JOHN EDWARDS POLITICAL FUTURE, OBAMA’S VP & WHAT IF? If Edwards had received the Presidential nominee- He still would have steam rolled McCain, After all McCain did the same thing- except worse. Edwards would have come out on top, just as Clinton did. Voters would have quickly realized that the opportunity to have Edwards as president over McCain, much outweighs a personal mistake. The US always gives 2nd Chances.
I think Obama will now choose Sebelius. (For over a year I have thought that Sebelius (or Blanche Lincoln) will be the first female President). However, I fully think that John Edwards was going to be the VP as late as 1 month ago, until the 06 affair started coming closer to the surface. He perfectly fills in the missing appeal (to Ohio/ Penn/ etc) that Obama Lacks. And he is a Southerner (So long as the top of the ticket is not a "NE liberal" (even though I do not think this should be the case), a southerner does make a difference on the ticket).
Ezra Klein wrote an extremely thoughtful piece today in his blog that exposes a certain double standard between the way John Edwards' affair has been received versus how the torrid affairs of other politicians, including several who ran for president in 2008, have seen their infidelities treated.
Klein argues that the phoniness that the media is now guffawing that they always saw in Edwards is not something extraordinary [that say, you couldn't find in John McCain] or unique to just John Edwards.
So what is it about this current affair that has seemingly has Edwards down for the count when other politicians have survived their infidelities?
Political junkie that I am, one would think that this upcoming election would be filling me with excitement. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am filled with dread. The choices on the right, left and all points in between give new meaning to the phrase "lesser of all evils".
McCain is too old, too tied to special interests and corporate power mongers, too out of touch with the common man, too oblivious to the "new world" around him (hello - Czechoslovakia??),. and too damn belligerent to be trusted with the top job.
Obama is too green, too tied to special interests and political power mongers, too willing to bend and sway to the political winds, too arrogant and too damn interested in listening to himself pontificate to be given the mantle of President of the United States.
I know this mere title is probably flamable here right now. I have been watching the steady stream of John Edwards diaries the last week or so here, and have put my two-cents worth in several. Most long-time supporters will know that I was an Edwards supporter, and one of those so-called disgraced contributors. That said, I am not here to defend any of his actions.
All disasters are different. Some are sudden catastrophes: a bridge collapse, an earthquake, or the capsizing of a ferryboat. One moment everything is fine, the next, disaster. Other disasters seem to occur in slow motion: the Titanic scaping along the iceberg, the slow leak that fatally undermines a dam, or the gradual destruction of an environment through pollution.
John McCain suffered three slow motion disasters this past week, events that didn't look that bad as they happened, but in retrospect will hurt or even wreck his campaign for the presidency.
The continuing fall out of John Edwards' 2006 affair may cost Democrats in Texas big time. John Baron was the Finance Committee Chairman for the Edwards' campaign. And he has benn identified as person who paid so-called hush money to the affairess. How does this lose local Texas races for the Democrats? It's all about the effect of not having public financing of election campaigns.
This commentary was written by B. Edwards, an American and professor abroad.
The current frenzy over the extra-marital affair of John Edwards brings to light some interesting facets of the American political scene. Why in all the hubbub of news and events is the most popular point of media interest whether John Edwards has an illegitimate son or not? What stokes the desire to feed upon this man's misdeed?
One obvious answer is the Republican political machine, which like the Democratic one seeks to capitalize on any advantage it can get to win elections. Elections have become major displays of the power of quantification, with every single element being weighed by a cadre of analysts seeking that one extra percentage point to tip their boss into power.
OK, so I was reading an Ari Melber article on HuffPo where he linked this video.
If you go to 2:10 into the video, you will see clearly that Sean Hannity asks THE QUESTION that should devastate John McCain's campaign (but hasn't yet).
Now, remember, this is Sean Hannity asking the question - so he's not some left-wing radical liberal...
"I want to know ... you gotta explain this to me ... I'm just a regular guy, and I'm wondering, if you can't keep your promise to your family, can't keep your promise to your wife, you're having an affair, you lie about the affair repeatedly ... why should the American people say you say you're not gonna lie to them? Why should we trust you?"
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, ...
...We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
, but one wonders what happened to the "rare" part of "safe, legal, and rare". Bill Clinton invented that--the best thing he ever said--; so if unlike the 2004 platform, the '08 platform doesn't even include "rare", Dems will look like they're
less sexually restrained than Bill Clinton.
Is that something the party can afford these days, especially after John Edwards' zipper problem? Probably not.
--And "We also recognize..." is sort of tepid language, I must say. Again, where's "rare"? It was there in the '04 platform...
It's amazing that even after Edwards' confession, the denial of his Kossack defenders perserveres. Forget Elizabeth's statement, and the ridiculously maudlin fawning response of this community. Guys, the guy is still lying. Elizabeth is complicit in the lies. He likely broke campaign finance regulations. He paid the mistress over 100k for videos that hardly aired. Yes, he essentially used your money to pay off his mistress! How can you say that it "doesn't matter," or that all of this is somehow an invasion of his privacy, when he is mishandling campaign donations made in good faith. It's like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Anyway, the mainstream media is now fully engaged, and making Edwards look more and more duplicitous and pathetic by the day.
I'm sick of these polls asking us to pick Barack Obama's running mate, most of all because they set us up for collective let-down. Face it: The chances he's going to listen to us are nil.
I'm an optimist by nature; I believe in community empowerment. Rethinking the question, it occurs to me that while we cannot bend Senator Obama to our will in selecting the best running mate (and thank the Lord for that!), our chances of getting him to avoid making the WORST pick are at least 50-50. (I've asked Poblano to refine that projection.)
When Barack sends out those text messages with his choice, instead of wretching, we can then sigh in narcissistic contentment that WE were responsible for getting the worst possible VP choice not picked. Can we exert our communal influence to blackball one truly terrible VP nominee?
It's convoluted, but it suggests a possible collusion between Edwards and the lawyers representing his "friend," Rielle Hunter,and the man who later claimed to be the father of the child she bore. It also describes an authoritative witness who challenges that Edwards hired Hunter before his affair had begun.
A friend had letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune published here.
He contrasted the media apotlight on John Edward's -- former senator and former presidential candidate -- past adutery with their ignoring the past adultery of John McCain -- present senator and present presidential candidate.
That's a LTE that I wish I had written. But I hadn't the imagination to do so.
It followed several rules that we should all follow. I'll list them after the jump.
I know from time to time Keith O. reads the daily Kos. I think in order to reach him it would be more effective to post a diary rather than email him.
I really want him to lay off O'Reilly for a while and take on Sean Hannity. While I know it is more fun to rip O'Reilly, right now it is far more important to go after Hannity. So here goes:
