Anti-feminists defend John Edwards, sex machine and role model

Recent John Edwards photo from the Los Angeles Times.





Hey you scandal-mongering folks out there... who among you is currently following the entertaining John Edwards follies?

Here and here are some fairly decent summations of the corruption trial so far. But I have to say, the hands-down BEST commentary came from a proud Men's Rights Marine over at the GendErratic blog, named Dungone -- who explains to us dumb wimmenz that John Edwards is NOT being publicly tried for funneling campaign funds to his mistress and their child (a violation of campaign-finance laws), but instead is being PUNISHED for having a $400 haircut and ROBUST MALE SEXUALITY!!!

Yes, its the feminists again, who made poor John Edwards take Rielle Hunter as his mistress, and in turn made Rielle refrain from birth control and get knocked up. OUR. FAULT.

Got that, bitches?

I can't do any better than to quote some of our exchange, verbatim. Just in case you think I am some crazy feminist exaggerating what this man has said, let me first link the whole thread HERE. And these are his exact quotes.

Dungone:

[Unlike] women, men are actually mocked for caring about their appearance, such as John Edward for his $400 haircut. [links to Wonkette photo of Edwards] If we were sane, we would acknowledge that a good haircut is a common sense investment for anyone who has to appear in front of a national TV audience on a daily basis – but we are not sane because we cannot even acknowledge that man even have an appearance. The fact that it’s even a political snowball in the first place is ridiculous – regular housewives spend as much money as some male celebrities on their physical appearance and no one thinks it’s a big deal. But men are in a double bind – they have to look good but it has to be a bigger secret than Victoria’s Secret or else they’re screwed.

Me:

Dungone, as someone here in Edwards’ neck of the woods, let me clarify… it was all that down-home populism and I-love-the-poor-folks bullshit of his and THEN the $400 haircut –that brought the scorn. There was a context for that… now when the story went national, maybe they just talked about the haircut… but around HERE, it was in the context of his “fightin for the po folks” reputation and alla that.

Dungone:

Please, don’t give me that. It’s straight up bullshit. All the feminists endorsed Hillary Clinton since she supposedly fought for oppressed women. But how much does she pay for a hair cut? Why was that never an issue? Every woman who runs for public office probably spends way more on haircuts than any man, so I guess if expensive haircuts would make a man into a hypocrite then we shouldn’t even consider voting for a woman.

Of course, regular readers know that I did not back Hillary, so already, he is incorrect about "all the feminists"--and our election-year marching orders.

Dungone knowingly continues:

Don’t you think that $400 is reasonable for a haircut when your election campaign which is costing your backers millions of dollars could easily go down the tube over a bad haircut? Opportunists jump on any deviation from masculine perfection in political campaigns. And people, especially women, will in fact vote for the more handsome male candidate. We haven’t had a bald president since hats went out of fashion and women got the vote. Instead, we’ve had presidents who fucked Marilyn Monroe. But I guess you feminists are going to call men hypocrites for getting a decent haircut while you vote to uphold Sarah Palin in the ranks of pro-women women.

Do you know what the biggest irony is? A $400 haircut is money that goes to support a laborer from the working class. And after that “scandal”, Edwards got a $13 haircut at Supercuts. So let’s be clear – under-paying an employee at a big corporate chain = pro labor. Paying good money for good work = hypocrite. Good call, Daisy. You love workers.

Me: [Yes, my Irish was officially up]

And how long did you live in the Carolinas during the 2008 election season? You are now informing me about what local people were talking about? Excuse me, but you do not live here and you do not have a motherfucking clue. My own HUSBAND voted for Edwards and said that, okay?

...

The biggest irony is that you are defending a man who used his ‘status’ as a poor lint-head to con OTHER poor lint-heads into giving him money, then used that money to pay off his mistress for silence. And you are defending this embezzling piece of shit as a decent man. This is why he is on trial TODAY for embezzling and I hope they lock his ass up for it. Yes, I do love the workers, and I don’t like when some shyster politician can’t keep it zipped and then uses the money of the workers that was collected in good faith, to pay off his fucking sex scandals. And yes, I see why you admire such a person. Of course you do.

Are you going to visit him in prison?

Dungone:

Edwards would have seriously helped the working class and I find it deplorable that working class people would call him a hypocrite basically for no other reason than his physical appearance and personality

Me:

Um, he is ON TRIAL RIGHT NOW for his appearance and personality? Are you tripping? Earth to Dungone.

Dungone: [FOR THE WIN!]

He’s on trial for being a male slut and a $400 haircut. He violated campaign rules, which was wrong, but it’s understandable given that men are judged so harshly and unfairly for their sex lives. There are people sitting fat and happy in their mansion who should be on trial for war crimes and you’re talking about daytime talk show crap, including some of the ones that your neck of the woods sent to public office. But god damn, he didn’t “keep it zipped” so it’s over for him any way you slice it. You’re part of the problem, given that you sound exactly like exactly the kind of person who hates it when a man has a sex life. Stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what he would do for the working class. Kennedy also had a sex life and he was one of our greatest and most beloved presidents. “Keep it zipped,” you say. What a sexist, bigoted thing to say.

Campaign finance rules are supposed to keep powerful millionaires from buying elections. They’re supposed to prevent politicians from covering up real crimes, conflicts of interest, and scandals that are actually relevant to the task of public office. But they do none of those things. They’re used to bring down men who tried to prevent having their sex lives dragged out in front of the public by their political enemies. You can be a truly evil son of a bitch who tortures people all over the world, fails to do a thing about 9/11… but if you get a blowjob or sent a text message, you get impeached. And here we have Daisy Deadhead crying a river over the way female politicians get judged for their looks.

Again, this is why you should not try to talk to Men's Rights Guys. DO. NOT. ENGAGE! This is a Marine, who in other contexts is quite proud of his war-making activities, talking about war crimes. (?) And the accompanying fact that much-lower-paid Andrew Young, Edwards' aide, will be taking the fall if Edwards is found innocent, does not seem to bother Dungone.

Obviously, per Orwell, some men are more equal than others.

Me:

So, let me clarify:

You think that if I gave money to a campaign for a man to run for president, and this politician gives it to his mistress to shut her up and support her in high style, that is “daytime talk show crap”?

Dumbfounded. See, I call that stealing. I know some of the people he stole from.

Amazing.

I hardly know what to say.

....

Do you understand that he was STEALING? Millions of dollars? And trying to pin it on one of his underlings? In all your identifying with Mr Sexpot, what about his employee Andrew Young? Is he just not important enough to identify with?

Ain’t he a man, too?

Dungone, again FOR THE WIN:

I believe that keeping one’s sex life out of the media is a valid use of campaign funds. I believe that our country has gone down the shit-hole because underhanded fundamentalist scumbags keep dragging people’s sex lives out into the open to humiliate them and ruin their careers. If we can’t protect people’s sex lives from public scrutiny then we will never be able to have, let’s say, a president in an open relationship, perhaps even a single president who is dating. You won’t have a gay or a lesbian president, either. Only the most bland, cookie-cutter, dust-web-ridden “family values” liars can survive in our culture’s political climate, and I believe that this is a huge detriment to us all. So I believe that it’s fair use of campaign funds to keep sex lives private.

