Making Beto seem like John Edwards....

Just remembered the last time a Conde Nast publication dressed a young Democratic hopeful in smart-casual workwear and posed them next to a dog and pickup truck in a cover story shot by Annie Leibovitz. pic.twitter.com/qvOzjdaUkw

— Freddie Campion (@FreddieCampion) March 13, 2019

Oh. My. God. pic.twitter.com/SFgITC1dlo

— Freddie Campion (@FreddieCampion) March 13, 2019

ADDED: The Beto photo is much bettah. Humanizing politicians with a dog is so tired. Both men have a truck — are they guys who'd really have trucks? — but the Edwards truck is blocking the entire background. Beto has a long windy dirt road. Is it the road ahead or the road behind? Needs to be the road behind. He came from Texas and he's going on to the White House. Not likely, but we can dream along with our little dreamboat.

"How did everyone like the salad? I thought it was OK, but it needed just a little more scalp oil and a pinch of dandruff."

Look out! It's the wit of Amy Klobuchar. She'll never shake that eating-salad-with-a-comb story, so she's going with self-deprecating humor.

You never know. I once thought Donald Trump could never be elected President because his hair was so weird.

Maybe there's something mystical about hair — connecting celebrities to the people. I remember how The Beatles got to us with hair. And in politics, it does seem that the candidate with the best hair wins.

It might jinx you to come out and say it, of course. John Kerry, on his first day of campaigning with his veep choice, the ill-fated John Edwards, proclaimed:

"We've got better vision. We've got better ideas. We've got real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America. And we've got better hair. I'll tell you, that goes a long way."

My blogged reaction at the time, July 2004, was:

That bulbous wig of a hairdo Kerry's been using to offset his lengthy face is good hair? That flappy, fine fringe accentuating Edwards' babyish looks is good hair? Please! For decades, I've been groaning about the outdated Beatle haircuts worn by aging Baby Boomers. Long hair is a young man's style that makes an older man look like an unattractive woman! Beatle styling, with combed down bangs in front, belongs in the 1960s--early 70s at the latest. It's as if 20 years from now, some guy were to run for President and wear his hair like this. I realize practically every man in Congress is making the same mistake of keeping the Beatle do alive, but could someone please tell these people how terribly estranged from any sense of style these men are? The only one of the current candidates with a respectable hairstyle is George Bush....

And George Bush won, so by my lights the candidate with the best hair did win in 2004, as in all the other elections, including the ones with our last bald president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.



The question of Trump's hair was immensely complicated in 2016, when his opponent was a woman whose oft-changing hair had been a matter of public inquiry for a quarter century. But she chose to forefront the hair comparison. She made a whole routine out of it with Jimmy Fallon...

She says (slightly garbling what must have been a prepared line): "Have you ever been able to let him touch — let you touch his hair?" And then: "Have you ever really touched it?" When Jimmy says no, she says: "You wanna touch mine?" Jimmy grabs a hank and gives it a sturdy pull. The gesture says: This is not a wig. And he shouts: "It's real! It's real!" He waves his hands about joyously and — with the band playing celebratory music – adds: "And it's got wave and it's fantastic, you guys, and it smells great!" He's laughing heartily and she's laughing heartily.

... and that led Jimmy Fallon — when Trump later appeared on his show — to grab Trump's hair the same way he'd grabbed Hillary's. And that normalized Trump's ultra-weird hair.

But back to Amy Klobuchar. That comb is the most famous thing about her, and she can't lose it. She's got to find a way to work with it. And the Democrats need a way to defeat the President with the absurd hair. Well, Amy's got the comb. If rock breaks scissors, and scissors cut paper, and paper covers rock, then surely, comb conquers hair.

"Trump’s love of tabloid gossip complicates his denial of affair allegations with Stormy Daniels."

What? That's a headline at WaPo (for a column by Callum Borchers). Here's the concept:

The White House has dismissed the alleged encounter between Trump and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels as tabloid trash. But Trump’s denial is complicated by his history of associating with publications such as In Touch and lending credence to their work.

“I’ve always said, ‘Why didn't the National Enquirer get the Pulitzer Prize for Edwards?’” Trump said on the campaign trail in 2016. He was referring to the Enquirer’s revelation that John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and 2008 presidential candidate, had an affair and fathered a child with a campaign aide.

