Althouse: Want to keep talking about Edwards?

August 13, 2008

Want to keep talking about Edwards?

Hot new stuff here, with appropriate phallic symbolism.

MORE: This is good:

(Here's the photo they talk about.)

111 comments:

vbspurs said...: Never mind the phallic symbolism of the fuzzy mic. What IS he holding? Looks like a donkey plush toy, fittingly enough.

BTW, is this really him holding his alleged baby?

Looks like a fake.; 8/13/08, 11:26 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Awwww, what a cute photo. They look so charming together. You can see that love is in the air. They look like any other love struck couple one sees on the streets. How sweet.; 8/13/08, 11:31 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Yeah, the think he's holding is what I wanted you to notice.; 8/13/08, 11:31 AM
vbspurs said...: They look so charming together.

Made-For-TV Movie casting:

Senator John Edwards: Tom Cruise
Rielle Hunter: Anne Heche

Maybe we can give a role to poor Margot Kidder, to complete the nutcase trifecta.; 8/13/08, 11:37 AM
Roger J. said...: I suspect he is holding a shovel or a rake--he was dressed like this during one of his house building thingees; 8/13/08, 11:44 AM
David said...: John Edwards + rake = Two John Edwards

Liar, liar, pants STILL on fire.; 8/13/08, 11:49 AM
Bob said...: Notice that the Enquirer mentions that Hunter was removed to parts unknown, where enterprising reporters can't root through her garbage looking for dirty diapers and other sources of infant DNA. And where did the money to do that come from, eh?

The story is that the story still isn't being told by the MSM.; 8/13/08, 11:51 AM
Trooper York said...: Wow now I know where they have been hiding Joey Heatherton and Steve Landersberg. Sweet.; 8/13/08, 11:58 AM
TMink said...: I did a little work for a candidate for governor in N.C. and I was STAFF, paid for help, plain and simple. None of the staff slept or sat next to the candidate unless they were way up the pecking order. Just looking at the photo of the "photojournalist" sleeping next to the candidate speaks volumes.

Trey; 8/13/08, 12:00 PM
Beldar said...: Moderately close examination reveals that along with a shovel, what Edwards is holding in the photo -- rather than being the "donkey plush toy" posited by vbspurs -- are work gloves, doubtless intended to prevent Silky Pony's hands from becoming as callused as his heart obviously already was toward his cancer-stricken wife.; 8/13/08, 12:07 PM
john said...: ..born in poverty; 8/13/08, 12:07 PM
Fen said...: I find it interesting how quickly the Edward's Affair has become comedy.

Also that I finally agree with John Kerry on something.; 8/13/08, 12:13 PM
Beth said...: Why would your videographer be sitting while you're holding a press conference -- why wouldn't she be up filming it?

I never donated to his "end poverty" campaign because I couldn't see what the point was. Give money to people that actually feed and clothe and house and train and hire poor people. Now, it is more and more evident that there should be an investigation into how he used those funds. If he took money from supporters, vowing to use it to help end poverty, and instead directed it to Hunter, then he needs to suffer more than the social condemnation adultery brings with it.

I think meeting Hunter has in fact helped him better reflect his true, repressed self. His assholedom is more clearly on display.; 8/13/08, 12:14 PM
Beth said...: Fen and I rarely agree, but yes, this is comedy.; 8/13/08, 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, this cinches it. The Party of Edwards is the Party for me. I mean, there are so many convincing arguments. A friend sent these helpful persuaders.

I'm voting Democrat because:

I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I can.

freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

when we pull out of Iraq, I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they will be convinced we're good people.

I believe that "experts" who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm not concerned about the continuing slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all those poor death row inmates alive. And give them the right to vote.

I believe that evil corporations should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break-even and give the rest to the government for wise and benevolent redistribution.

I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to show their concern for fringe nut cases who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, they won't come over here; and I won't need any dangerous guns in the house to fight them off with.

I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% is reasonable and appropriate.

How could one possibly vote Republican? Inexplicable. Totally inexplicable.; 8/13/08, 12:20 PM
Ann Althouse said...: The thing... not "the think." But he may have been thinking with it. I hear that's what men do.; 8/13/08, 12:20 PM
Beth said...: Okay, that picture of Hunter and Edwards is most likely taken in New Orleans, where he announced his candidacy, so those are work gloves
and a shovel or rake in his hands.

