the recent turmoil.
Edwards has been a frequent critic of McCain's health care policies. McCain proposes to tax the health benefits on workers, which now are largely exempt, and create a refundable health insurance tax credit of $5,000 for families and $2,500 for individuals. McCain says his plan would give families more choice and make health insurance more affordable.
A report released Tuesday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund said that many people would end up paying higher taxes under McCain's plan. Edwards serves as a senior fellow with the group, a nonprofit that is not allowed to endorse candidates.
She was careful not to endorse Democrat Barack Obama, although she supports universal health care.
Obama's plan would require mandatory coverage for children and aim for universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering similar coverage for federal employees. Obama has called for raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year to cover the up to $65 billion cost of the subsidies.
McCain's campaign disputed that his plan could end up costing individuals more money. Instead, the campaign said most individuals would have additional money left over from the tax credit to put in a health savings account.
"It's a downright lie for the Obama campaign to say John McCain's health care plan taxes health care, when the McCain plan clearly provides an equivalent tax break for every American," said Gail Gitcho, a campaign spokeswoman.
Edwards also said her husband didn't plan any public events for a while. John Edwards hasn't held any public events since acknowledging in August that he had an affair with a woman hired to produce videos of him in 2006.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Elizabeth Edwards attacks McCain health plan
Updated 16h 4m ago
Steve Helber, AP
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Elizabeth Edwards on Tuesday said Republican presidential candidate John McCain's health care plan would allow insurers to cherry pick individuals they want to cover, leaving those with cancer, diabetes and other diseases without coverage.
Edwards, who has incurable breast cancer, continued her criticism of McCain's plan to deregulate the health care insurance industry and give families a tax break to pay for care.
John McCain believes in the free market, and I believe in the free market when we're talking about refrigerators, but not when we're talking about health care," she said during a news conference at the Virginia Capitol. Edwards said McCain's plan could strip more than 580,000 Virginians of their health insurance.
Edwards only recently began speaking publicly following the revelation this summer that her husband, former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had an extramarital affair. She said earlier this month that her passion for reforming the nation's health care system has been "a great refuge" for her during the recent turmoil.
Edwards has been a frequent critic of McCain's health care policies. McCain proposes to tax the health benefits on workers, which now are largely exempt, and create a refundable health insurance tax credit of $5,000 for families and $2,500 for individuals. McCain says his plan would give families more choice and make health insurance more affordable.
A report released Tuesday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund said that many people would end up paying higher taxes under McCain's plan. Edwards serves as a senior fellow with the group, a nonprofit that is not allowed to endorse candidates.
She was careful not to endorse Democrat Barack Obama, although she supports universal health care.
Obama's plan would require mandatory coverage for children and aim for universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering similar coverage for federal employees. Obama has called for raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year to cover the up to $65 billion cost of the subsidies.
McCain's campaign disputed that his plan could end up costing individuals more money. Instead, the campaign said most individuals would have additional money left over from the tax credit to put in a health savings account.
"It's a downright lie for the Obama campaign to say John McCain's health care plan taxes health care, when the McCain plan clearly provides an equivalent tax break for every American," said Gail Gitcho, a campaign spokeswoman.
Edwards also said her husband didn't plan any public events for a while. John Edwards hasn't held any public events since acknowledging in August that he had an affair with a woman hired to produce videos of him in 2006.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
now look at this- Bill Clinton has a connection here after all...my oh my... friends in high places is the difference between life and death
Amazing that someone so ill, would have had time to broker a cheap affair like he did...
Sometimes you wonder about the stories politicians put out there...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6063413.html
Texan in Edwards scandal wins access to cancer drug
By JANET ELLIOTT
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
Oct. 16, 2008, 11:15PMShare
AUSTIN — Democratic fundraiser Fred Baron has won access to an experimental drug to treat his cancer after a high-profile battle that involved a former president and the head of the federal agency that licenses medications.
The prominent Dallas lawyer and top fundraiser for state and national Democratic candidates has received the drug Tysabri, Baron's wife, Lisa Blue, said in a statement Thursday.
News that Baron, 61, had multiple myeloma, a blood cancer, surprised the political world this week. Son Andrew Baron disclosed his father's condition on a personal blog in the form of an open letter to the head of the company that manufactures the drug Tysabri. He said former President Bill Clinton and Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry had asked Biogen Idec to make an exception for the ailing Fred Baron.
Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach also had pleaded with the company, Andrew Baron said. Fred Baron had served as national finance chairman for John Edwards and admitted paying expenses for a woman linked romantically to the ex-presidential candidate.
janet.elliott@chron.com
Amazing that someone so ill, would have had time to broker a cheap affair like he did...
Sometimes you wonder about the stories politicians put out there...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6063413.html
Texan in Edwards scandal wins access to cancer drug
By JANET ELLIOTT
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
Oct. 16, 2008, 11:15PMShare
AUSTIN — Democratic fundraiser Fred Baron has won access to an experimental drug to treat his cancer after a high-profile battle that involved a former president and the head of the federal agency that licenses medications.
The prominent Dallas lawyer and top fundraiser for state and national Democratic candidates has received the drug Tysabri, Baron's wife, Lisa Blue, said in a statement Thursday.
News that Baron, 61, had multiple myeloma, a blood cancer, surprised the political world this week. Son Andrew Baron disclosed his father's condition on a personal blog in the form of an open letter to the head of the company that manufactures the drug Tysabri. He said former President Bill Clinton and Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry had asked Biogen Idec to make an exception for the ailing Fred Baron.
Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach also had pleaded with the company, Andrew Baron said. Fred Baron had served as national finance chairman for John Edwards and admitted paying expenses for a woman linked romantically to the ex-presidential candidate.
janet.elliott@chron.com
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gOeqWHK...VriC9AD94596500
Fundraiser linked to Edwards scandal dies at 61
By PAUL J. WEBER – 2 days ago
DALLAS (AP) — Frederick Baron, a wealthy Texas trial lawyer and prominent Democratic fundraiser linked to the John Edwards mistress scandal, died Thursday. He was 61.
Baron died following complications from cancer, said Harrison Hickman, a family spokesman.
Baron had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma, or bone marrow cancer. His death comes just two weeks after he obtained an experimental cancer-fighting treatment following a public plea by his son, Andrew, who had called the drug Tysabri his "last chance effort for life."
Tysabri is approved for people with multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease, but is only in the early clinical trial stage for multiple myeloma.
Boston-based Biogen Idec Inc. had refused Baron access to the drug, saying the regulatory risks of giving it to him were too great. But on Oct. 16, Andrew Baron said his father obtained Tysabri after the Mayo Clinic, working with the Food and Drug Administration, found a "legal basis" for its use. He did not elaborate.
It was the second time Baron made headlines in the past few months.
In August, he acknowledged sending money to the former mistress of Edwards, the former Democratic presidential candidate. Baron had been the national finance chairman for Edwards' presidential campaign, and had said Edwards had no involvement with the payments. The payments were used to resettle Rielle Hunter, Edwards' mistress, in California.
Baron helped raised millions as one of the nation's biggest Democratic donors. He held fundraisers at his Dallas home that featured party stalwarts such as former President Clinton.
In 2005, he established the Texas Democratic Trust, which helped the party make influential gains statewide.
Born in Iowa before moving to Texas as a teenager, Baron founded the law firm Baron & Budd in the 1970s. He made a fortune representing thousands in asbestos exposure litigation.
Associated Press writers Jamie Stengle and Andre Coe contributed to this report.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Fundraiser linked to Edwards scandal dies at 61
By PAUL J. WEBER – 2 days ago
DALLAS (AP) — Frederick Baron, a wealthy Texas trial lawyer and prominent Democratic fundraiser linked to the John Edwards mistress scandal, died Thursday. He was 61.
Baron died following complications from cancer, said Harrison Hickman, a family spokesman.
Baron had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma, or bone marrow cancer. His death comes just two weeks after he obtained an experimental cancer-fighting treatment following a public plea by his son, Andrew, who had called the drug Tysabri his "last chance effort for life."
Tysabri is approved for people with multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease, but is only in the early clinical trial stage for multiple myeloma.
Boston-based Biogen Idec Inc. had refused Baron access to the drug, saying the regulatory risks of giving it to him were too great. But on Oct. 16, Andrew Baron said his father obtained Tysabri after the Mayo Clinic, working with the Food and Drug Administration, found a "legal basis" for its use. He did not elaborate.
It was the second time Baron made headlines in the past few months.