I'll leave it to you to make the In Touch/National Enquirer distinction if you want. I think it's funny to remind us of the monumental Edwards screwup (when a man who was collecting contributions and running in part on empathy for his dying-of-cancer wife was having an affair during his presidential campaign). And I thought we'd all already absorbed the assumption that private citizen Donald Trump had sex with a porn star 12 years ago. But here's WaPo, ever chiseling away at Trump's inexplicable popularity, bonking us over the head with his vouching for the National Enquirer that one time. Sad!

Here's a song to cheer you up:



You were the sunshine, baby, whenever you smiled/but I call you stormy today.... Oh, stormy, oh, stormy, bring back that sunny day....

But here's the headline I was looking for when I got waylaid into WaPo: "Stormy Daniels launches ‘Make America Horny Again Tour.'" Meade read that out loud to me and my reaction was: Great! I won't detail why just now, because it's time for my coffee break.

John Edwards comes full circle: He's a medical malpractice lawyer representing a little child.

Edwards represents a 4-year-old Virginia boy who allegedly suffered brain damage during surgery.

For reference, here's the January 2004 NYT article "In Trial Work, Edwards Left A Trademark":

In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: ''She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.' ''...

''She speaks to you through me,'' the lawyer went on in his closing argument. ''And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.''

Those were the days, when John Edwards was in his depth. It was 1985, and he was fine. By October 2007, he was saying I'm having a little trouble. In 2011, he was saying I need out. He speaks to you through me. I didn't plan to blog about this, but right now I feel him. I feel him inside me... Ugh! Get out of me, you creepy old man. Back to your malpractice practice, speaking in the voice of brain-damaged children, springing open the hearts of fully brained, but mushy jurors in some cloistered little courtroom in a southern state.

"I am a product of infidelity. Both of my parents cheated on each other, and as a kid it damaged me."

"I then grew up, fell in love with a married man, and caused even more damage. I believe history often repeats itself if you do not take responsibility and change it. Infidelity is wrong. It hurts people. It hurt me and then I in turn also hurt people. It is a chain of pain."

Says Rielle Hunter, just when no one wants to ever talk about John Edwards again, but the lady has a book to sell. 

About David Petraeus: "The man falls in love with... himself!"

That's what I wrote, when I first saw that the man's love interest was the woman who wrote a fawning biography about him. It reminded me of John Edwards, falling for the woman who was trotting around after him videographing what her trotting around videographing made seem like the amazing wonder of his very being.

A reader emails:

"The man falls in love with... himself!"

And that is at the center of what an affair is about.

Here's Shirley Glass, who before her death a few years ago was considered one of the top experts on infidelity:

There is an attraction in the affair, and I try to understand what it is. Part of it is the romantic projection: I like the way I look when I see myself in the other person’s eyes. There is positive mirroring. An affair holds up a vanity mirror, the kind with all the little bulbs around it; it gives a nice rosy glow to the way you see yourself. By contrast, the marriage offers a make-up mirror; it magnifies all your wrinkles and pores, every little flaw. When someone loves you despite the fact that they can see all your flaws, that is a reality-based love.

In the stories of what happened during the affair, people seem to take on a different persona, and one of the things they liked best about being in that relationship was the person they had become. The man who wasn’t sensitive or expressive is now in a relationship where he is expressing his feelings and is supportive.

Petraeus's woman: his biographer!

What does it say about a man that he falls for the woman who cranks out the PR about what a swell guy he is?

It's so... John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

The man falls in love with... himself!

"On one tape she saw Johnny walking into a room and his reaction to seeing me."

"She apparently told him that he never once looked at her the way he looked at me. So she took that bit and put it on her computer as a screen saver in order to watch it over and over again."

Johnny = John Edwards. She = Elizabeth Edwards. Me = Rielle Hunter, who once met Elizabeth Edwards, who "did not look me in the eye. In fact, she appeared to be frightened."

"I just didn’t think he was guilty."

Edwards jurors speak.

On the Today show, the three jurors raised their hands when asked if Edwards was guilty on at least some of the counts. No one raised their hands when asked if Edwards was a bad guy.

Ha. Fascinating. I get the feeling the legal commentators like to say: He's a bad guy, but that doesn't mean he should be convicted of a crime. It's important to understand that distinction. But they didn't even think he was a bad guy. Maybe they were competent at compartmentalizing. They knew it wasn't their job to decide if he was a bad guy, and they set that aside and concentrated on the elements of the crime and whether the prosecution met the burden of proof.