Here he is in the same shirt, yacking while other people are working on a house in the Lower Ninth, in a campaign video titled Tomorrow Belongs to Me; no, sorry, that's "Tomorrow Begins Today." My mistake.; 8/13/08, 12:22 PM
David said...: When we think at all . . . .; 8/13/08, 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/08, 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Jane Hamsher declares that she believes in letting private lives be private, citing her support of Spitzer and Clinton, but makes the claim that Edwards is somehow different. Did anyone else catch that? It's the very first thing on the clip. Does anyone else see any difference, from a privacy standpoint, in the three examples she offers? I would add the names Larry Craig and Ted Haggard to the list. Do all/none/some of these deserve to play the privacy trump card or are all/none/some held to some higher standard?; 8/13/08, 12:31 PM
MadisonMan said...: I was thinking Ann Jillian rather than Joey Heatherton.

Ann Jillian had breast cancer, so the cancer survivor can play the paramour of the a-hole whose wife has cancer.; 8/13/08, 12:44 PM
vbspurs said...: Good call on the workgloves, Beldar, and others. I see it now.

The Ann Gillian angle is good, if only she didn't have a decade on the lady and looked it. But if Anne Heche is no good, can I suggest the mom from Ferris Bueller instead?

Her name is Cindy Pickett, and she's a dead ringer for Rielle. She even had the black roots thing going on.

And though I can't prove it, I think Tom Cruise used John Edwards as his prototype of a good-looking, but populist lightweight Senator in Lions for Lambs.; 8/13/08, 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Jane Hamsher definitely believes in keeping the private lives of those politicians she likes private.; 8/13/08, 12:51 PM
Asante Samuel said...: I'm thinking that Lisa has some reeeallly high-quality home movies from those long, cold nights with Silky. Wonder when we start to hear about them.

You know any self-described narcissist wants some film of himself performing. Where is the smoking tape?

AA; if you want some serious traffic, start a post titled 'Edwards Sex Tape'. Or,'Does John Edwards wax his back'? Maybe a poll would be nice, too.

You're welcome.; 8/13/08, 12:55 PM
vbspurs said...: Incidentally, why is Eleanor Roosevelt wearing a hard hat and school crossing guard vest in front of the Rocky Mountains in Ann's new ad?; 8/13/08, 12:56 PM
William said...: Given all the pleasure centers in the brain attached to the sex act, you would think that occasionally, if only by chance, the pursuit of sex would result in happiness. This isn't a defense of Edwards, but if you ever encounter a man whose sexual ambitions have not made him ridiculous at some time in his life, ask him to say a prayer for me. The Pope doesn't count. Celibacy, promiscuity, marital constancy: whatever door you choose, there will be grand vistas behind the other doors that will not be seen in this your only life.; 8/13/08, 12:59 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Let us not forget that he picked the bimbo up in a bar, which according to past firends, was her natural habitat.; 8/13/08, 1:05 PM
vbspurs said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/08, 1:05 PM
Bissage said...: Mr. Pinkerton said: [T]he anti-poverty campaign has now disappeared . . . I saw that in Harper’s or something – they pulled the plug on all that stuff. I mean Edwards just lost interest . . .

Well, the answer to that is yes and no.

Edwards lost interest in alleviating the poverty of ordinary people down on their luck who might vote for him, that’s true.

But it seems he’s not lost interest in alleviating the poverty of a whore-slut who slurped his spunk.

Reille Hunter seems not to have accomplished much in her life, but when it comes to return on investment, she makes Ashley Dupré look bush league.; 8/13/08, 1:07 PM
Paddy O said...: More Edwards?

Bush is sending American support and Rice is going to France and then onwards.

I've got Georgia on my mind.; 8/13/08, 1:07 PM
Bissage said...: P.S. Maybe I should give credit where credit is due.

Maybe Reille Hunter worked her way up to the big leagues.

Maybe if she had as many sticking out of her as she’s had stuck in her she’d look like a porcupine!; 8/13/08, 1:08 PM
vbspurs said...: Please further note that Ann's ads have titles which could easily be swapped.

"KFC Consumer Warning" for Eleanor Roosevelt, who you know would be SUCH a Greenpeacy-PETAish freak, if she were living.