In August, he acknowledged sending money to the former mistress of Edwards, the former Democratic presidential candidate. Baron had been the national finance chairman for Edwards' presidential campaign, and had said Edwards had no involvement with the payments. The payments were used to resettle Rielle Hunter, Edwards' mistress, in California.
Baron helped raised millions as one of the nation's biggest Democratic donors. He held fundraisers at his Dallas home that featured party stalwarts such as former President Clinton.
In 2005, he established the Texas Democratic Trust, which helped the party make influential gains statewide.
Born in Iowa before moving to Texas as a teenager, Baron founded the law firm Baron & Budd in the 1970s. He made a fortune representing thousands in asbestos exposure litigation.
Associated Press writers Jamie Stengle and Andre Coe contributed to this report.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1
Edwards speaks about Obama, Clinton but not affair
Nov 11 10:11 PM US/Eastern
By DEANNA MARTIN
Associated Press Writer 24 Comments
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards speaks at Indiana...
Elizabeth Edwards Ditches Wedding Ring At Health Care Forum
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. (AP) - John Edwards didn't have to dodge tough questions from an Indiana University audience Tuesday, when the former presidential candidate returned to the stage three months after admitting to an extramarital affair.
The Democrat's speech covered politics, poverty and his hopes for America and the world and he later discussed President-elect Obama and other topics from the audience. But the question-and-answer period featured only written queries that had been submitted before his speech.
The affair he acknowledged with filmmaker Rielle Hunter wasn't mentioned. After his public statements in August, Edwards said he did not plan to speak about the affair again.
In response to other questions from the audience, he praised Hillary Rodham Clinton's leadership and said his favorite superhero was Superman.
Edwards also said the intense and exhausting primary season helped Obama.
"That long, drawn-out, tough process played a role in making him a better candidate," Edwards said. "He was well-prepared for this general election campaign."
Edwards said wanted to continue working for poor people struggling to survive in America and abroad, whether he remains in politics or not.
"That's what I want to spend my life doing," he said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Edwards speaks about Obama, Clinton but not affair
Nov 11 10:11 PM US/Eastern
By DEANNA MARTIN
Associated Press Writer 24 Comments
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards speaks at Indiana...
Elizabeth Edwards Ditches Wedding Ring At Health Care Forum
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. (AP) - John Edwards didn't have to dodge tough questions from an Indiana University audience Tuesday, when the former presidential candidate returned to the stage three months after admitting to an extramarital affair.
The Democrat's speech covered politics, poverty and his hopes for America and the world and he later discussed President-elect Obama and other topics from the audience. But the question-and-answer period featured only written queries that had been submitted before his speech.
The affair he acknowledged with filmmaker Rielle Hunter wasn't mentioned. After his public statements in August, Edwards said he did not plan to speak about the affair again.
In response to other questions from the audience, he praised Hillary Rodham Clinton's leadership and said his favorite superhero was Superman.
Edwards also said the intense and exhausting primary season helped Obama.
"That long, drawn-out, tough process played a role in making him a better candidate," Edwards said. "He was well-prepared for this general election campaign."
Edwards said wanted to continue working for poor people struggling to survive in America and abroad, whether he remains in politics or not.
"That's what I want to spend my life doing," he said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/3950823
Edwards to face off against Rove in public debate
Posted: Nov. 13, 2008
RALEIGH, N.C. — Two-time presidential candidate John Edwards is continuing his return to the public stage by debating Republican strategist Karl Rove.
The Commercial Finance Association said the two will hold a point-counterpoint discussion Thursday in San Francisco. They will discuss the election and the economy.
It will be Edwards' second public event since he acknowledged in August that he had an affair back in 2006. His appearance in Indiana on Tuesday did not address the matter.
Thursday's meeting puts an odd and perhaps contentious pair on the same stage. During his presidential campaign, Edwards repeatedly called for President Bush to fire Rove.
When Rove resigned from the White House in 2007, Edwards issued a simple statement, saying "Goodbye, good riddance."
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Edwards to face off against Rove in public debate
Posted: Nov. 13, 2008
RALEIGH, N.C. — Two-time presidential candidate John Edwards is continuing his return to the public stage by debating Republican strategist Karl Rove.
The Commercial Finance Association said the two will hold a point-counterpoint discussion Thursday in San Francisco. They will discuss the election and the economy.
