in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
| Daniel Halper | 0 | |
| The Hill | 0 | |
| NBC DFW | Unreal: Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial |
0 |
| WaPo | Fail: Protesters arrested after attempt to storm Justice Department |
0 |
| Kirsten Powers | Must-Read: How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Move Along:
""The whole issue of this - of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. The whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."
Pres. Obama on GOP demands for Benghazi answers, 5/13/2013
Fallout from the John Edwards affair confession
Here’s a few things that have been reported in the aftermath of His Royal Phoniness’ affair confession on ABC’s Nightline program Friday night:
- Elizabeth Edwards posted her own statement on the Daily Kos blog
- In spite of the fact that John Edwards said he’d be willing to take a paternity test to settle the “who’s the father” question, The Other Woman aka Rielle Hunter has said “no” to the idea. Hmmm.
- Edwards’ campaign chair Fred Baron stepped forward and admitted that he has been giving “financial assistance” to Hunter and the alleged father of the baby, Andrew Hunter (also an Edwards campaign staffer) and even paid for Hunter to relocate from NC to California. He has said Edwards didn’t know about any financial arrangements.
- Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton’s Communications Director, said in an interview with ABC News this weekend that had Edwards affair been revealed before the start of the primary season, it’s likely Hillary Clinton would have won Iowa and gone on to win the nomination. Oookay.Â
I was thinking this weekend about the gall it took for Edwards to try and run again for president knowing full well and good about the big skeleton that was in his closet. His belief that he could weather through the primary season without the mainstream media hounding him until he admitted his affair is a testament in and of itself to his understanding of just how much they were doing their usual duty to Democrats by covering for him.  Â
And another thing – what if he had won the nomination, and here it is two weeks before the Dem National Convention?  Would the Democrat party be furious with him for having the affair in the first place – especially while his wife continued to battle cancer, or would their main concern be “How the hell could he have done this to us when we are so close to taking back the WH?”  According to FoxNews, Democrats at this stage of the game are merely ”shrugging off” as not a big deal questions about the affair as they prepare to crown Barack Obama as their nominee.Â
But we know if the shoe was on the other foot …
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Howie Kurtz sums the whole thing up to perfection here:
LINK
On a related topic:
55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem Than Campaign Cash
It’s hard to take Mr Wolfson’s claim seriously: Mr Edwards was the beneficiary of the Anybody But Clinton vote, and my guess — and of course it’s a guess — is that were Mr Edwards out of the race, Mr Obama would have been the larger beneficiary. He might have won the New Hampshire primary as well, and wrapped up things early.
In a way, it isn’t a big deal. Mr Edwards was not going to be Mr Obama’s running mate, so the best that was left was a cabinet appointment. A lot of people were talking Attorney General, but somehow, I don’t think so; Mr Obama doesn’t strike me as someone who would be gracious enough to political rivals to offer them anything more than kind words; he isn’t about to offer them anything like actual power.
The casual observer might reasonably conclude that all of these are related…if you ask for a paternity test, we turn off the money spigot.
Yeah, suuuuuure. Will there be an investigation of exactly where the money came from? Did it come from campaign funds? There would be at least a few Edwards donors who might be miffed that their contributions went to pay hush money.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the leftists would be playing the hypocrisy card for all it’s worth. And that’s precisely why it’s no big deal to the left: they’re devoid of standards, so no matter what they do, they feel immune to the charge of hypocrisy. And except for the racism card, that card trumps all others.
It’s why Mark Foley was a big issue in 2006 for just writing suggestive Emails…but a pustule like Gerry Studds got a standing ovation from the left for raping congressional pages. It’s why Al Gore can waste energy at a mind-numbing rate…but you had better watch what you drive. And too many other examples to list.
If Howie is right, what does it say about the effectiveness of the Clinton campaign machine? The so-called Smartest Woman in the World can’t get a story out that a supermarket tabloid can. Sure.
DavidL, we already know how inept the Clinton campaign was in opposition research – they were digging through Obama’s kindergarten work and completely missed Reverend Wright.
Stupid hapless overconfident bush leaguers. Such a well run machine ought to have buried Obama, but Hillary’s outraged sense of entitlement made them chase their own tails and let Obama set the pace.
But we know if the shoe was on the other foot …
Well, I’m not a big D democrat, but I can’t imagine I’d see this scandal differently on the republican side. I ASSUME most politicians cheat (or have other nefarious dealings) and I’m unsurprised when they’re caught. I’m more interested in corruption charges such as Stevens this year, or Jefferson’s “freezer full of money”.
Still, the issue has changed a little for me. Once you start buying your mistress houses, then I worry more about (possible) corruption charges or breaches of (political) ethics to acquire said house. You leave the personal life mistakes category, and enter into dubious political dealings.
And yes, it would suck to have Edwards as the current nominee. After Clinton, it would throw the party backwards for years.
To play devil’s advocate; it’s well known that McCain left his injured wife in 1980 and remarried 1 month later… I would guess there was an “affair” at some point. Should that be investigated? Does it matter? Does it affect his moral standing?
My answers would be No, No, maybe (but aren’t there bigger issues in this election?).