And "Hands Off!" for the Pam Anderson ad since who wants to tap that ass today.; 8/13/08, 1:08 PM
Kansas City said...: Years ago, before there were any rumors, my wife too one look at Edwards and said he cheats on his wife.

This has now become hilarious, including the pathetic efforts at damage control by Edwards, Elizabeth and what is left of his supporters.

I think an interesting part is how the MSM blatently covered up. The Newsweek guy had all these contacts with Hunter but did not write about them. The press saw her in plain view at his campaign events and did not write about it, when you know that everyone had to know/suspect what was going on. Even the web videas and paying her $114k from his poverty foundation were barely covered.

I have no idea if the private plane to a foreign country report is true, but if so, it is a B movie. To state the obvious, Mr. Edwards has no shame - it no doubt was what made him a great plaintiff's attorney.; 8/13/08, 1:09 PM
Asante Samuel said...: That Jane Hampster babe in the v-blog has a shaggy dyed-blonde, dark rooty thing going on. She more closely resembles Lisa than today's other nominees; 8/13/08, 1:09 PM
Ron said...: And "Hands Off!" for the Pam Anderson ad since who wants to tap that ass today.

Ewwww! As my mother would have said, "Do you know where that's been?" Besides who wants sloppy 200rds after Tommy Lee, et al....?

The Pam Anderson on those old, old Molson posters back in tha day...ah... but now, with lips that could be a flotation device, er, ah, a second flotation device, I'll take a pass...; 8/13/08, 1:24 PM
Trooper York said...: You see I said Jane looked like Joey Heatherton not Edward's bimbo. And for you guys who are too young to remember, Joey was one wet hot mess back in the day. Tasty to the max.

She pioneered a lot of what happens today. Famous for being a bimbo with minimal talent, she was the precursor to Paris and Nicole. She was famous for going to the opening of an envelope to get her picture in the papers.

She also was the first bimbo to ruin the career of a Dallas Cowboy
(google Lance Rentzel). So she wasn't all bad.

Her father was Officer Joe who had a late afternoon TV show that showed Popeye cartoons or something like that. Man did they bust his chops about his bimbo daughter. Good thing he was a drinker.; 8/13/08, 1:28 PM
Fen said...: Jane Hamsher declares that she believes in letting private lives be private, citing her support of... Clinton

Because sexually asaulting campaign volunteers or discrimating against interns who refuse to swallow is a private matter.

Hysterical!

Whats on for Act III? Gloria Steinem advising that all men get one free grope before being told Stop.?; 8/13/08, 1:46 PM
john said...: Trooper -

Heatherton ruined the career of Lance Rentzel? How, by hiding his belt?; 8/13/08, 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/08, 1:55 PM
Spread Eagle said...: I don't know who should play who but has anybody checked to see if Rielle's left leg is intact? I'm thinking Heather Mills here.; 8/13/08, 1:55 PM
rhhardin said...: The thing... not "the think." But he may have been thinking with it. I hear that's what men do.

It's an input to the thought process elsewhere.; 8/13/08, 1:56 PM
Trooper York said...: Well you see John, Joey Heatherton would dress up like a Catholic school girl with a plaid jumper and a white shirt and a big lollypop when they would role play, and when they seperated Lance was at loose ends. Or his end got loose. Or something like that.

All the Cowboys are sex maniacs anyway.

I heard that Bob Hayes used to lick womans shoes in ladies rooms of the old stadium.

And why did you think the WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS let Tom Landry go? One word. Autoerotica.
Nuff said.; 8/13/08, 2:00 PM
vbspurs said...: Spread Eagle, yes! Heather Mills, totally.; 8/13/08, 2:00 PM
vbspurs said...: I didn't understand the whole Joey Heatherton thing, because of the name, and also because being British, I tend to know recent American pop culture only from VH-1's "I Love The 70s/80s" etc.

So I looked her up, as she looked then and now.

Wow.

She's the American Wendy Richards.; 8/13/08, 2:04 PM
rhhardin said...: Matt Taibbi on Imus doesn't understand the big deal.

A politician is having sex with a woman not his wife. What else is new.

Maybe those who spot frauds from their first two words are immune from interest in the story.

Since this involves a quick decision, it does not include women, mostly. ``Maybe there's some good there,'' women think, after these same two words. ``He seems to mean well.''