It will be Edwards' second public event since he acknowledged in August that he had an affair back in 2006. His appearance in Indiana on Tuesday did not address the matter.
Thursday's meeting puts an odd and perhaps contentious pair on the same stage. During his presidential campaign, Edwards repeatedly called for President Bush to fire Rove.
When Rove resigned from the White House in 2007, Edwards issued a simple statement, saying "Goodbye, good riddance."
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Where is John Edwards?
Where is John Edwards? By Susan Estrich
Friday, December 05, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisementDoris Kearns Goodwin could not have asked for more. The author of "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," published in 2006, is making headlines once again for her foresight, as well as her knowledge of history, in light of President-elect Barack Obama's decision to surround himself with his former rivals, including Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, and now Secretary of Commerce-designate Bill Richardson.
The missing man in all of this is, of course, John Edwards, who was far more formidable a candidate than either Biden or Richardson, and whose endorsement of Obama last May was at least as significant for the president-elect as Richardson's. Edwards had long been mentioned as a logical choice for attorney general, a spot that has already been filled. His commitment to deal with poverty would make him a logical choice for Health and Human Services. But his problem isn't competence or experience.
Should Edwards' personal stupidity -- his involvement with a wacky videographer, who may (if you believe the tabloids) or may not (according to her, and him, but what do you think they'd say) be the mother of his illegitimate child -- cost him a seat at the table? If he has something to add -- and I think he does -- should he be disqualified from doing so because he is a lying lout?
Washington is full of lying louts. Many of them are called "distinguished gentlemen." Now that Congress has more women, my guess is there are more female versions of the lying lout. Although, I am sexist, or realistic, enough to believe that there are real gender differences in this regard. If all the lying louts were disqualified from holding high elective or appointive office, the Capitol would shut down.
Edwards' case is arguably different on two accounts: 1) because the affair may have produced a child that we know about -- as opposed to all the affairs that produce children we don't know about, and 2) because his wife is and was, at least when he went to visit the videographer in Beverly Hills last summer, suffering from incurable breast cancer. She also happens to be one great dame, who campaigned for her husband tirelessly even after her cancer recurred, and who had to bury her teenage son -- every parent's worst nightmare -- thus making her an all-around lousy person to be a lout to, as her husband surely was.
But isn't that between the two of them? Isn't all of it fundamentally none of our business?
Ask around at any newsroom or Senate office, and I will tell you what the answer will be: There should be a line between public and private. Private affairs, even or especially that kind of affair, should be private. Certainly this is the rule that the media apply to themselves, as do the distinguished gentlemen and ladies on Capitol Hill -- until and unless they are caught in bathrooms or chat rooms. Poll the public, and we all claim to agree.
So where is John Edwards? Why no place for one of the most talented of Obama's rivals on the team of rivals? Is the answer that Edwards was a lout, or that the rest of us are hypocrites? I tend to think it may be the latter.
Where is John Edwards? By Susan Estrich
Friday, December 05, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisementDoris Kearns Goodwin could not have asked for more. The author of "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," published in 2006, is making headlines once again for her foresight, as well as her knowledge of history, in light of President-elect Barack Obama's decision to surround himself with his former rivals, including Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, and now Secretary of Commerce-designate Bill Richardson.
The missing man in all of this is, of course, John Edwards, who was far more formidable a candidate than either Biden or Richardson, and whose endorsement of Obama last May was at least as significant for the president-elect as Richardson's. Edwards had long been mentioned as a logical choice for attorney general, a spot that has already been filled. His commitment to deal with poverty would make him a logical choice for Health and Human Services. But his problem isn't competence or experience.
Should Edwards' personal stupidity -- his involvement with a wacky videographer, who may (if you believe the tabloids) or may not (according to her, and him, but what do you think they'd say) be the mother of his illegitimate child -- cost him a seat at the table? If he has something to add -- and I think he does -- should he be disqualified from doing so because he is a lying lout?
Washington is full of lying louts. Many of them are called "distinguished gentlemen." Now that Congress has more women, my guess is there are more female versions of the lying lout. Although, I am sexist, or realistic, enough to believe that there are real gender differences in this regard. If all the lying louts were disqualified from holding high elective or appointive office, the Capitol would shut down.
Edwards' case is arguably different on two accounts: 1) because the affair may have produced a child that we know about -- as opposed to all the affairs that produce children we don't know about, and 2) because his wife is and was, at least when he went to visit the videographer in Beverly Hills last summer, suffering from incurable breast cancer. She also happens to be one great dame, who campaigned for her husband tirelessly even after her cancer recurred, and who had to bury her teenage son -- every parent's worst nightmare -- thus making her an all-around lousy person to be a lout to, as her husband surely was.
But isn't that between the two of them? Isn't all of it fundamentally none of our business?
Ask around at any newsroom or Senate office, and I will tell you what the answer will be: There should be a line between public and private. Private affairs, even or especially that kind of affair, should be private. Certainly this is the rule that the media apply to themselves, as do the distinguished gentlemen and ladies on Capitol Hill -- until and unless they are caught in bathrooms or chat rooms. Poll the public, and we all claim to agree.
So where is John Edwards? Why no place for one of the most talented of Obama's rivals on the team of rivals? Is the answer that Edwards was a lout, or that the rest of us are hypocrites? I tend to think it may be the latter.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Sep 24 2008, 05:14 AM) 
John Edward's still in the news- see this article
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/345
Why do women see through Sarah Palin more easily than men do?
Submitted by Chad on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 2:49pm. Be-Elected
There is a strong backlash among women to the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. If you Google [Women against Sarah Palin], you get organized places where you can go to feed your interests.
Here were the top 3 in my Google search:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.org/
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
http://snoringkatz.vox.com/library/post/wo...arah-palin.html
Though I am not a woman, I can imagine there are plenty of reasons for women to find disfavor with Gov. Palin, regardless of political ideology. The severe thoughts on abortion, the whining, the hiding from the press, the way she willingly outed her unwed, "pregnant" teenage daughter.
And there is talk of cats against Palin here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/1...-against-palin/ and here. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_3_of_4_f..._wont_0908.html
But men seem to like her, and since I am a man, I can address this issue. From the CNN Opinion Poll from September 9, 62% of men had a favorable rating of Palin vs. 53% of women. There was a 7% difference in unfavorable (30% for women, 23% for men).
If you Google [Straight Men against Sarah Palin], you don't get an outlet. So there isn't this realm of organization against her. (To distinguish, I picked straight men since gay men are less likely to be influenced by her physical beauty.)
But is it just her looks? Yes, this is dangerous ground: judging a political candidate based on looks. But honestly, didn't John Edwards seem to have an advantage based on his hair? John Edwards had great hair, but also had ideas, passion, and experience. Didn't John F. Kennedy have some advantage over Richard "Five O'Clock Shadow" Nixon? JFK was considered handsome, but he knew what to do at 3 a.m. Edwards and Kennedy had to prove that they were solid thinkers underneath the good hair.
I noticed the family portrait against the mountain backdrop, and did pick up on her attractiveness many months ago. But I'm not the only one. I still recall sitting at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo on August 29 when Palin was first introduced by John McCain, and the responses from the men besides, "Who is she" were variations on "She's hot."
Plus, her family released the now famous photo of Palin in college, of her wearing a T-shirt that reads: "I may be broke but I'm not flat busted"?
The Republicans played up the "hottest VP" element on buttons in St. Paul. These are the same people who now think attacks on Palin's background and trouble with the truth are sexist.
picture from here
And there are other traits that she has that appeal to men: she likes sports -- she is a hockey mom and she likes to hunt, even if it takes some bizarre turns. You get the impression that Sarah lets Todd be his own man.
There is more to a candidate than hotness or comfort with sports. If they were serious considerations, then Pamela Anderson could be vice president? (She is old enough but she's Canadian.)
But the reaction from women has nothing to do with Palin's looks or "hotness," but knowing that where a candidate stands on the issues and the example of leadership that is set is crucially important.
So why was there the talk of Hillary Clinton supporters jumping over to the Republican ticket because they added a woman to the ticket?
The SNL sketch with Palin and Clinton was played up for laughs, but there was a lot of truth to it. There is a backlash against Palin because the pick is seen as patronizing toward women ("Just find me a woman, any woman") and because Clinton was seen as qualified to be president and Palin isn't.
When I talk to women, I get that they hate Sarah Palin in ways that are beyond politics, and they're confused as to why any Hillary Clinton supporters would jump to Sarah Palin. But I think I know why.
Most of the Hillary/Palin support is anecdotal and exaggerated by the MSM to create conflict where it doesn't exist. But there is one more reason: some of those Hillary Clinton supporters weren't dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.
When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, there were many supporters who liked her for a number of reasons. But it's reasonable to believe that some of them wanted her to win because she is a woman. Even those that disagreed with her on the issues were excited about the prospect of having a woman be commander in chief.
So when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Party primary to Barack Obama, the supporters were upset. When Obama didn't pick a woman, it opened the door for McCain to pick a woman, and he did.
McCain is 72, and it's reasonable to expect that Palin would have a very good chance to take over, temporarily or permanently, in the next 4 years if elected. If having a woman in the White House is your issue, then the Republicans or Cynthia McKinney is your ticket in 2008.
But for the vast majority of Clinton supporters, they wanted her to be president because they believed she would be the best leader for the horrible times in which we live. And this is what the McCain campaign didn't realize.
Sarah Palin is great for energizing the base, but she has very little crossover appeal among independents. What appeal she does have is predominantly for men.
But there are many reasons straight men shouldn't fall for Sarah Palin, even if these reasons are a little patronizing. Sometimes, patronizing works for straight men.
Her stance on abortion isn't cool if you don't want to have a child. She likes fighting wars, which is bad if you get asked to fight those wars. You might come back injured or killed.
She lies with ease, an unappealing trait. She doesn't know how to control her spending, an undesirable trait. She is loyal, almost to a fault, but if she perceives that you double-crossed her, she will get revenge.
To all straight men out there, yes, Sarah Palin is pretty, but you have to consider her record and approach to our nation's problems. Don't vote for her because she's pretty -- she's not running for junior class president in high school. You can't date her, she's married.
Vice President of the United States is a very important role: if the VP did a good job, I wouldn't care if that person looked as horrible as Dick Cheney.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/election08/345
Why do women see through Sarah Palin more easily than men do?
Submitted by Chad on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 2:49pm. Be-Elected
There is a strong backlash among women to the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. If you Google [Women against Sarah Palin], you get organized places where you can go to feed your interests.
Here were the top 3 in my Google search:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.org/
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
http://snoringkatz.vox.com/library/post/wo...arah-palin.html
Though I am not a woman, I can imagine there are plenty of reasons for women to find disfavor with Gov. Palin, regardless of political ideology. The severe thoughts on abortion, the whining, the hiding from the press, the way she willingly outed her unwed, "pregnant" teenage daughter.
And there is talk of cats against Palin here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/1...-against-palin/ and here. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_3_of_4_f..._wont_0908.html
But men seem to like her, and since I am a man, I can address this issue. From the CNN Opinion Poll from September 9, 62% of men had a favorable rating of Palin vs. 53% of women. There was a 7% difference in unfavorable (30% for women, 23% for men).
If you Google [Straight Men against Sarah Palin], you don't get an outlet. So there isn't this realm of organization against her. (To distinguish, I picked straight men since gay men are less likely to be influenced by her physical beauty.)
But is it just her looks? Yes, this is dangerous ground: judging a political candidate based on looks. But honestly, didn't John Edwards seem to have an advantage based on his hair? John Edwards had great hair, but also had ideas, passion, and experience. Didn't John F. Kennedy have some advantage over Richard "Five O'Clock Shadow" Nixon? JFK was considered handsome, but he knew what to do at 3 a.m. Edwards and Kennedy had to prove that they were solid thinkers underneath the good hair.
I noticed the family portrait against the mountain backdrop, and did pick up on her attractiveness many months ago. But I'm not the only one. I still recall sitting at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo on August 29 when Palin was first introduced by John McCain, and the responses from the men besides, "Who is she" were variations on "She's hot."
Plus, her family released the now famous photo of Palin in college, of her wearing a T-shirt that reads: "I may be broke but I'm not flat busted"?
The Republicans played up the "hottest VP" element on buttons in St. Paul. These are the same people who now think attacks on Palin's background and trouble with the truth are sexist.
picture from here
And there are other traits that she has that appeal to men: she likes sports -- she is a hockey mom and she likes to hunt, even if it takes some bizarre turns. You get the impression that Sarah lets Todd be his own man.