And I will leave that unbelievable, amoral reply right there, for all to read again and behold for themselves.

Men's Rights Advocate assures us: A politician (in this case, a very RICH politician with a large number of POOR contributors) informing you that your hard-earned campaign contributions will be used for advertising or whatever, and instead using it to pay his mistresses' bills, is perfectly fine. Since nobody (of course!) can be expected to behave morally and honestly, then laws should be changed to allow candidates to use funds to pay off their girlfriends and tell you lies about where your money goes. To do otherwise is to be against MEN and SEX.

And you will notice, I never did get an answer from Dungone about duped fall-guy Andrew Young. Hey, Young is small potatoes, the important thing is that Rich Sexy Senator Who Can't Keep It Zipped can do as he pleases, at taxpayer expense. (PS: why is this "sexist" of me to say? Women do not have zippers now? Huh?)

As soon as I develop any sympathies for the MRAs, I am put in my place by one of them; usually banned from their blogs and/or given some sex-obsessed, thoroughly-entitled, good-old-boy insanity like this as a substitute for logic. Then I remember why I was a feminist in the first place.

So no, I don't believe Edwards should be able to take my friends' money and give it to his girlfriend to live in a pricey mansion, especially since he is a millionaire and can afford to pay her rent himself. Call me old-fashioned.

And yes, my feminism is intact.

I usually need something like this to remind me of how important it is.

John Edwards indicted by federal grand jury

This just in! Former North Carolina Senator (and 2004 Vice Presidential candidate) John Edwards has been indicted for cooking the campaign books to support one Ms Rielle Hunter (see Enquirer cover, left). Not simply another report of hanky-panky from a politician, this indictment claims funds were illegally diverted from Edwards' presidential campaign to financially support (and silence) Hunter, the mother of his child.

From CBS:

RALEIGH, N.C. — A federal grand jury has indicted two-time presidential candidate John Edwards over money spent to cover up his extramarital affair during the height of his 2008 campaign for the White House.

The case of USA v. Johnny Reid Edwards contains six counts, including conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements. The indictment was returned in the Middle District of North Carolina Friday.

An Edwards spokeswoman said she wasn't aware of the filing and declined immediate comment.

The indictment is the culmination of a federal investigation that lasted more than two years and scoured through virtually every corner of Edwards' political career.

Edwards' attorney Greg Craig met Friday with prosecutors in North Carolina, an indication that the former presidential candidate is likely to be charged, either in a grand jury indictment or in a negotiated charge to which he would plead guilty.

A person with knowledge of the investigation said Craig, a Washington lawyer who was President Barack Obama's first White House counsel, planned to be in his client's home state Friday, where prosecutors were prepared to file charges. The source insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the private negotiations.

Edwards has had North Carolina representation throughout the investigation, but Craig was brought onto the team earlier this year when the decision whether to charge him still rested with Justice Department officials in Washington.

Those officials have approved criminal charges; they decided that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that two Edwards donors gave to help keep his mistress, in hiding were contributions that should have been reported publicly by his campaign fund because they aided his bid for the Democratic White House nomination. Edwards' lawyers have argued that the funds were gifts from old friends intended to keep the affair a secret from his wife, Elizabeth, who died of cancer in December.

A plea to a felony charge involving campaign finances could strip Edwards of his law license and end any hope he could work as an attorney for the poor. And a trial would mean more sordid stories about his campaign affair and the child he fathered during it, further battering his reputation.

Even if he were to win the case, it appears the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee would do so by making a humiliating argument: that money used to keep his mistress and out-of-wedlock child in hiding was intended to shield the affair from his cancer-stricken wife — not to aid his candidacy, which is what prosecutors believe.

"Trial or not, John Edwards is the Charlie Sheen of American politics — great hair and no chance for rehabilitation," said Democratic consultant Jack Quinn.

Political sex scandals can either be just a career glitch (think Newt Gingrich, who recently announced a run for the presidency) or a career-ender (think Mark Foley, who recently declined a run for mayor of West Palm Beach, Fla.). Many Democrats believe Edwards falls into the latter category, as someone who faces little chance of revitalizing his image even if he emerges victorious from his legal case.

Edwards' attorneys have denounced the investigation as a waste of resources and contend he did not violate the law.

Edwards has said he hopes that once this case is behind him he can revive his legal career, specializing in helping the victims of poverty he championed on the campaign trail. However, a lawyer in North Carolina who pleads guilty or no contest to a criminal offense faces disciplinary action by the State Bar, ranging from a mild rebuke to a loss of license to practice.

The case against Edwards focused on the private money used to keep Edwards' mistress in hiding. Andrew Young, a former aide to Edwards, initially claimed paternity of mistress Rielle Hunter's child and traveled around the country keeping her in seclusion. Young has said he received hundreds of thousands of dollars of support from two wealthy Edwards donors.

Another dent in an Edwards' revival is moving ahead in civil court, where Young and Hunter are battling over a purported sex tape involving the former candidate. Edwards has been deposed as part of that lawsuit.

Gary Pearce, a Democratic strategist who helped get Edwards elected to the Senate, said he'd prefer to see Edwards take a plea deal and avoid a grueling trial that would rehash past sins.

"We've all had enough," said Pearce, who doesn't think Edwards will ever be able to return to politics.

I dunno about that... if Newt Gingrich can run for president as a moralist, anyone can.

Staying True by Jenny Sanford

South Carolina's First Lady's book is out today! If the weather was better, we'd probably have LINES snaking around the bookstores.

Everyone agrees that it promises to be loads of fun!

Excerpt from one early review from the Los Angeles Times:

"Staying True," [is] Jenny Sanford's memoir of a marriage that only can be described as the Contract With America meets Southern gothic.

Sanford's husband, Mark -- the governor of South Carolina -- was once a rising star in the national Republican firmament. Then, last June, he disappeared from office for nearly a week, ostensibly to go "hiking on the Appalachian Trail." As it turned out, he was in South America for a tryst with his Argentine mistress.

After that, things went from bad to worse, personally and politically. Gov. Sanford's long, incoherently confessional television interviews didn't do much to help matters, and this book, for all its more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone, clearly seems intended as the last nail in the coffin.

The former first lady, a one-time investment banker with Lazard Frères, is smart, focused and very angry. For all the pious references to forgiveness stitched throughout the narrative, revenge is a barely concealed subtext.

And revenge she gets, but there's a good bit of collateral damage in what's just as obviously unintended self-revelation. In fact, by the time we get to the affair late in the book, it's a bit of a relief, since this is about the first normative impulse either of the Sanfords seems to have had during their marriage.

Take, for example, the future governor's haggling over their wedding vows, because he was reluctant to promise to be faithful. Now, why do we think somebody might have that sort of reservation?

Sanford spends a great deal of time describing her heroic efforts to accommodate what she repeatedly calls her husband's "frugality." Frugality! If this guy is frugal, the unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge was thrifty.