And it's to women that the resulting story is being sold.; 8/13/08, 2:04 PM
rhhardin said...: The thing that strikes me about Rielle is that she let Edwards know she was pleased with him, which more or less is what married men crave from a partner.

I'd offhand guess that Edwards was not getting that from the divine Elizabeth.; 8/13/08, 2:23 PM
Bob said...: Bissage: But it seems he’s not lost interest in alleviating the poverty of a whore-slut who slurped his spunk.

Approved Althouse terminology is splooge.; 8/13/08, 2:33 PM
David said...: RHhardin: That's "pleased by him," not with him.

Elizabeth might have had trouble with that, with the chemo and all.; 8/13/08, 2:35 PM
veni vidi vici said...: Beth said: "...in a campaign video titled Tomorrow Belongs to Me;"

LOL! I bet Edwards is singing Paul McCartney nowadays: "Yesterday..."

btw, Jane Hamsher does somewhat resemble a hamster, doesn't she?; 8/13/08, 2:35 PM
Palladian said...: I'm sorry, but when I think of Rielle Hunter and Edwards together, I still think of this amazingly acted scene from Husbands and Wives.; 8/13/08, 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: She's the American Wendy Richards

OMG!!! Is THAT what she looks like now? (and we are talking about Wendy Richard (not Richards) aren't we?; 8/13/08, 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/08, 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Hello, Mr. Edwards. Mike H here, and I'd like to ask a few questions while you're here.

1. What the hell were you thinking?

2. Since you've confessed to lying to God, your wife and your families when you took your wedding vows, why should any prospective voter believe anything you say? Or is that problem considered an asset that better qualifies you to be an elected official?

3. Why won't you take a paternity test? Is it because you already know that you're the father? That's the only plausible reason anyone can think of. Look, you need to establish right now whether you're the little nipper's father, otherwise your estate is going to have an issue later on, after you've croaked, when the child's attorneys show up to seek a slice of the pie for their client.

4. Couldn't you have at least cheated with someone more attractive than Camilla Parker-Bowles? Someone so attractive that when her photo was printed in the tabloids many people would look at it and think 'No wonder. What a babe!'?

5. Aren't you creating a Two
Americas situation for your offspring? The original kids live in high and grand style, and the off-the-record child lives on the dole, in a far less affluent lifestyle. Man up and treat them equally.

6. No rubber? Are you f'ing nuts? Seriously dude, it's not like you were courageously going where no man has ever gone before. I've seen her photo. That's a face that's launched a thousand dicks, know what I mean?

7. Okay, let's just say that you were holding an audition for your next wife. Wouldn't you at least want someone with a resume that suggests she could step in and do a capable job of providing mothering services to your original kids? Wasn't the psychobabble and new age nonsense at leat a hint that this one shouldn't get past the first (and in public) interview?

8. And wouldn't you want wife 1.0 involved in the interviews for wife 2.0?

9. Will the big house you built two years ago be going on the block anytime soon? 'Cause I bought oil and precious metals futures last year and it looks like I'll be needing a new crib soon.

10. Will there be a garage sale to get rid of the curtains you bought for your next office in the Supreme Court building?

Weel that's it for now. Good luck, Mr. Edwards. I'll be in touch later if I have any more questions.

Mike H; 8/13/08, 2:55 PM
Palladian said...: "OMG!!! Is THAT what she looks like now?"

Yes, she looks like a 65 year old woman. Which she is. People age. Bravo to her for not having her face pulled taut.

Oh and she's quite different than Joey Heatherton in that she had a career for more than 5 years.; 8/13/08, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Bravo to her for not having her face pulled taut.

She didn't? Not that it matters.

People age.

Yes, they do.; 8/13/08, 3:00 PM
vbspurs said...: Randy, sorry for the typo! Yes, that's the delectable Miss Brahms of AYBS fame.

People age. Top marks for being authentic and all that. But damn.; 8/13/08, 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: I remember seeing her much later, probably mid-point in the East Enders series. Seems like just a short while ago, but I bet it was 10 years, maybe more. Time flies.; 8/13/08, 3:10 PM
mythusmage said...: Sometimes a dork is only a fool.; 8/13/08, 3:27 PM
Bissage said...: Bob said: Approved Althouse terminology is splooge.