"A judge’s declaration of a mistrial on Thursday in the John Edwards campaign finance case was a new setback for the Justice Department’s public integrity section..."

"... a once-vaunted watchdog that has been trying to rebuild itself after its botched prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens four years ago," writes Charlie Savage.

The unit’s performance has been faulted by nonprofit groups that seek to limit the influence of money in politics. Melanie Sloan, director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the Justice Department deserved “to get slammed” for what she portrayed as undertaking a risky prosecution against Mr. Edwards that relied upon a novel interpretation of campaign finance laws, even as it shied away from more traditional corruption cases.

“The cases that they are deciding to prosecute, and not prosecute, reflect an incoherent strategy,” she said. “At some points they are willing to be incredibly aggressive, like with John Edwards, and on the other hand they are overly cautious in refusing to prosecute people like John Ensign and Don Young.”

Much more at the link. Read it.

"John Edwards Jury Reaches Verdict on Just 1 of 6 Counts."

"Jurors told Judge Catherine Eagles they had reached a unanimous verdict only on Count 3 of the indictment. That charge pertains specifically to more than $700,000 in donations wealthy heiress Rachel 'Bunny' Mellon gave Edwards to allegedly cover up an illicit affair and illegitimate child."

UPDATE: "The jury in the federal campaign finance case against former Senator John Edwards said Thursday that it had found him not guilty on one of the six counts against him, and the judge declared a mistrial on the others."

ADDED: Let's try to figure out what happened. Here's a list of the 6 counts. Count 3 accused Edwards of receiving illegal campaign contributions from Mellon in 2008. Now, Count 2 is the same thing, except in 2007. So what they agreed on was that the prosecution hadn't proved what was required with respect to 2008. Count 5 was about contributions from Fred Baron in 2008. Count 1 was conspiracy to do the things in the other counts, and Count 6 was false statements. It seems that there's plenty there for a retrial.

One of the alternate jurors "has been spotted smiling at Edwards and flipping her hair..."

"... in what seems to some to be a flirtatious manner. On Friday, she wore a revealing red top with a single strap and an exposed right shoulder."

Sounds like the reporters waiting for the jury verdict don't have enough to do.

"Campaign finance laws are designed to bring the two Americas together at election time... John Edwards forgot his own rhetoric."

Said the prosecutor to the jury.

"This is a case that should define the difference between a wrong and a crime... between a sin and a felony... John Edwards has confessed his sins. He will serve a life sentence for those. But he has pleaded not guilty to violating the law." — Said the defense attorney.

Which side has the better argument?
	The prosecutor, but not better enough to put the man in prison.
	The prosecutor, and Edwards deserves the punishment the law provides.
	The defense attorney. His client is scum, but scum's not a crime.
pollcode.com free polls

"John Edwards' defense team rests case in his corruption trial without calling him to the stand."

So the honey-tongued politician chooses not to speak for himself. Wisely, I'm sure.

The quote is from a CNN "breaking news" email.

"Being a person who's committed to truth and living a life where you're not hiding..."

"... it's almost like a cosmic joke to fall in love with someone who's living a big lie."

And it actually is a cosmic joke when you are the lie.

John Edwards wanted Obama to nominate him to the Supreme Court.

Said Leo Hindrey, Edwards’ economic policy adviser, testifying that after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, Edwards ready to give up, wanted Hindery to "to reach out to the Obama campaign and make clear his availability on the ticket" and "We talked about a more elaborate goal of Mr. Edwards, which was to be a Supreme Court justice."

"Mrs Edwards had screamed: 'You don't see me any more.'"

"Then she took off her shirt and bra, exposing herself to her husband in front of his staff, the court heard. 'He didn't have much of a reaction."

What's the best position for a 2012 candidate to take on the Arizona approach to immigration enforcement?

The Obama administration fought this law, in what culminated in an embarrassing performance at the Supreme Court this week. And Chuck Schumer's saying that if the Supreme Court upholds Arizona's law, the Democrats in Congress will rise up and kill it. But polls show that a big majority of Americans — and about half of Hispanic-Americans — support what Arizona has done — even after extensive efforts by the Democrats+MSM to make us all feel as though only terrible, racist people think Arizona's okay.

And I just want to remind you of something that you may have forgotten: the reason Barack Obama was able to overtake Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. What was the issue that tripped her up and gave Obama the opening to look like the sensible, moderate person?