Consider this anecdote: Never good about presents -- early in their marriage he gave her "half" a used bicycle -- and momentarily remorseful for all the time he was spending away from his family while serving in Washington as a congressman, he had an aide buy a diamond necklace and hide it in the family home.

On the morning of his wife's birthday, he faxed clues so she could have "a treasure hunt." She was overjoyed when she found the necklace and wore it to dinner when he returned home. "That is what I spent all that money on?" he said. "I hope you kept the box."

According to Sanford's account, "He returned the necklace the next day, thinking it was not worth the money he had spent. He could see I was disappointed. . . . In truth, once I knew he thought he had overspent, I also knew it would pain him to see me wear the necklace had I insisted on keeping it. I wouldn't have felt comfortable wearing it in his presence, so what was the point?"

The unintentional point, of course, has to do with the power of martyrdom. As Sanford informs us elsewhere in the book, "Women were made for sacrifice."

And boy does she sacrifice . . . over and over and over. What's never clear from her extended exercise in score-settling is why? The man she describes is driven, self-absorbed, pathologically cheap and 360-degrees weird. She runs his political campaigns, puts up with his habitual absences and bears him four sons.

She even believes him, she tells us here, when late in their marriage he explains an unexpected trip alone to New York by saying he needs respite from the extra stress he is feeling because the hair on the top of his head is thinning.

Gimme a break.

If you believe that, you'll also believe Sanford really was looking for family property records when she ransacked her husband's desk while he was away on one of many hunting trips and found the file with his love letters.

On the other hand, this guy's self-absorption appears so complete that he demanded his wife's permission to continue seeing his mistress because it was the first thing he'd ever done for himself. (This is the same man who voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment and called the former president "reprehensible.") It was then that Sanford realized "reconciliation" was impossible.

This is the Southern Lady personified; continuously behaving herself, greeting guests and praying to Jesus, all while the husband is carousing. And yeah, the acute martyrdom brought on by Advanced Southern Lady syndrome can be stultifyingly horrible... and smothering. For a man like Sanford, there is no escape, except to really escape, like to Argentina.

But this is the logical end-result of the Republican-approved family, in which the wife dutifully takes the husband's lead and obeys his orders. What other power does she have, except simpering and martyrdom and inducing the hubby's guilt to get what she wants? Us loud gals here in the south who dare to ask men questions, are the "bad" girls, against which women like Sanford are judged. WE demand answers of men, so in contrast, they do not. See? They are the nice girls.

And we see what being nice gets you, hm?

Speaking of which, I finally finished the utterly-fascinating book GAME CHANGE and was pretty shocked at the behavior of Senator (and former VP-candidate) John Edwards, whom I had once admired. And now, his campaign aide, Andrew Young, has written HIS tell-all memoir, titled The Politician.

For those unaware, Edwards impregnated world-class flake Rielle Hunter, a maker of mediocre videos who momentarily convinced Edwards he was the Second Coming, while Edwards' wife Elizabeth struggled with incurable cancer. After Hunter's pregnancy was confirmed, Edwards ordered Young to claim HE had fathered the baby. Do you believe?!?

From the LA Times review:

Got a chief aide? Don't abandon him for your mistress. That's the lesson of "The Politician" by Andrew Young. For all its salacious finger-pointing, Young's tell-all is really about a bromance gone bad.

"Where he once called several times a day, he now never dialed my number," he writes. "When I got through to him, he kept the calls brief and guarded what he said."

"He," of course, is John Edwards; when his affair with Rielle Hunter -- and Hunter's pregnancy -- hit the press, he persuaded Young to say the child was his. Then Young, his family and Hunter trundled off to a series of houses until the baby was born.

Young was an important player in Edwards' 2004 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he was a close friend. The Edwards and Young families were on vacation together at Disney World when Edwards learned that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry had picked him as his vice presidential running mate.

According to Young, Edwards and Hunter -- who produced webisodes for the campaign -- carried on their affair for months before a story appeared in the National Enquirer.

Young details the affair from behind the scenes: He carried a special phone for Edwards to use when talking to Hunter; he was there during a visit she made to North Carolina when Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, was away on a book tour; and he caroused with Edwards, Hunter and others on the road during a night of rowdy drinking.

In 2008, Edwards had given up his second attempt at the Democratic nomination but was angling again to be the running mate. Elizabeth Edwards' cancer had gotten worse and Hunter had a baby daughter. In one of the more incredible details here, Young claims Edwards asked him to steal a diaper so he could do a DNA test; Young never did.

But as he was packing up a house that Hunter had briefly shared with his family, he found a box of her things, among them "a number of videotapes, including one marked 'special,' which had the tape pulled out and seemed intentionally broken. . . . I couldn't resist. With scissors, a pen, and some scotch tape, I fixed the cassette. . . . As I pressed play, we saw an image of a man -- John Edwards -- and a naked pregnant woman, photographed from the navel down, engaged in a sexual encounter."

Young is critical of everyone around him but never takes responsibility for his decisions. Edwards' women get particularly harsh treatment. Hunter is portrayed as a sex-crazed loose cannon. Elizabeth Edwards fares no better; in Young's telling, she's a controlling, vindictive harpy who leaves cruel phone messages for those who incur her wrath.

Indeed, one unexpected result of GAME CHANGE is how both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards come out looking as ruthless as any male politicians. Most disturbing finding: Clinton was extremely eager to find the legendary videotape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey"--and exhorted her aides to find it so that she could use it against Barack Obama. (If it exists, no one successfully located it.) Like Elizabeth, Hillary also specializes in dumping all over her underlings. Sarah Palin actually comes off as more likable by contrast, if amazingly stupid and clueless, requiring several crash courses in world history.

~*~

One thing I like about the speed of our modern era: we used to have to wait YEARS to get these fabulous scandal-mongering books about presidential campaigns. Now, the campaign workers are racing to their laptops to type them out before the concession speeches have even been given...

John Edwards: fessing up at last?

Left: John Edwards, photo from C-Span's Campaign Network.


As sports fans may recall, I have Edwards voters RIGHT IN MY OWN HOUSEHOLD! I strategically voted for Ron Paul in the South Carolina GOP primary, to take votes away from the mainstream GOP candidates and to try to move the Republican party leftward (on the war issue, particularly). Mr Daisy voted for John Edwards.

And so, as usual, I got hooted at for my strategic voting... that is, until this scandal broke. Not a single yap of criticism since! Hahahaha.

The conventional wisdom is that Edwards nearly destroyed the Democratic party. At the very least, a bullet was truly dodged. It's a huge relief he was not crowned the party's choice, as many southern Democrats believed he would be. I wrote here about how Edwards went from Ashley Wilkes to Barney Fife, one southern archetype to another, overnight!

Currently, waiting for the press conference, in which he will finally fess up, 18 months AFTER THE FACT.

And how will his daughter process the information, years from now, when she learns her daddy did not claim her until forced to, by some damn BOOK?

Asshole!