I know, I know . . .

And it’s KILLING me!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

*takes Craftsman Industrial 9.6 Volt Power Drill and drives 3 inch coated deck screw into temple*

LONG LIVE TEH SPOOOOOGE!!!; 8/13/08, 3:34 PM
Icepick said...: Beth said...
Fen and I rarely agree, but yes, this is comedy.

John Edwards - Uniter!

OTOH he wouldn't be in this mess if he hadn't united so much with Ms. Hunter. Still I think we should congratulate John Edwards for choosing a more age approriate bimbo to fool around with. I hate seeing guys in there 50s dating women under 30. It seems so undignified. But here's Johnny fooling around with a 40 year-old, which is much more age approrpiate.; 8/13/08, 3:37 PM
TitusdoesRedHook said...: John Edwards appears so asexual to me. I can't even imagine him jerking off.

That Jane girl is cute. Love the hair. She reminds me of Cyndi Lauper, who I love.; 8/13/08, 3:40 PM
vbspurs said...: Randy, just read that poor Wendy is another breast CA survivor.

She wasn't aging at all well even without the cancer, but this I'm sure didn't help.

Strange thing, all these mentions of breast cancer sufferers. I can only pray the Althouse ladies never have to undergo this trial (including myself).

Cheers,
Victoria; 8/13/08, 4:09 PM
John Burgess said...: Here's a photo [NSFW] that explains far better than the 'Then and Now' just why Joey Heatherton captured the imagination of young men in America. It's the cover of her privately released record album.

With looks like that, minor flaws, like an limited ability to act, were easily forgiven. Besides, her professional career has lasted over 40 years. How many of us are going to be claiming that?; 8/13/08, 4:48 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: John McCain, Hypocrite:
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."

This is the international version of IOKIYAR.

Oh, Edwards. Right. That's important.; 8/13/08, 4:50 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Speaking of cancer, I was just at Whole Foods, about to buy a package of granola bars, turned the box over to read the ingredients, and the first thing I saw was a paragraph about "bowel cancer." The hell! Don't put the word "bowel" on the box. "Cancer" is bad enough, but "bowel"? What are they thinking? This food as medicine trend is disgusting. I put the box back on the shelf.; 8/13/08, 5:03 PM
Ann Althouse said...: alphaliberal said.. "John McCain, Hypocrite:
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." This is the international version of IOKIYAR."

Oh, bullshit. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We fought them back, the war dragged on inconclusively, and eventually we saw fit to finish it.; 8/13/08, 5:05 PM
Trooper York said...: John Burgess and I are on exactly the same page with that one. I happen to have the same album cover. Some of my fondest memories of the eight grade was set to that music rubbing one out while looking at that album.

Oh sorry, too much information.; 8/13/08, 5:05 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Ann Althouse said...
alphaliberal said.. "John McCain, Hypocrite:
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." This is the international version of IOKIYAR."

Oh, bullshit…

Althouse wins by a knockout punch.; 8/13/08, 5:23 PM
William said...: Elizabeth: "Apres moi, le spluge."; 8/13/08, 5:29 PM
veni vidi vici said...: "Speaking of cancer..."

Well, at least it wasn't saying the granola would give you "bowel canchres"!; 8/13/08, 6:05 PM
Meade said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/08, 6:07 PM
Meade said...: "Oh, bullshit. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We fought them back, the war dragged on inconclusively, and eventually we saw fit to finish it."

AND we are finishing it in an honorable and decent way, flip-flopping perfidious defeatists notwithstanding.

Which brings us back to Edwards. I voted for him in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary because by the time the show came around to Ohio, he was the only Democrat left who seemed to represent the position Althouse so eloquently states above. Mine was a single issue vote.

As I recall, the Ohio and Wisconsin primaries fell on the same date and the votes were close, nearly stopping the anti-war Kerry momentum.

What a disappointing man John Edwards has turned out to be. Who is pleased with him now? Is there anyone at all?

Elizabeth Edwards is?

How extraordinarily queer.; 8/13/08, 6:11 PM
Trooper York said...: Randy White let the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders give him a Cleveland Steamer before every game.; 8/13/08, 6:13 PM
somefeller said...: Oh, bullshit. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We fought them back, the war dragged on inconclusively, and eventually we saw fit to finish it.

Oh, Jesus, you're claiming that W's invasion of Iraq was just a mere continuation of the war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, after a decade or so's pause. Sorry, but that's bullshit. If you want to defend W's invasion of Iraq on its own merits (merits which took a beating when it turned out the WMD threat was just some World War I tech-level chemical weaponry), be my guest, but let's not use the "long war" cliche. That was an old line by the 2004 elections.; 8/13/08, 6:14 PM
Trooper York said...: Duane Thomas could never pass a drug test because every time they made him pee in a cup, he would drink it.

Those Cowboys are perverts.; 8/13/08, 6:16 PM
vbspurs said...: How extraordinarily queer.

I don't mean to grind glass on your open wounds, Meade, but I genuinely truly do not know how ANYONE could've voted for Edwards as a stand-alone candidate. I don't care the reason. Didn't people see what so many people did -- that he was a fast-talking, talentless, personally vain lawyer turned politician? The guy reeked of loser.

But allow me to throw you a charitable bone.

I'm sure one day, maybe even in this thread, someone will say the same thing about the guy I voted for in the Florida primary, in 2008.

Rudy Giuliani.

My only response was that he had leadership abilities that had been tested for 8 years...

Cheers,
Victoria; 8/13/08, 6:28 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Oh, Jesus, you're claiming that W's invasion of Iraq was just a mere continuation of the war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, after a decade or so's pause.

There was never really a pause in our conflict with Iraq, just a reduction in the intensity of violence. For example, Bill Clinton attacked Iraq in Dec 98 with cruise missiles and B-1 bombers in order to degrade Iraq's WMD program. So, Althouse is right, the 2003 invasion was a continuation of the earlier war.; 8/13/08, 6:31 PM
Meade said...: Sure, somefeller, and President Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act happened in, when, 1978?; 8/13/08, 6:32 PM
Trooper York said...: Chuck Howley was impotent for most of his marriage. It was humiliating for a rough and tough Super Bowl MVP. So he used to strap his dick to a longhorn antler when his wife was feeling amorous.

He called it throwing her a bone.

Those Cowboys were perverts.; 8/13/08, 6:34 PM
somefeller said...: Oh, and one more thing before I go out for the evening. On an earlier thread, I said: fuck John Edwards. I'd like to reiterate that, if it turns out the Enquirer is right and he's been keeping this affair going for longer than he said and he's been paying Hunter with campaign funds. He had no business running for President, and wasted the time and money of his supporters. Whether or not he denied Hillary the nomination is uncertain, but it's certain that his presence in the race changed the dynamics of the race in ways we can't know for sure, in terms of supporters taken (particularly operatives and activists that might have been working all those months for someone else). Either way, Edwards had no business being in that race.; 8/13/08, 6:36 PM
Meade said...: Victoria, I was a Democrat. I was desperate for someone to save the Party. Yes, I fell for his lies. Once.

So I voted for Bush. Without regret.; 8/13/08, 6:37 PM
vbspurs said...: The latter part of what you wrote is so utterly unintelligible to Democrats, as to make you seem mad, Meade.

But believe me, there are a heck of a lot of people who understand exactly what you said.

Well, I've been online, coughing, sniffling all day. I might be back for the Olympics thread, if there is one again.

If not, night Meade, guys! :); 8/13/08, 6:40 PM
Meade said...: "Either way, Edwards had no business being in that race."

That is true, somefeller. Some of us, belatedly, realized that in 2004.; 8/13/08, 6:40 PM
Meade said...: Goodnight, Vic. Sleep well.; 8/13/08, 6:41 PM
Trooper York said...: Preston Pearson was throw off the team when he tea-bagged Tony Dorsett as he was sleeping on the plane when he was a rookie on the way home from Super bowl XII. Tony didn’t appreciate that.

Those Cowboys were perverts.; 8/13/08, 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...: This is the deal with Edwards: he believed and still believes that he is a Bill Clinton and can cavort the way Clinton did. He is not. The primary reason for this is because, at the end of the day, and whether you agree with him or liked his presidency, Bill Clinton was a serious politician with serious ideas and serious executive ability. Edwards is not serious and doesn't really know what he is doing and people have always understood that.

