Democrats Increasingly Frustrated with Edwards

[hjmick]

By now we all know about John Edwards' love child... I mean the rumors about a love child. We have all heard his response to the story in The National Enquirer, "Tabloid trash."

Well, it seems as if this story refuses to die and his curt denial is not enough to satisfy many of his colleagues, especially in light of the fact he is supposed to address the national convention in primetime. As a result, they are calling on him to issue a stronger denial. As if a strong denial makes it go away. If he refuses to clear the air, there is talk of his losing his prime speaking slot or being knocked from the speaking list altogether.

Personally, if it's not true, I don't understand why the lawsuit hasn't yet been filed. If it was me and my reputation, I would have been in my lawyers office the next day and giving DNA samples on national television that night.


Dems call on Edwards to address affair rumors
By Mark Johnson, Staff Writer

RALEIGH -- Former Sen. John Edwards has a deadline to save his spot on the national stage.
With just two weeks before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying Edwards needs to publicly address anonymously sourced National Enquirer stories that have claimed he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be locked in as a speaker.

Instead prominent Democrats say convention organizers will try to avoid the lingering questions if Edwards himself doesn't talk.

"He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial," said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate race. "It's a very damaging thing. ... The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it's clearly getting ready to bust out. If it's not true, he's got to stand up and say, 'This is not true. That is not my child and I'm going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.' It's not enough to say, 'That's tabloid trash.'"

The national convention is intended to showcase party unity and rally Democrats around the party's nominee. Primetime speakers generate enthusiasm for the candidate and the party's platform. Edwards is widely regarded as a rousing speaker, particularly on poverty, and still has as many as 19 delegates pledged to him, making him a logical choice for a high-profile role under normal circumstances.

Convention organizers said only that the schedule of speakers has not yet been announced...

Complete Story... (http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1167499.html)



One things for sure, his name is no longer on the VP list.

[Kathianne]

By now we all know about John Edwards' love child... I mean the rumors about a love child. We have all heard his response to the story in The National Enquirer, "Tabloid trash."

Well, it seems as if this story refuses to die and his curt denial is not enough to satisfy many of his colleagues, especially in light of the fact he is supposed to address the national convention in primetime. As a result, they are calling on him to issue a stronger denial. As if a strong denial makes it go away. If he refuses to clear the air, there is talk of his losing his prime speaking slot or being knocked from the speaking list altogether.

Personally, if it's not true, I don't understand why the lawsuit hasn't yet been filed. If it was me and my reputation, I would have been in my lawyers office the next day and giving DNA samples on national television that night.



One things for sure, his name is no longer on the VP list.

yep, this seems now to be 'breaking':

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/13601

Lots of links:


John Edwards under growing pressure to confront tabloid reports of love child

By MARK JOHNSON

McClatchy Newspapers

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Sen. John Edwards has a deadline to save his spot on the national stage.

With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

The Enquirer released photos Wednesday purportedly showing Edwards and the baby.

If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

“If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is ’no,’ he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be locked in as a speaker.

“He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. ...

[hjmick]

I'm thinking that Edwards' political career is, for the foreseeable future, dead. Then again, he is a Democrat and that is one forgiving party. I wonder, how forgiving is his wife?

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!

by Ann Coulter
August 6, 2008

The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?

I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!

A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!

Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:

"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."

There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!

Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter -- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a "business expense"?

Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.

Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:


From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.

Keep rockin,
Tony


Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?

I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.

But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."

[Psychoblues]

The last I heard, he dropped off the presidential radar over 4 months ago and has recently released his delegates to Obama. I haven't heard that he is running for any other office. Am I mistaken?

[hjmick]

The last I heard, he dropped off the presidential radar over 4 months ago and has recently released his delegates to Obama. I haven't heard that he is running for any other office. Am I mistaken?

It was widely thought he was on the list of possible VPs and I had heard talk that he might be considered for the AG slot. In my estimation that makes him relevant.

[Psychoblues]

I addressed his candidacy, hmjick. If you want to expand the issue to relevancy then go ahead.



It was widely thought he was on the list of possible VPs and I had heard talk that he might be considered for the AG slot. In my estimation that makes him relevant.


The man is not running for anything. Do you not agree?

[hjmick]

I addressed his candidacy, hmjick. If you want to expand the issue to relevancy then go ahead.

The man is not running for anything. Do you not agree?

To that end, you are indeed correct. He is not running for public office.

[manu1959]

I addressed his candidacy, hmjick. If you want to expand the issue to relevancy then go ahead.

The man is not running for anything. Do you not agree?

if he is not running for anything why respond at all......after all he was "99%" truthful............

[Psychoblues]

It's not like he put the nation in a war, cost the nation trillions in treasure , thousands in lives and years in reputation all based on forgeries and lies, is it?



if he is not running for anything why respond at all......after all he was "99%" truthful............

And, I don't think I'll be taking any lectures from you, m'59, about when I might or might not respond to anything. Who put you in charge of this thread?

[manu1959]

It's not like he put the nation in a war, cost the nation trillions in treasure , thousands in lives and years in reputation all based on forgeries and lies, is it?

And, I don't think I'll be taking any lectures from you, m'59, about when I might or might not respond to anything. Who put you in charge of this thread?

go fuck yourself....i will say whatever the fuck i like and you will sit there and take it.......

forgeries and lies put forth as a slam dunk by two men put into power by bill clinton.....all of who did shit for 8 years prior to the us being hit.....

at least bush has the balls to stand up and defend this nation the best he can.....

more than i can say for most of all you all....

[Psychoblues]

You're so cute when you show your ignorance, fuckhead!!!!!!



go fuck yourself....i will say whatever the fuck i like and you will sit there and take it.......
forgeries and lies put forth as a slam dunk by two men put into power by bill clinton.....all of who did shit for 8 years prior to the us being hit.....
at least bush has the balls to stand up and defend this nation the best he can.....
more than i can say for most of all you all....

Kiss this, cowgirl: :pee: Do you understand or do I have to explain that to you as well?

[Yurt]

go fuck yourself....i will say whatever the fuck i like and you will sit there and take it.......

forgeries and lies put forth as a slam dunk by two men put into power by bill clinton.....all of who did shit for 8 years prior to the us being hit.....

at least bush has the balls to stand up and defend this nation the best he can.....

more than i can say for most of all you all....

nice.

apparently lies about a human relationship that God said made man and woman (one) is ok, but quote/unquote lies about war are not. do we now measure lies by the number of deaths the lie causes? a lie is a lie. last i checked the 10 did not distinguish. maybe God does. but i am not God. and if one reads the bible, both infidelity/dishonesty leading to/causing war/death (yes, there is a big one where people died over infidelity and a lie....read up) were not distinguished.

so solely on biblical grounds.....next

[Yurt]

You're so cute when you show your ignorance, fuckhead!!!!!!




Kiss this, cowgirl: :pee: Do you understand or do I have to explain that to you as well?

fag, you just told me last week i was cute when i'm mad.....

:laugh2:

[manu1959]

You're so cute when you show your ignorance, fuckhead!!!!!!
Kiss this, cowgirl: :pee: Do you understand or do I have to explain that to you as well?


is that all you have.....yes explain it to me viagra boy.....tell me all the things cigar boy and the two liars did for 8 years prior to 911 to prevent the us from being hit and while you are at it you beer swilling myopic twit tell me why we got hit half a dozen times on their watch......once on us soiul proper.....ya bush is the idiot and coward.....blow me ya southern wanker....