John Edwards Mug Shot

John Edwards and Tom DeLay have a little something in common.

They both smiled in their mug shots.

From the Washington Post:

John Edwards violated the first rule of mug shots.

Don’t smile. Don’t make any effort to look like something that was not just scraped from the bottom of life’s shoe.

You are not supposed to look good in a mug shot.

Anyone who thinks that you are supposed to smile in a mug shot is missing the whole point of the exercise. Mug shots showcase us at our lowest points, stripped of all the trappings that made us look like kings. They reveal what we in fact are: Flawed, Possibly Drunk Human Beings in Bad Lighting.

...If you achieve fame and glory, the standard arc of the celebrity narrative demands that at some point you will pose for a mug shot. It shows your understanding that in the grand scheme of things we are as flies to wanton boys: routinely killed, humiliated and caught selling meth in White Castle parking lots for the public’s sport.

Learn how to do it right: eyes forward, steely expression, dead eyes.

I don't know why Edwards smiled. Maybe it was a reflex.

Most people don't smile when it's time to pose for a mug shot.

View a gallery of examples.

In spite of the toothy smile, Edwards doesn't look happy. He has the "dead eyes" of a person at his lowest. I think the smile makes him look incredibly sleazy. Maybe that's my reaction because I know the truth behind the smile.

Tom DeLay also smiled for his mug shot.



It's goofy looking, but not creepy like the Edwards shot.

In an interview with TIME, DeLay explains why he smiled.

TIME: Your smiling mug shot—what made you think of that and what do you think the consequence of that has been?

DeLay: Oh, I don't know. I said a little prayer. First of all, you only get one take. It's a very humiliating thing, to be booked. And I said a little prayer before I actually did the fingerprint thing, and the picture. And my prayer was basically: "Let people see Christ through me. And let me smile." Now, when they took the shot, from my side, I thought it was fakiest smile I'd ever given. But through the camera, it was glowing. I mean, it had the right impact. Poor old left couldn't use it at all. They had all kind of things planned, they'd spent a lot of money. It made me feel kind of good that all those plans went down the toilet.

I've never had a mug shot taken.

If I ever found myself in that position, I can't imagine smiling.

John Edwards Indicted

DEMOCRAT John Edwards has been indicted.

From the New York Times:

John Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, was indicted Friday morning by a grand jury in Raleigh on charges that he conspired to cover up an extramarital affair while running for president in 2008 by “secretly obtaining,” misusing and misreporting certain campaign contributions in violation of federal law.

According to the indictment, Mr. Edwards, 57, knew that word of the affair and the child that it produced would destroy his campaign because, it said, “a centerpiece of Edwards’s candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man.”

Mr. Edwards plans to plead not guilty to the charges at his arraignment at 2:30 Friday in federal court in Winston-Salem, N.C., before Magistrate Judge Patrick Auld.

...The indictment says Mr. Edwards and his co-conspirators solicited $725,000 from Rachel Mellon, the now-century-old heiress to the Mellon banking fortune, and $200,000 from Fred Baron, Mr. Edwards’s campaign finance chairman. Both amounts, it says, were well in excess of the limit of $2,300 that an individual can give. According to the indictment, the money went to hide Rielle Hunter, Mr. Edwards’s mistress and the mother of his child, from the news media and to pay for her medical expenses, travel and accommodations. The grand jury, which has been investigating the case for two years, indicted Mr. Edwards on six counts — one involving conspiracy, four involving illegal payments, and one involving false statements. If he is found guilty, Mr. Edwards faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count. “Mr. Edwards is alleged to have accepted more than $900,000 in an effort to conceal from the public facts that he believed would harm his candidacy,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a statement. “As this indictment shows, we will not permit candidates for high office to abuse their special ability to access the coffers of their political supporters to circumvent our election laws.”

I suppose DEMOCRAT Anthony Weiner is hoping that the DEMOCRAT John Edwards scandal wipes his scandal off the front page.

I think the country is capable of managing two scandals at once.

John Edwards: Indictment

Although I disagree with John Edwards when it comes to politics, I defended him when the news first broke back in 2007, that he had cheated on his wife, Elizabeth.

I thought the National Enquirer's story was concocted tabloid trash. I didn't think Edwards would betray his wife.

I gave him way too much credit.

Now, after years of public denials and lies about his affair and his baby with Rielle Hunter, Edwards faces prosecution for criminal wrongdoing.

From WTVD-TV:

The United States Department of Justice in Washington has given the go ahead for John Edwards to be prosecuted in connection with a campaign finance investigation.