I say this as someone who never voted for Clinton.; 8/13/08, 6:56 PM
garage mahal said...: Unserious liberals just don't understand the U.S. has been at war with Iraq for 18 yrs against a rag tag army without an air force. They've managed trick 3/4 of the population of this country and virtually the entire world that Iraq was a really dumb idea though. Sneaky.; 8/13/08, 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage --

1. Was the United States bombing Iraq (and killing civilians, by the way) throughout Clinton's presidency? A simple yes or no will suffice.

2. Does bombing a sovereign nation constitute being at war with it? If not, what does? Please elaborate here, so we may better understand your supple mind.; 8/13/08, 7:06 PM
veni vidi vici said...: Actually, the United Nations has been exercising its imperatives under the slew of 17-odd resolutions dating back to 1991, continuously since 1991. Whether the United States itself is separately "at war with" Iraq is secondary, if not wholly irrelevant to the Iraq/Gulf War suite of conflicts.

That conflict has not ended since 1991. Look it up, read 'em, weep.; 8/13/08, 7:27 PM
bleeper said...: Edwards' money trail should be investigated - the MSM and congress should... nevermind...; 8/13/08, 7:34 PM
garage mahal said...: . Was the United States bombing Iraq (and killing civilians, by the way) throughout Clinton's presidency? A simple yes or no will suffice

Yes.

2. Does bombing a sovereign nation constitute being at war with it? If not, what does? Please elaborate here, so we may better understand your supple mind.

If you mean us bombing a sovereign country it doesn't mean we're at war. Our Constitution clearly says only Congress can declare war. Article 1, section 8. I wonder if the Constitutional Law Experts here could give us their opinion why Congress didn't declare war with Iraq in 2002.; 8/13/08, 7:36 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Seven Machos said...
Garage --

1. Was the United States bombing Iraq (and killing civilians, by the way) throughout Clinton's presidency? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes. Now what does any of that have to do with John Edwards boinking some barfly?; 8/13/08, 7:41 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Hey Troop,
Did you happen to mention that the New York Giants are the world champions?; 8/13/08, 7:43 PM
Trooper York said...: Billy Joe Dupree once gave the entire senior class a hummer under the Tallahatchie bridge.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Except he insisted on wearing full pads at the time.

Those Cowboys were perverts.; 8/13/08, 7:45 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/13/08, 7:46 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Remember "Dandy" Don Meredith? They say there was a very good reason why he was called Dandy.; 8/13/08, 7:47 PM
Trooper York said...: Well I heard a rumor that he had a three way with Lance and Joey Heatherton and at the last minute he called an audible.

He could never control where his balls were thrown.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.; 8/13/08, 7:51 PM
Zachary Sire said...: Ann was in a Whole Foods!?!

ELITIST!

Did you happen to check the cost of the arugula?; 8/13/08, 7:53 PM
Trooper York said...: In the interest of accuracy, I would like to correct a mistake I made earlier in the day. Joey Heatherton’s father was in fact Ray Heatherton who played the Merry Mailman on WPIX and did show Popeye cartoons in the days of my youth.

Office Joe Bolton also had a show on the same channel and showed the Three Stooges. I am sorry I got them confused. Of course I had an excuse; I was usually high in the afternoon during those years. Sorry.; 8/13/08, 8:00 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Didn't Heatherton do the Aqua Velva commercials?; 8/13/08, 8:13 PM
Trooper York said...: Yes indeedy. And a great mattress commercial.

She always did her best work on a mattress.; 8/13/08, 8:15 PM
Peter Blogdanovich said...: Confucius say,"When little head do thinking instead of big head, rest of body in big trouble."; 8/13/08, 8:42 PM
Michael McNeil said...: garage mahal sez:
If you mean us bombing a sovereign country it doesn't mean we're at war. Our Constitution clearly says only Congress can declare war. Article 1, section 8. I wonder if the Constitutional Law Experts here could give us their opinion why Congress didn't declare war with Iraq in 2002.