Sources: Edwards to admit paternity of ex-mistress' child

Raleigh, N.C. — Sources have told WRAL News that they expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress' 18-month-old daughter.

Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, confessed last August to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who served as a videographer on Edwards' 2008 campaign. He has denied fathering her daughter, saying his relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.

The name of the girl's father isn't disclosed on her birth certificate.

Andrew Young, a long-time Edwards aide, initially claimed to be the father of Hunter's child, but he is reportedly writing a book in which he will claim Edwards is the father.

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.

What a sordid mess. I should have expected this from some lawyer-turned-Senator who got rich off poor people's misfortune, but I was busy thinking he looked good on TV and we therefore might be able to take back the White House. Who knew the country was ready for a black president?

Note: STILL NOT CONVINCED, particularly lately, that the country IS fully ready, but that's another blog post.

Does she get to keep the clothes?

Photo from Access Hollywood.


For a small town gal, married to the First Dude, all in touch with Mr Average Citizen/Joe Six-Pack, it seems that Vice Presidential candidate and moose-hunting governor Sarah Palin is LIVIN LARGE:


RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion

By JEANNE CUMMINGS, Politico.com
October 21, 2008

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.

The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.

Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.

A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.

What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.

The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”

It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”

September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).

Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.

The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.

An additional $4,902.45 was spent at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.

Obviously, she is deeply in touch with the working classes, as is the Republican party!

----------------
Listening to: Bruce Springsteen - Radio Nowhere
via FoxyTunes

John Edwards: from Ashley to Barney

Left: John Edwards, photo from C-Span's Campaign Network.

~*~

I first wrote about the John Edwards extramarital affair and possible love-child back in December, when the National Enquirer initially broke the story.

What's interesting is that I got two rather snotty emails at the time, haughtily informing me that this is a non-issue and I should be ashamed of myself for covering it.* And now, this non-issue is all over CNN and the other news networks. The story has gone respectable, now deemed ready for prime time. Why was it a trashy story back when the National Enquirer first covered it, but it isn't now? Didn't they pursue the story and thus MAKE it an issue?

When is a story about a candidate's personal life important and/or necessary? Who decides what news is news, and when?

I find these questions confusing, but what I don't find confusing is the behavior of Senator Edwards when discovered in flagrante by National Enquirer reporters. FOX NEWS was virtually beside itself with glee, reporting on the incident on July 25th:

A Beverly Hills hotel security guard told FOXNews.com he intervened this week between a man he identified as former Sen. John Edwards and tabloid reporters who chased down the former presidential hopeful after what they're calling a rendezvous with his mistress and love child.

The Beverly Hilton Hotel guard said he encountered a shaken and ashen-faced Edwards — whom he did not immediately recognize — in a hotel men's room early Tuesday morning in a literal tug-of-war with reporters on the other side of the door.

"What are they saying about me?" the guard said Edwards asked.

"His face just went totally white," the guard said, when Edwards was told the reporters were shouting out questions about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a woman the National Enquirer says is the mother of his child.

The guard said he escorted Edwards, who was not a registered guest at the hotel, out of the building after 2 a.m. Edwards did not say anything while he was escorted out, said the guard, adding that at times the reporters on the scene were "rough on him," sticking a camera in his face and shouting questions.

The guard did not recognize Edwards at the time of the incident, but said he concluded it was the 2008 presidential hopeful after hearing reports about the incident and finding an Enquirer reporter's notebook at the scene.

The guard said during the chase the reporters had dropped the notebook, which he picked up. "This book has everything in it on him," he said, referring to Edwards. The guard later confirmed Edwards' identity after being shown a photograph.

A former campaign staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told FOXNews.com he wishes he were "more surprised" to hear reports Edwards was visiting [Rielle] Hunter. "I'm definitely upset by it. I wish I was more surprised, though."

Edwards has gone from dashing, would-be Vice President Ashley Wilkes, to... Barney Fife, eyes bugging out like a Tex Avery cartoon (BOIIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!), sprinting down a hotel hallway in a panic and barricading himself in a public toilet. From one unforgettable southern archetype to another!

In case you haven't heard the whole story, it just gets worse:

Enquirer Editor-in-Chief David Perel told FOXNews.com his reporters caught Edwards visiting [Rielle] Hunter and her baby at the hotel earlier Monday evening. Perel said Hunter and Edwards have been occasionally getting together so Edwards can see the baby. Hunter came to Beverly Hills with a male friend, Bob McGovern, said Perel. Hunter and her companion reportedly booked two rooms under McGovern's name, and McGovern picked up Edwards to bring him back to the hotel.

Perel said Enquirer staff had been given information about the planned Edwards-Hunter meeting, and the tabloid sent reporters to the hotel in anticipation of Edwards' arrival. According to the Enquirer, Edwards was first spotted being dropped off at the hotel at 9:45 p.m. PT, about 25 minutes after reporters watched McGovern leave the building in his BMW.

Edwards went to Hunter's room and the two left the hotel together and returned 45 minutes later, Perel said. Edwards reportedly entered her room and stayed there until after 2:30 a.m. PT.

FOXNews.com could not independently confirm the Enquirer's allegations. Perel also declined to identify where the Enquirer received the information about Edwards' alleged visits.

Perel told FOXNews.com that after leaving Hunter's room, Edwards took an elevator to the basement, where he was confronted by two Enquirer reporters. He ran into the bathroom, where he remained until the security guard arrived.

The Enquirer says it has videotape showing Hunter entering the room where she met Edwards, and shows Edwards leaving the same room. However, the Enquirer has thus far declined repeated requests by FOXNews.com to release any photographs or videotape evidence of the incident.

He's finally admitted the affair, but still denies being the father of Rielle Hunter's baby. We'll see how far he gets with that one.

Meanwhile, not sure what I think about the whole fiasco, as a moral/political issue. I'm not sure it should be one.

*I think when my correspondents self-righteously announced that this is a "non-issue"--they were making an ethical judgment of how things SHOULD be. Not how they really are.

Well done, good and faithful servant

Left: John Edwards, photo from C-Span's Campaign Network.


Goodbye, good friend! We'll be seeing you around. As we say here in the south, don't be a stranger.

We love you and Elizabeth. Kisses and hugs; go with God.

~*~

Edwards to Quit Presidential Race

By NEDRA PICKLER – January 30, 2008

DENVER (AP) — Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate told his staff that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"He just said it was time to get out," said Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, Edwards' rural affairs adviser. "I still don't like walking away, but it was John's decision."

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

"John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it — by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate," Clinton said.

Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday and asked for his endorsement. Obama aides said Edwards called again Wednesday morning to confirm the news he was dropping out.

In a statement from his campaign, Obama said Edwards "spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."

"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," the statement said.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected, most of whom will be free to support either Obama or Clinton, though some will probably look for guidance from Edwards.

Edwards' advisers said officially he would "suspend" his candidacy, but that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations.

An immediate impact of Edwards' withdrawal will be six additional delegates for Obama, giving him a total of 187, and four more for Clinton, giving her 253. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Edwards won 26 delegates in the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina contests. Under party rules, 10 of those delegates will be automatically dispersed among Obama and Clinton, based on their vote totals in those respective contests. The remaining 16 remain pledged to Edwards, meaning his campaign will have a say in naming them.