But it was a question about driver's licenses for “undocumented workers'' – the politically neutral terminology for “illegal aliens'' which she prefers – that created the most trouble for Clinton during last night's two-hour debate of the Democrats staged in Philadelphia....

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, NBC moderator Tim Russert reminded Clinton. “You told the Nashua, N.H., editorial board it makes a lot of sense,'' he said. “Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license? ''

“ Well, what Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,'' she said. “We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers.

We know all about Spitzer trying to "fill the vacuum," but let's not digress into the subject of prostitution in this post.

“They are driving on our roads,'' she said. “The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

Ahem. I'm trying not to get distracted!

“I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap,'' Clinton continued. “There needs to be federal action on immigration reform. ''

“Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?'' Russert asked the other six Democrats assembled on stage.

Damn! I miss Tim Russert! Here's video. I love the point — at 2:53 — when she complains that "everybody" — i.e. Tim — is playing "gotcha." Because he got her. And that's the moment when she loses.

After that point, it looks as though they are moving on to the next topic: protecting children — children! — from — horrors! — the Internet. We got a laugh watching the now-disgraced John Edwards scramble to: Children? Protect children? I would. But he shifts back to the immigration topic, not to take an actual position himself, but to attack Hillary for taking more than one position, and after all the years of "double-talk from Bush and from Cheney...  America deserves us to be straight.'' (Yeah, be straight, John. Tell it to the jury.)

And then Barack Obama gets his chance. At 4:10, the moderator (Brian Williams) calls on him: "Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?"

“Well, I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer,'' Obama said. “I can't tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important.

“You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face,'' Obama said. “Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country, and that's what I intend to do as president.''

That's obviously total mush, but he sounds calm saying it. He's pushed to take a position and — caught — he says that Spitzer has "the right idea... because there is a public safety concern":

"We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer. That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.''

So he agrees with Hillary's first position.  I had forgotten that. I can't remember how this issue played out and why it hurt Hillary so much and helped Obama. Maybe it was simply that she lost her cool and sounded dishonest, and he lucked into an opportunity to seem solid and competent.

"Nobody cares about what’s happening to John Edwards anymore — he’s old news."

"He’s not relevant to the Democrats in Washington or state capitals. And attacking John Edwards for the Republicans would be like attacking George McGovern."

So says Donnie Fowler, who was a senior adviser to President Obama, so maybe it's time — Romneyites — to care about what’s happening to John Edwards.

Lawyers for the federal government [will attempt to prove] that nearly a million dollars that two wealthy donors gave to Mr. Edwards constitute illegal campaign contributions and were not, as he has claimed, aid from friends trying to help him hide an affair from his wife.

If he is convicted on all six counts, Mr. Edwards, 58, faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

Nobody cares.

It is not clear whether Mr. Edwards will testify or to what extent he will participate in his defense. Mr. Edwards was once considered such a skilled trial lawyer that others in the profession would rush to catch his closing arguments.

And now, nobody cares.

“It’s very hard to look at this in a vacuum,” said Marcellus A. McRae, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice. “Because of all these other optics about John Edwards, the jury may be moved to return a verdict that is a general no-confidence vote against him, as opposed to a narrow, legal-focused interpretation of what the law is.”

Aw, but if nobody cares, why not go ahead and just decide based on the law? Maybe Edwards is better off if nobody cares.

One potential fallout may be damage to the reputation of Elizabeth Edwards....

People familiar with the government’s case say testimony could reveal that she was aware of the affair earlier than many believed and that she helped develop strategies for keeping it hidden from the public so her husband’s presidential campaign could continue.

“This will be problematic for her legacy,” said someone who worked closely with Mr. Edwards during the campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person is on the government’s witness list.

Meanwhile, Edwards still lives "in a sprawling house on about 100 acres with two of his children, Emma Claire, 13, and Jack, 11." Their mother is dead. Their dad faces 30 years in prison for letting friends help him hide his adulterous affair from the public.

Nobody cares.

"If being a louse were a crime, John Edwards would hang for it."

"But he is instead facing prison for alleged campaign-finance violations, and it is our obligation to come unenthusiastically to his defense. He may be guilty of bribery, and if he were a sitting senator he would likely be guilty of gross ethics violations, but the facts do not support prosecuting Edwards under campaign-finance laws."

Say the editors of The National Review.