IANAL, one might note, but constitutional law Prof. Eugene Volokh, who is, has written at length on this subject at The Volokh Conspiracy and disagrees vociferously with that. For instance, here Eugene quotes from “Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Constitution p. 76 (2nd ed. 1996), a treatise by the extremely respected Columbia law professor Louis Henkin:

“[S]ome critics during the Vietnam War and some during the Persiaan Gulf Crisis of 1990-91 … expressed the view that Congress can decide for war only by formal declaration; there is no foundation for that view …. Congress can decide, and has decided, for war, formally or informally, expressly or by implication, in advance or by subsequent ratification, by legislation or resolution, even merely by appropriating funds for the conduct of war. The Supreme Court recognized undeclared war against France in 1800, as well as our undeclared Civil War. Congress has on numerous occasions asserted the power to authorize the use of force by resolution rather than by declaration.”

Beyond that, self-declared constitutional expert Democratic Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and author of the Congressional Use of Force authorization in question, responded to a query from the audience at the close of a speech he presented on October 22, 2001:

Question: “My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?”

Senator Biden: “The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.”; 8/13/08, 8:59 PM
KCFleming said...: I always preferred Lola Heatherton.; 8/13/08, 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage comes from the Obama school of foreign policy, I guess. Bombing a country, say, Iraq, or Pakistan, does not constitute war, nor does inserting your army and hunting people down on sovereign territory.; 8/13/08, 9:47 PM
veni vidi vici said...: After having watched that Jane Hamster / Jim's PinkThing videoclip, I need to revise my earlier comments about her: she's very pretty in a slightly unconventional way. I would enjoy watching her read the telephone book. Preferably nude.; 8/13/08, 9:57 PM
Meade said...: I wonder if she would read the telephone book any faster, knowing you were nude.; 8/13/08, 10:33 PM
somefeller said...: Oh, yeah, and one last thing before I go to bed. Whole Foods sucks. And Central Market rules.

Well, one more thing. The Iraq Liberation Act was basically similar to our commitments to liberate the captive Baltic states during the Cold War. A bit of diplomatic and mild saber-rattling rhetoric, but not much more, and not a war guarantee. It certainly wasn't a continuation of the 1991 Persian Gulf War into perpetuity. Say what you will about Bush 43's invasion of Iraq, but it wasn't just a matter of finishing off some old business.

And does bombing Iraq in the 1990s equal a state of war? No, because that's what big and powerful countries do to little pissant ones that piss them off from time to time. Under that logic, the US was in a war in Nicaragua and Haiti at various times in the early to mid 20th Century. Well, maybe it seemed that way to them, but certainly not to us, and our national opinion is all I'm interested in.; 8/13/08, 11:25 PM
blake said...: Well, as long as we're questioning causes for wars that are over, let's discuss the Lusitania.

I mean, come on! It was carrying munitions! Of course the Krauts targeted it!; 8/14/08, 3:31 AM
veni vidi vici said...: Meade,
I knew someone was going to say that as soon as I hit the "publish your comment" button!; 8/14/08, 10:32 AM
Michael McNeil said...: somefeller sez:
Well, one more thing. The Iraq Liberation Act was basically similar to our commitments to liberate the captive Baltic states during the Cold War. A bit of diplomatic and mild saber-rattling rhetoric, but not much more, and not a war guarantee. It certainly wasn't a continuation of the 1991 Persian Gulf War into perpetuity. Say what you will about Bush 43's invasion of Iraq, but it wasn't just a matter of finishing off some old business.

And does bombing Iraq in the 1990s equal a state of war? No, because that's what big and powerful countries do to little pissant ones that piss them off from time to time.

It wasn't just a matter of “bombing Iraq in the 1990s,” as the bombing was virtually continuous (daily) throughout the 90s and up till the 2003 invasion — during much of which, especially the latter period, Sadddam's regime was making determined efforts to down U.S. and British warplanes enforcing the no-fly zones. Thus fighting was going on both ways, it wasn't at all a case (as leftists like to portray it) of poor victim Saddam being bombed for no reason by the big bad West.

Moreover, a continuing stream of mandatory (Chapter VII) UN Security Council resolutions — each of which Saddam thereafter inevitably would violate — kept the war status still legally in effect.

It's much as if Hitler had been bottled up within Germany rather than his regime being extirpated in 1945, followed by a “cease fire” and numerous UN S.C. Resolutions that he thereupon violated again and again, until — say around 1957 — the world (or, say, the U.S. plus Britain and a few others) finally had had enough and invaded and smashed the Third Reich. Think most historians wouldn't consider that a continuation of W.W. II?; 8/14/08, 10:37 AM