A source familiar with the case tells the I-Team Edwards now knows that federal prosecutors intend to indict him.

As we have been reporting, the former Senator has been the focus of a federal grand jury investigation in Raleigh for the past two-and-a-half years.

From Chopper11 HD Tuesday evening the Edwards mansion in Orange County appeared to be quiet.

The I-team has learned Edwards is deciding how to proceed now that the Justice Department has given the green light for him to face criminal charges.

...Edwards will have the option of entering a guilty plea and will be able to avoid a costly criminal trial with an uncertain outcome.

Video, from WTVD-TV:



Edwards, the Democrat nominee for vice president in 2004, has disappointed a lot of people.

He made some shockingly bad choices.

Thankfully, the nation was spared the indignity of having someone like him as vice president.

Also, I give credit to Obama for managing to shatter Edwards' presidential hopes in 2008.

A Not So Secret Rendezvous

SHHHHHHHH!

Barack Obama and John Edwards had a secret meeting yesterday.

CHICAGO -- Barack Obama sneaked down to North Carolina on Sunday and met with former opponent John Edwards, who has yet to make an endorsement in the Democratic presidential nomination race.

Reporters normally travel with Obama, but he flew down in secret.

A North Carolina TV station reported having video taken from a helicopter of Illinois Sen. Obama leaving Edwards' home.

The Obama campaign later confirmed the meeting.

"Sen. Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

He wouldn't comment on the possibility of an endorsement.

Obama just had to fly to North Carolina to discuss the "pressing issues facing American families" with John and Elizabeth Edwards. No one was supposed to know.

Yeah, right.

Change?

This looks like politics as usual to me.

What a waste of jet fuel!

Edwards is Out

And then there were two...

By dropping out of the race, John Edwards is setting up a Hillary Clinton - Barack Obama head-to-head showdown for Super Tuesday.

NEW ORLEANS -- Democrat John Edwards bowed out of the race for the White House on Wednesday, saying it was time to step aside "so that history can blaze its path" in a campaign now left to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"With our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November," said Edwards, ending his second campaign in a hurricane-ravaged section of New Orleans where he began it more than a year ago.

Edwards said Clinton and Obama had both pledged that "they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency."

"This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause," he said before a small group of supporters. He was joined by his wife Elizabeth and his three children, Cate, Emma Claire and Jack.

Edwards said that on his way to make his campaign-ending statement, he drove by a highway underpass where several homeless people live. He stopped to talk, he said, and as he was leaving, one of them asked him never to forget them and their plight.

"Well I say to her and I say to all those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you," he said, pledging to continue his campaign-long effort to end what he frequently said was "two Americas," one for the powerful, the other for the rest.

That sounds like something straight out of a rejected Hollywood screenplay.

On the way to announce his withdrawal from the race, Edwards talked to some homeless people by a highway underpass?

Hard to believe that wasn't orchestrated. Where are the photos of the encounter? Are we to accept that no member of the press was in tow to capture the event? Didn't an aide have a camera phone?

The former North Carolina senator did not immediately endorse either Clinton, seeking to become the first female president, or Obama, the strongest black candidate in history.

Nedra Pickler characterizes Obama as the "strongest black candidate in history."

I guess you could say she's half right, though Jesse Jackson probably feels dissed by the comment. I suspect that Al Sharpton is somewhat ticked off. He always is.

In any event, two are left standing out of the large Dem primary field, three if you count Bill.

Obama and Edwards Make a Deal?

Why is John Edwards still in the race?

After his dismal, downright embarrassing performance in his home state of South Carolina, you'd think he'd pack it in and spare himself any further humiliation.

It could be that there's method in his madness.

Robert Novak writes:

Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards would be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president, but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation’s top legal officer.

In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party’s proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still-unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.

This scenario would explain Edwards' self-flagellation.

Hillary and Obama,"Resco" and Dancing

UPDATE, February 21, 2008: Obama Discloses New Rezko Details
_________________

UPDATE, January 28, 2008: Bond for Tony Rezko revoked

A federal judge Monday revoked the bond of Antoin "Tony" Rezko at least until a court hearing tomorrow.

The action by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve came after Rezko was arrested at daybreak at his Wilmette home and prosecutors raised concern about a $3.5 million wire transfer to Rezko from Lebanon.

Some of the money went to certain property owners who had posted their homes to secure Rezko's release, a move that removed their financial risk if Rezko fled, prosecutors argued.

St. Eve said she was most disturbed to learn that Rezko had access to funds from overseas after she was told just the opposite last year.

"I feel that the financial picture that was presented to the court in January '07 is obviously far from an accurate financial picture," she said in court.