Three superdelegates — mainly party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose — had already switched from Edwards to Obama before news of Edwards' withdrawal from the race.

Kate Michelman, an adviser to the campaign and former president of NARAL-Pro Choice America, said she spoke to Edwards Wednesday morning and was disappointed to hear he planned to leave the race.

"He felt that this was the moment to take this step, given the reality of this campaign. This campaign has been about two celebrity candidates — excellent and qualified candidates — but celebrity candidates," Michelman said.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, his campaign said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas — he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reined in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates — and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.

Associated Press Writer Mike Baker in North Carolina contributed to this report.

~*~



NOTE: The last video was posted by Peace Takes Courage, not the Edwards campaign.

Declaring for Obama

No more strategic voting for me, and as I write this, John Edwards has just dropped out of the presidential race, so today I declare for Barack Obama.

I was pretty disturbed by Hillary Clinton's behavior here on Saturday. After losing the South Carolina primary, she hightailed it out of the state:

Clinton Flies as Race Goes to Obama

Updated 7:50 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut

COLUMBIA -- As the race was called, Sen. Hillary Clinton sped to the airport, arriving at 7:15 p.m. She waved wordlessly to ground crew workers on the tarmac as she walked solo up the stairs to the plane, carrying a black handbag. In addition to her aides, her daughter, Chelsea, joined her on board.

By 7:37 pm, Clinton was in the air headed toward Nashville.

Bill Clinton then appeared behind a podium, I think in Myrtle Beach, and started babbling, as Hillary was in the air. I was watching MSNBC, who gave him respectful and uninterrupted attention. I believed, at first, he was actually GIVING Hillary's concession speech. So did several other local people... wait, we thought, what's HE doing? This is Hillary's contest, so what the frack is Bill doing, authoritatively taking the stage and talking about what went right or wrong since the Republicans took over? Are they the glimmer twins again? Who is running for president, anyway, Bill or Hillary? Politico.com writes:

Washington’s liberal establishment — members of Congress, fundraisers and commentators — has coalesced around the view that Bill Clinton is soiling his legacy and wounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects as he rambles around the country in a peevish, piece-of-my-mind monologue ostensibly devoted to helping her win the Democratic nomination.

And that is exactly what kind of monologue it was. Self-indulgent, self-centered, and score-settling. It had little, if anything, to do with Hillary's campaign; it was all about Bill.

Isn't everything about Bill?

Can she control him? Because it certainly didn't look like it. Are they running as a TEAM? Because while I am riveted by the opportunity to vote for a woman, I am far less riveted by the specter of Don't Cry for Me Argentina, which has always been lurking in the shadows. This is, after all, an ex-president's WIFE. This is a woman whom we called First Lady. She was not an elected politician until relatively recently. Up to now, I could make my peace with that, since I realize all women in male-supremacist societies do whatever we need to do to take the reigns of power. But that means: take the reigns. Do not waffle. Do not cower. Do not allow the hubby to monologue while you are in the air, giving the impression that he is doing the heavy lifting. Do not use him as a pit bull to attack the black candidate; learn to attack him yourself. If you can't, you don't belong in politics.

I am not voting for a team. I am voting for one person, whom I hope is a grown-up and does not need sugar-daddy to rescue her whenever she finds herself in a tight spot. She needs to be able to put on her big-girl panties and deal with whatever comes her way. As president, things will get plenty hairy on a regular basis--does she intend to call in Bill every time the shit hits the fan?

Is he going to be the president, or will she be the president? Is this run-for-the-White-House actually all about a covert way for Bill to get back in, via the back door?

I am accusing the Clintons of being disingenuous. I am accusing Hillary of not being able to keep the dog on the porch. In which case, I would say, she is not ready to run the country.

And further, the attacks on Barack Obama by Bill Clinton, pissed me off:

During his presidency, Clinton was buoyed by the overwhelming support of African-Americans, who were indignant at what was being done to someone they regarded as a friend. Now, their support is going overwhelmingly to someone Clinton is trying to beat, and many blacks are indignant at Clinton himself.

Who can say what Clinton’s effect on the campaign trail really is? However much journalistic critics and Obama supporters cringed at Bill Clinton’s performances, they seemed to help Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and Nevada.

But those experiences seemed to unleash something more antic and unruly in Clinton’s attacks on Obama and the media, making the Clinton campaign even more about him and less about her. The effect was a bit like a dieter who reads on the Internet that doughnuts are actually good for you.

But the gluttony strategy backfired in the South Carolina primary, and it backfired again in the Kennedy endorsement primary.

In his own career, Clinton’s errors have always been followed by recovery, self-indulgence by self-correction. The next several weeks will determine whether he can follow the same pattern on behalf of his spouse.

Too late for me, sorry. The presidency is not a dress rehearsal. Hillary has proven, to me at least, that she is not ready for prime time.

In this video-clip, Bill goes on for three solid minutes, in an example of what I am talking about. Here is the now-infamous "Shame on you!" footage, as shown originally on CNN and repeatedly shown here throughout the Democratic primary battle in South Carolina:



No thanks.

Go Obama. I put the bumper sticker on my car, and it's official.

Democratic primary eve roundup

Left: Senator Barack Obama at Furman University, Tuesday. Photo from Greenville News.

~*~

What upsets everyone locally is that candidates fight like hell for our votes during the primaries, then ignore us during the general election, when we are written off as a red state. I remember being in Ohio around Halloween, 2004, and I was shocked to get leafleted three times in one day; it was kinda nice to be in an important battleground state near the end of the game.

Then again, if Obama is the nominee, the large black population of South Carolina might up the ante. Would we become a blue state? COULD IT HAPPEN?

It's certainly fun to contemplate.

~*~

As everyone knows, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are at each others' throats, or at least it feels that way. I hate to see Democrats tear each other up during the primary, knowing their words will later be quoted by the Republican nominee.

Nonetheless, Politico's John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei suggest that Obama needs to get rougher:

Imagine if at the next presidential debate Barack Obama — who is agitated about what he calls Bill Clinton’s misleading criticisms — cocked his head, smiled ruefully and, in Reaganesque “there you go again” tones, said something like this to Hillary Clinton: “You know, I admired some aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But let’s recall that it was precisely these sort of too-cute-by-half statements that caused him to be reprimanded by a federal judge and stripped of his law license. Senator, you may want to go back to those days and that style of politics, but I think most Americans are ready to move on.”

Had you forgotten that Bill Clinton voluntarily agreed in the closing hours of his presidency to be disbarred and pay a sizable fine in the fallout from the Monica Lewinsky scandal?

No doubt most Democrats have forgotten — which is testament to both Clintons’ indefatigable talent for framing political debates on their terms, rather than those of their opponents.

Obama’s strategists would probably say that engaging a popular former president in such a direct manner might backfire. But recent days would suggest that Obama’s alternative is also backfiring.