There is more to a candidate than hotness or comfort with sports. If they were serious considerations, then Pamela Anderson could be vice president? (She is old enough but she's Canadian.)
But the reaction from women has nothing to do with Palin's looks or "hotness," but knowing that where a candidate stands on the issues and the example of leadership that is set is crucially important.
So why was there the talk of Hillary Clinton supporters jumping over to the Republican ticket because they added a woman to the ticket?
The SNL sketch with Palin and Clinton was played up for laughs, but there was a lot of truth to it. There is a backlash against Palin because the pick is seen as patronizing toward women ("Just find me a woman, any woman") and because Clinton was seen as qualified to be president and Palin isn't.
When I talk to women, I get that they hate Sarah Palin in ways that are beyond politics, and they're confused as to why any Hillary Clinton supporters would jump to Sarah Palin. But I think I know why.
Most of the Hillary/Palin support is anecdotal and exaggerated by the MSM to create conflict where it doesn't exist. But there is one more reason: some of those Hillary Clinton supporters weren't dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.
When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, there were many supporters who liked her for a number of reasons. But it's reasonable to believe that some of them wanted her to win because she is a woman. Even those that disagreed with her on the issues were excited about the prospect of having a woman be commander in chief.
So when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Party primary to Barack Obama, the supporters were upset. When Obama didn't pick a woman, it opened the door for McCain to pick a woman, and he did.
McCain is 72, and it's reasonable to expect that Palin would have a very good chance to take over, temporarily or permanently, in the next 4 years if elected. If having a woman in the White House is your issue, then the Republicans or Cynthia McKinney is your ticket in 2008.
But for the vast majority of Clinton supporters, they wanted her to be president because they believed she would be the best leader for the horrible times in which we live. And this is what the McCain campaign didn't realize.
Sarah Palin is great for energizing the base, but she has very little crossover appeal among independents. What appeal she does have is predominantly for men.
But there are many reasons straight men shouldn't fall for Sarah Palin, even if these reasons are a little patronizing. Sometimes, patronizing works for straight men.
Her stance on abortion isn't cool if you don't want to have a child. She likes fighting wars, which is bad if you get asked to fight those wars. You might come back injured or killed.
She lies with ease, an unappealing trait. She doesn't know how to control her spending, an undesirable trait. She is loyal, almost to a fault, but if she perceives that you double-crossed her, she will get revenge.
To all straight men out there, yes, Sarah Palin is pretty, but you have to consider her record and approach to our nation's problems. Don't vote for her because she's pretty -- she's not running for junior class president in high school. You can't date her, she's married.
Vice President of the United States is a very important role: if the VP did a good job, I wouldn't care if that person looked as horrible as Dick Cheney.
Goggle the phrase: Quasi-courtship behaviors in Psychotherapy....This is a well established construct
which goes considerably beyong good looks...
what a cad Edwards really is, isn't he? The cad that keeps on cadding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/e...i_n_151731.html
Edwards' Mistress Broke, Living In New Jersey, Reports Enquirer
The new issue of the National Enquirer has an update on Rielle Hunter, the women with whom John Edwards admitted having an affair, who also claims to the mother of his love child.
The Enquirer broke the story, and now they report Hunter is broke and living with a friend in New Jersey after her sponsor died of cancer:
After her $15,000 monthly payments stopped with the death of money man Fred Baron, John Edward's mistress blonde divorcee Rielle Hunter abandoned the lavish $3 million home that was being rented for her in ritzy Santa Barbara, California, sources tell The ENQUIRER.
Now she and her 10-month-old daughter Frances, who she privately says is Edwards' love child, are living with her longtime friend Mimi Hockman in South Orange, about 20 miles west of New York City, according to insiders.
It seems Hockman's indirect support of Edwards goes way back. In 2004 she donated to Kerry's presidential campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/e...i_n_151731.html
Edwards' Mistress Broke, Living In New Jersey, Reports Enquirer
The new issue of the National Enquirer has an update on Rielle Hunter, the women with whom John Edwards admitted having an affair, who also claims to the mother of his love child.
The Enquirer broke the story, and now they report Hunter is broke and living with a friend in New Jersey after her sponsor died of cancer:
After her $15,000 monthly payments stopped with the death of money man Fred Baron, John Edward's mistress blonde divorcee Rielle Hunter abandoned the lavish $3 million home that was being rented for her in ritzy Santa Barbara, California, sources tell The ENQUIRER.