He has wandered into a tactical battle — over who is behind what radio ads or robocalls, or over the correct interpretation of stray quotes — with the best tactical politicians in the business. The Clintons have assembled a team that has thought through plausible defenses to virtually every vulnerability. They turned the practice of fast and forceful response into an art form.

Obama seems reluctant to argue with Hillary or Bill. Obviously, he wants to be seen as 'above' that kind of rancorous politics-as-usual. This is all about his time for a change rhetoric. As Harris and VandeHei argue:

[Obama's] vague, spacious rhetoric hardly indicates he has a coherent critique of the Clinton administration or clear ideas about his own alternative. Here is an area where his appeals to a new style of politics could stand more substance.

Is it just rhetoric, or does he really intend to stay above the fray and remain positive?

Obama, however, has flinched from making his Reagan argument in the way that would be required to convince Democrats — by actually making a case about what the Clintons did and did not do the last time they held executive power.

Hillary Clinton has been the beneficiary of Obama’s failure to engage. She has turned the health care reform debacle of the 1990s into an advantage by talking vaguely about how she “wears the scars” of that effort and has returned older but wiser.

But she has never been pressed on the details of that effort — how it was not simply Republicans and insurance companies but senior officials within the Clinton administration such as Lloyd Bentsen and Donna Shalala who recoiled at the process she ran.

Health care is not the only blemish on her decision-making record.

Obama has never insisted that she explain her record in an area in which she had virtually unchallenged authority — staffing the legal apparatus of the first-term Clinton administration.

Hillary Clinton’s decisions led to the appointment of Bernard Nussbaum as White House counsel (fired after a year), and former Rose Law Firm partner Webster Hubbell as a top Justice Department official (forced to resign and later sent to prison).

These colossal misjudgments about personnel should hardly be the sole basis for judging potential as an executive. But they are more relevant than subjects Obama has raised, such as her service in the 1980s on the board of directors of Wal-Mart.

What’s more, it is almost delinquent of Clinton’s Democratic opponents not to ventilate this history and make Clinton defend it before she faces a general election.

As she taunted Obama the other day, “The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything.”

For now, however, it is the Clintons who are on offense and Obama who seems flummoxed in a way that Newt Gingrich would have found familiar. Little wonder that Obama snapped at New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny when he asked, “Are you allowing President Clinton to get in your head?”

A politician who claims he is ready to lead the Democrats into the next decade won’t get there until he figures out how to navigate the most skilled politician of the last decade.

Until very recently, most primary-watchers agreed that Senator Barack Obama had it wrapped up. Now? Totally up for grabs, even the African-American vote. Tuesday, Obama campaigned at Furman University, where Mike Huckabee asked for votes only last week. It was one of the nastiest days of the season, in terms of weather, and he was still able to pack the house quite easily. Hillary left the state earlier in the week to campaign elsewhere, with Bill and Chelsea covering for her. (Obama, of course, has no such powerhouse to campaign for him while he tries to lay groundwork for future primaries.) Short videos here.

Race takes different tone in South Carolina primary
Black voters say issues matter more than skin color
Friday, January 25, 2008

By Ron Barnett
STAFF WRITER, Greenville News

A good measure of how far South Carolina has come in the role race plays in politics is that Barack Obama, while leading in the polls among blacks, is by no means the only choice of black voters, a political scientist who has studied the issue extensively says.

"African-Americans aren't voting as a bloc," said John Simpkins, a professor at the Charleston School of Law who is on sabbatical in New Zealand. "They're making up their minds on the candidates based on the issues and who they feel they align with on the issues."

For example, Greenville County Councilwoman Lottie Gibson, who is black, said she thinks Obama is "a bright young man" but she's endorsing Clinton.

"It ain't about race for me. It's about experience and where we are at this time in life," she said.

For this reason, I have to say, the primary is too close to call. If Hillary's legions of ladies come out to vote, as they did in New Hampshire, the polls (now showing Obama ahead) mean nothing.

Still, I'll go out on a limb and predict Obama wins by a nose.

Left: Hillary Clinton at Furman University's Younts Conference Center, yesterday. Photo from Greenville News

~*~


Candidates turn focus to economic issues
Democrats criticize Bush policies' effects on working Americans
Friday, January 25, 2008

By Dan Hoover
STAFF WRITER, Greenville News

The Clintons, Hillary and Bill, dropped the attack rhetoric Thursday as they campaigned furiously throughout South Carolina, while two new polls suggested she and John Edwards are tightening the race with Barack Obama.

After two weeks of increasingly bitter exchanges that culminated in Monday night's verbal bloodletting between Hillary Clinton and Obama in their nationally televised debate from Myrtle Beach, a truce of sorts settled in as the trio shifted the Democratic presidential primary dialogue back to domestic issues.

The Zogby and Clemson University Palmetto polls showed a lessening of Obama's lead and upward movement by Edwards. The Zogby poll indicated some erosion of Obama's black support.

At Furman University, Hillary Clinton told a packed meeting room of nearly 500 people that President Bush is partly to blame for the nation's economic troubles.

"The problem of our economy is not the American people," Clinton said. "Instead, the problem is in part the bankrupt ideals that have governed us over the last seven years. They have rewarded the very few at the expense of the many."

Campaigning along the coast, Obama hosted a roundtable discussion with military veterans in Beaufort that focused on his view of the need for a president with the judgment to keep America safe and the willingness to be held accountable for decisions.

"As a candidate, I know I am running to become commander-in-chief -- to safeguard our security, and to keep our sacred trust with those who serve," the Illinois senator said. "There is no responsibility I take more seriously."

Bill Clinton, who both gave to and got back from Obama, had become the hit man for his wife's campaign when it reached South Carolina where she trails Obama. On Thursday, he sounded a more conciliatory tone during a stop in Lexington.

A Clinton supporter asked that the campaign "stop taking the bait from Obama" and stick to the issues.

The former president called it "pretty good advice. It's probably good advice for me, too," he said.

He said Thursday that it's a lot harder to hear people criticize his wife than it ever was to be the target himself.

"When I was running, I didn't give a rip what anybody said about me. It's weird, you know, but if you love somebody and you think that they'd be good, it's harder."

Edwards, a Seneca native and former North Carolina senator, campaigned through his native Upstate, promoting his local roots and condemning the bipartisan economic stimulus package agreed to in Washington by Bush and congressional leaders of both parties.

It was 30 days too late and misdirected, he told a crowd of about 200 at The Beacon restaurant in Spartanburg.

Trailing in the polls, the wealthy trial lawyer has emphasized his working-class roots and us-vs.-them message with imagery of rapacious corporations, abetted by politicians, growing richer at the expense of everyday working folks.

"You can just guess, among the three of us (candidates), who's the person who first came out with a plan to strengthen the economy in the rural areas of America?" Edwards asked the crowd. "The only candidate who's from rural America."

Two polls released Thursday suggested a closer race and an improving picture for Edwards.

Clemson University's Palmetto Poll showed Obama at 27 percent, Clinton, 20 percent and Edwards, 17 percent. The poll, which had an undecided percentage of 36, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percentage points, putting Clinton and Edwards into a statistical dead heat.

A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll showed that although Edwards remains in third place in South Carolina, he has gained significantly, while Obama and Clinton have experienced slippage.

The Jan. 21-23 tracking poll showed Edwards at 19 percent, up four points from the Jan. 20-22 survey; Clinton at 24 percent, down one; and Obama at 39 percent, down four points. The poll of 811 likely primary voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

"Obama still has a healthy lead among African-American voters, but lost almost nine points since (Wednesday), dropping from 65 percent to 56 percent support among that group," pollster John Zogby wrote on his Web site.

"Edwards, who registered no support from black voters the day before, picked up five points and Clinton added about two points to reach 18 percent of black support."

Zogby said nearly one in five black voters -- 19 percent -- remained undecided, up a point.

In Columbia, some of Clinton's black legislative supporters said they remain hopeful she will win.

"We're getting signs that people are fluid," state Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Columbia, said at a luncheon for U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and former New York City Mayor David Dinkins. Both were in the state to shore up Clinton's support among blacks.

Jackson predicted that Obama would get more black votes than Clinton, "but I think we're going to hold our own."

In addition to her Furman appearance, Hillary Clinton held a town hall meeting in Anderson, while Bill Clinton made stops in Lexington, Orangeburg, Barnwell and Winnsboro.

Obama campaigned in the Lowcountry.

After visiting Spartanburg, Edwards went to Laurens, Greenwood and Anderson, wrapping up with a rally in Seneca.

Edwards has scheduled a "Young People's Town Hall" meeting at 12:30 p.m. today at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. He also is scheduled to be at Tommy's Ham House in Greenville at 9 a.m.

Clinton will hold a town hall meeting at historically black Benedict College in Columbia at 9 a.m. and will speak at 1:30 p.m. at The Freedom Center in downtown Rock Hill.

Bill Clinton will speak at a 10:15 a.m. event in Spartanburg at the Chapman Cultural Center, then campaign for his wife in Laurens, Beaufort and Charleston.

Obama is scheduled to be at the Clemson outdoor amphitheater at 4:30 p.m.

Clinton's campaign launched a new 60-second radio ad in which the former president describes his wife as a problem-solver with the vision to deal with the nation's economic problems.

"The question is what to do about it," he says. "You've got a great decision to make, but I believe it's Hillary who can help solve these problems. I also know that African Americans have been hit the hardest these last seven years. Who can fix health care, who can fix our economy, who can create new jobs, who can reduce the price of gas at the pump?

"Hillary can. I've known her for 36 years. When it comes to seeing a problem and figuring out how to solve it, she's the best I've ever seen. She's always heard your voice and you'll be heard in the White House."

Edwards campaign commercials focus on his roots here in South Carolina:



~*~

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich has thrown in the towel, for now. The big question for us cynics? Will his young, beautiful and British globe-trotting Elizabeth stick around, now that the excitement is dying down? Can someone who hangs with Shirley MacLaine, Tim Robbins and other movie stars be satisfied with.... Cleveland?

I think it would make a great reality show.

Cry me a River

Left: photo from New York Magazine.

I wasn't going to write anything about Hillary's so-called meltdown, including her now-legendary teary moment, until the New Hampshire primary was over. If the girlie-tears hurt her campaign, that would be a pretty predictable story.

But they didn't. They DIDN'T! I'm actually quite stunned.

On Politico.com, Mike Allen writes:

Senator Clinton on "Good Morning America," from Chappaqua, on whether the teary moment in Portsmouth made a difference with older women, who went for her 57 percent: "Well, I think it could well have been. Certainly people mentioned it to me."

"WHO'S CRYIN' NOW?" asks the New York Daily News. "Hillary slows Obama Express with stunning N.H. victory."

It would seem many Democratic votes were undecided until fairly late. The tears were definitely a factor, in that case:

AP on the exit poll: "The New York senator went from narrowly losing the women's vote in Iowa to Barack Obama to swamping him in New Hampshire among females, 46 percent to 34 percent. ... Independents were a strength for Obama, the young senator from Illinois, who won 41 percent of them in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But while Clinton attracted less than one in five of them in Iowa, she garnered nearly a third of independents in New Hampshire, eating into his advantage. ... People who chose their candidate in the final three days were also kinder to Clinton in New Hampshire, where she and Obama each got more than a third of their vote. In Iowa, the late-deciders had favored Obama by 33 percent to 22 percent."

What does it mean that shedding a few tears helped Hillary? Would similar tears help a male candidate? Is it because of her ice-queen persona?

Frankly, I found the tears rather calculated, although my co-workers thought she just looked tired and frazzled. A female caller on local talk-radio said that Hillary has always seemed guarded and finally appeared emotionally accessible, ending with the statement, "You just can't trust a woman who holds her emotions in. Hillary finally looked human!" Interesting that men are expected to hold THEIRS in, but a woman politician who does the same, is seen as calculating and guarded in a way that a man is not. I found the tears calculated, whereas it appears most people find her usual presentation calculated, and the tears genuine. (I just find her very wonky and somewhat boring.)

Pat Buchanan (who won the GOP New Hampshire primary in 1996), commenting on MSNBC, believes that the Iowa/New Hampshire early-primary rivalry also made a difference; people in New Hampshire will often vote contrary to Iowa voters, in an "Oh, yeah?!?" sorta way. Also, they habitually prefer underdogs, and Hillary shedding tears obviously tapped into that.

Domenico Montanaro at FIRST READ, writes:

Here’s the question that has to be on everyone’s minds: Did Clinton tearing up on Monday change the dynamics of the race? One thing is for sure -- women flocked to her in droves. The fact is, Clinton partisans had just as little clue about their actual chances as the rest of us. They are pointing to the choking up moment, as well to the ABC debate in which Edwards ganged up on her. We noted yesterday the anecdotal evidence from our mini-focus group of professional Democratic women, who were not happy with how quickly this race was ending. Well, apparently, these anecdotes were telling. Clinton pointedly noted in her victory speech that New Hampshire helped her "find her voice." The more emotionally open Clinton is probably the Clinton we'll see for the rest of this primary. Are we looking at a battle between Clinton and her army of women versus Obama and his army of independent crossover voting men?

Again, I repeat, I am stunned the tears helped. And it was women who made the difference. Is this a feminist moment? I'm not sure.

Discuss.

~*~

Real or calculated? You decide.

The Political Playoffs have begun!

Left: Is Mike Huckabee the next president?

~*~

Well, you gotta start somewhere. And so, we begin in Iowa, the center of the country. The political playoffs start TONIGHT!

The vote is so close on BOTH sides that campaigns are openly offering baby-sitting, transportation and sandwiches for whoever comes out and stands up (literally) for their candidates. (Wouldn't that kind of accommodation be great for the GENERAL ELECTIONS, too?) The Iowa caucuses are actual meetings in which people must publicly vote for their favorites, not quietly disappear into a voting booth. This raises the stakes, considerably.