Now she and her 10-month-old daughter Frances, who she privately says is Edwards' love child, are living with her longtime friend Mimi Hockman in South Orange, about 20 miles west of New York City, according to insiders.
It seems Hockman's indirect support of Edwards goes way back. In 2004 she donated to Kerry's presidential campaign.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Dec 17 2008, 02:02 PM)
what a cad Edwards really is, isn't he? The cad that keeps on cadding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/e...i_n_151731.html
Edwards' Mistress Broke, Living In New Jersey, Reports Enquirer
The new issue of the National Enquirer has an update on Rielle Hunter, the women with whom John Edwards admitted having an affair, who also claims to the mother of his love child.
The Enquirer broke the story, and now they report Hunter is broke and living with a friend in New Jersey after her sponsor died of cancer:
After her $15,000 monthly payments stopped with the death of money man Fred Baron, John Edward's mistress blonde divorcee Rielle Hunter abandoned the lavish $3 million home that was being rented for her in ritzy Santa Barbara, California, sources tell The ENQUIRER.
Now she and her 10-month-old daughter Frances, who she privately says is Edwards' love child, are living with her longtime friend Mimi Hockman in South Orange, about 20 miles west of New York City, according to insiders.
It seems Hockman's indirect support of Edwards goes way back. In 2004 she donated to Kerry's presidential campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/e...i_n_151731.html
Edwards' Mistress Broke, Living In New Jersey, Reports Enquirer
The new issue of the National Enquirer has an update on Rielle Hunter, the women with whom John Edwards admitted having an affair, who also claims to the mother of his love child.
The Enquirer broke the story, and now they report Hunter is broke and living with a friend in New Jersey after her sponsor died of cancer:
After her $15,000 monthly payments stopped with the death of money man Fred Baron, John Edward's mistress blonde divorcee Rielle Hunter abandoned the lavish $3 million home that was being rented for her in ritzy Santa Barbara, California, sources tell The ENQUIRER.
Now she and her 10-month-old daughter Frances, who she privately says is Edwards' love child, are living with her longtime friend Mimi Hockman in South Orange, about 20 miles west of New York City, according to insiders.
It seems Hockman's indirect support of Edwards goes way back. In 2004 she donated to Kerry's presidential campaign.
Gimme a break, Graham! She received $15,000 per month.....the payments stop.....and she has nothing?? That simply means two things: (1) She didn't save anything and was living beyond her means without regard or concern to preparing for her child's future, and (2) She's freakin' lazy; get a job.
The child's father who is at this point only allegedly John Edwards should indeed pay child support, but child support is for the child, not the mother. There are kazillions of single parents in this world, and Rielle's alleged "plight" will not pull many heart strings. I know it sure doesn't pull mine.
John Edwards was a louse to his wife, but Rielle Hunter is equally guilty. I can't figure out why you keep expressing such support for her. She has a history of being 'the other woman' so she is certainly no innocent 'victim'.
I personally want to know why a dying man put her up, when he could have been spending time with his family.
This story is 100% of everything wrong with politics.
Underhanded payments, using of innocent people...
the money trail, it's all so weird...
And now Mindy McCready, whom was ruined by Roger Clemens, and allegedly when she was 15 (under age), though who knows, is close to death
from a suicide attempt (or was it something else???)
Politics and power...
but Fred Baron did NOT do this out of the kindness of his heart, makes no sense...
the coverup, always worse than the original crime
Why Fred Baron did this would go far into finding out what underlying events transpired...
what was behind it? Who was behind it?
and for those Edwards fans, if Edwards was taken down for no reason, WHO was behind it?
This story is 100% of everything wrong with politics.
Underhanded payments, using of innocent people...
the money trail, it's all so weird...
And now Mindy McCready, whom was ruined by Roger Clemens, and allegedly when she was 15 (under age), though who knows, is close to death
from a suicide attempt (or was it something else???)
Politics and power...
but Fred Baron did NOT do this out of the kindness of his heart, makes no sense...
the coverup, always worse than the original crime
Why Fred Baron did this would go far into finding out what underlying events transpired...
what was behind it? Who was behind it?
and for those Edwards fans, if Edwards was taken down for no reason, WHO was behind it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.