As Obama said recently, Iowa's up-close-and-personal vetting process gives voters a chance to look under the hood and kick the tires, so to speak. The people in Iowa get the longest and most in-depth opportunity to inspect presidential wannabes. If they don't know them, none of us do. Politico.com reports:

In 1,781 precincts across the frigid face of Iowa, Republicans and Democrats start meeting in early evening — most caucuses start at 7 p.m. (8 p.m. EST) — to begin winnowing tightly bunched fields in both parties and start setting the contours of what is likely to be an unparalleled nomination sprint.

The candidates were up late — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee showed up on late night television — and rose early for one last day of stump speeches and rallies designed to bolster the faithful and woo the undecided.

"I feel good, but it depends on who comes out, who decides to actually put on their coats, warm up their cars and go to the caucuses," Clinton said in a taped appearance on CBS’s "The Early Show."

About 120,000 to 150,000 people were expected to come to the Democratic caucuses and 80,000 to 90,000 to the GOP meetings.

And as more than one pundit has recently commented, 80,000 votes is nothing in a place like Los Angeles or Manhattan. Yet, the people of Iowa are very savvy; they've been through it all before. For example, many will not "declare" at all, right up until the vote. They've seen candidates repeatedly blow it, like, the very day of the caucuses. Hidden scandals, clueless and/or stupid statements to the press, flared tempers, anything could tip the scales at this late hour. And they are watching.

The big news will be Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, possibly floating to victory on a fundamentalist Christian vibe and general evangelical adulation. Nothing seems likely to touch him right now. It's Wars of Religion on the right: Mormon Governor Mitt Romney vs. Baptist preacher Huckabee. Senator John McCain may throw a monkey wrench into the works, tapping some of the Republican Hawk vote.

On the left, the constantly-shifting polls show a near three-way tie, with Senator John Edwards mere percentage points behind Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Women have promised to come out for Hillary in droves, while the idealistic college kids are feverish for Obama. The working-class populists, traditional old-style Union Democrats, are solid behind Edwards.

Meanwhile, Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul, another wild card, may skim substantial libertarian, anti-war votes from both sides. And when it's this close, every single vote counts.

The playoffs! Can you FEEL the excitement!? Stay tuned, sports fans!

-------------------
Listening to: Passions - I'm in Love With a German Film Star
via FoxyTunes

NATIONAL ENQUIRER: JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL!

Oh dear God, no. This is the last thing anyone needs right now. But when I saw the hand-wringing, scandal-commentary posted over on Slate, I knew it was tabloid story of the month, courtesy of the National Enquirer:

Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught up in a love child scandal, a blockbuster ENQUIRER investigation has discovered.

The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Rielle Hunter, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier this year, is more than six months pregnant — and she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!

The ENQUIRER's political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle, who formerly worked on his campaign and told another close pal that she was romantically involved with the married ex-senator.

The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is expecting, but that she's gone into hiding with the help of a former aide to Edwards. The visibly pregnant blonde has relocated from the New York area to Chapel Hill, N.C., where she is living in an upscale gated community near political operative Andrew Young, who's been extremely close to Edwards for years and was a key official in his presidential campaign.

And in a bizarre twist, Young — a 41-year-old married man with young children — now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby! But others are skeptical, wondering if Young's paternity claim is a cover-up to protect Edwards.

Meanwhile, Edwards' cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth has joined him on the campaign trail.

In a statement issued to The ENQUIRER through her attorney, Rielle said: "The fact that I am expecting a child is my personal and private business. This has no relationship to nor does it involve John Edwards in any way. Andrew Young is the father of my unborn child."

But a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcée says Rielle has told a far different story privately: "Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant, she said he was the father."

Read the whole thing.

Also see: Spotlight turns to Edwards--no mention is made of the breaking scandal, but this gives you an idea of how close the Iowa race is.

----------------
Listening to: Death Cab for Cutie - This Temporary Life
via FoxyTunes

Iowa caucus debates: Adventures in Snoozeville

Left: Alan Keyes, from Race 4 2008.




Will someone tell me why Alan Keyes was allowed to participate in the Iowa caucus Republican debate, but Dennis Kucinich was not permitted to participate in the Democratic debate? Certainly, their numbers are about equal; Kucinich might even have a larger percentage than Keyes. True, they are both way out on the wings of their party, but so what?

Am I to understand that the Republicans are more inclusive than the Democrats?

Nope, according to The Campaign Spot at right-wing National Review Online, it's all the Des Moines Register's fault:


Des Moines Register Weeds Out Only the Democratic Fringe

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not participating in this week's Des Moines Register debate. The newspaper's standards for participation include at least 1% in its statewide poll and an office and paid staff in Iowa.

Kucinich's state office works out of his home. Yeah, that's why they're keeping Smeagol out.

Alan Keyes is participating. Alan Keyes has paid staff in Iowa? He has an office? He's past 1 percent?

There's no good reason for Keyes to participate, and I say that as a guy who likes Keyes. The only reason one would include Keyes at this point is because he's just about guaranteed to declare the rest of the field "inauthentic conservatives." (Perhaps he'll declare Vice President Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" as well.) The one percent standard is way too low. We've had nine Republican debates so far, and fifteen Democratic ones. If you haven't broken out past the margin of error by now, it's not gonna happen.

A debate time that already gives about one-eighth to Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo is now going to be split nine ways. This is a disservice to the other candidates who actually have a shot of getting more than an asterisk's worth in the caucuses.

In a year of lousy debates, this one is set up to be a train wreck on par with CNN's YouTube debate for the Republicans.

I'll say. It was terrible. Even worse, it was boring. I'll admit, Alan Keyes isn't boring, as Kucinich wouldn't be either. As usual, Ron Paul tried to liven up the proceedings, but when the other candidates started yammering, it lapsed back to somnambulism.

Alan Keyes would make a great Shakespearean actor, with his rhetorical flourishes and first-class command of language; indeed, it would seem talk radio was made for him. (And he has had several radio and TV shows.) Instead, for some inexplicable reason, he keeps running for president over and over. It is interesting to remember that he was a hired gun for the GOP, and moved to Illinois simply to run for the Senate in 2004 against Barack Obama, whom it was thought no one could beat. And alas, no one could.


Photo of Senator Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey (left) from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Democratic debate wasn't much better. The CNN-talking-heads consensus is that Senator Hillary Clinton is now trying to "humanize" herself with references to weight loss, Chelsea, her mother, "eating her way across Iowa," etc. Her poll numbers have dropped alarmingly in the face of Barack Obama's incursions, courtesy of Oprah Winfrey joining him on the campaign trail, and filling Williams-Brice stadium here in South Carolina. (The last person I can remember doing that was Pope John Paul II.)

For his part, Senator John Edwards sounded great and highly focused, as Hillary and Obama took veiled digs at each other. There is also a mild scandal trying mightily to develop: it appears Obama may have taken a toke as a teenager. OMG! (I doubt this story will go anywhere, but you never know about things like that.)

Who will take the Iowa caucus? Stay tuned, sports fans!

----------------
Listening to: Sleater-Kinney - Off With Your Head
via FoxyTunes