The judge suggested she would not have released Rezko, a Syrian native, if she had known he had access overseas to that kind of money.

_______________

The Democrats drew blood last night.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were hitting with closed fists during the debate, sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and CNN.

Most of the notable blows were exchanged between Hillary and Obama. Edwards spent a good deal of time drinking from his mug, trying to look busy.

Hillary was fighting like a professional. She used a relentless, rapid-fire technique. Obama seemed like he was having trouble maintaining his footing, and he was getting angrier and angrier at Hillary. Edwards seemed happy when he was able to get in a jab or two.

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. -- Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama accused each other of repeatedly and deliberately distorting the truth for political gain Monday night in a highly personal, finger-wagging debate that ranged from the war in Iraq to Bill Clinton's role in the campaign.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Obama seemed particularly irritated at the former president, whom he accused in absentia of uttering a series of distortions to aid his wife's presidential effort.

"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

It's interesting that AP writer Nedra Pickler chooses to omit the name Tony Rezko and opt for "your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Even funnier is CNN's transcript of the debate.

(Excerpt)

CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I'm proud of that.

But you also talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

OBAMA: I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, you can read the context of it.

OBAMA: Well, I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly...

OBAMA: All right, Wolf.

CLINTON: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas.

OBAMA: I agree.

CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: No, no, no.

BLITZER: Hold on one second. Hold on.

Senator Edwards -- Senator Edwards has been remarkably patient during this exchange. And I want him -- I don't know if you want to get involved in this, Senator Edwards.

EDWARDS: What I want to say first is, are there three people in this debate, not two?

Wouldn't you think that the transcriber would know that "Rezko" is the correct spelling?

What's "Resco"? Is that intentional? If it is, it's pretty lame.

In case the transcript is altered later, here's the screenshot:



The Washington Post is using the same transcript, including the misspelling. It's provided by CQ Transcripts Wire.



That's a major error -- RESCO.

REZKO. REZKO. REZKO.


Antoin "Tony" Rezko



Hillary, Tony Rezko, and Bill -- Well, I'll be darned!

This was a really weird exchange.

To be fair, it was in response to a weird question.

JOE JOHNS: Senator Obama, appreciating what you said about the media's preoccupation with race, there is...

OBAMA: Here we go.

JOHNS: Right. The Nobel Prize-winning African-American author, Toni Morrison, famously observed about Bill Clinton, "This is our first black president, blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Well, I think Bill Clinton did have an enormous affinity with the African-American community, and still does. And I think that's well earned.

Like John, one of the things that I'm always inspired by -- no, I'm -- this I'm serious about. I'm always inspired by young men and women who grew up in the South when segregation was still taking place, when, you know, the transformations that are still incomplete but at least had begun had not yet begun. And to see that transformations in their own lives I think that is powerful, and it is hopeful, because what it indicates is that people can change.

And each successive generation can, you know, create a different vision of how, you know, we have to treat each other. And I think Bill Clinton embodies that. I think he deserves credit for that.

Now, I haven't...

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I have to say that, you know, I would have to, you know, investigate more of Bill's dancing abilities.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: You know, and some of this other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was in fact a brother. But...

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Let's let Senator Clinton weigh in on that.

CLINTON: Well, I'm sure that can be arranged.

Of course, Obama was joking about making a judgment on Bill being "a brother." He's making fun of a stereotype.

However, do you think that a Republican, or a white Democrat for that matter, could have joked about black people being able to dance and white people being rhythmically-challenged?

Can you imagine if Hillary said that?

Al Sharpton would be demanding an apology. He might even call for her to drop out of the race. After all, it seems that he'd be happier if Bill Clinton would drop out of the race.

Rielle Hunter and the Politics of Personal Destruction

UPDATE, August 13, 2008: "SEX, MORE LIES & VIDEOTAPE"

The ENQUIRER has uncovered that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!

The ENQUIRER has also confirmed that Edwards secretly visited Rielle and their love child three separate times at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles this year - a fact that proves he is still lying to America and his wife.

...After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.

Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle.

Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds.

...In denying he fathered Rielle's baby, Edwards told ABC that he would "be happy" to take a paternity test to prove he's telling the truth. (He has refused numerous previous requests by The ENQUIRER to take a paternity test.)

Edwards claimed he ended the affair in 2006, but sources say he restarted the illicit romance after confessing to his wife.

Rielle soon became pregnant after the affair was rekindled, say sources.

___________________

UPDATE, August 8, 2008: Edwards admits affair.
___________________

UPDATE, July 25, 2008: FOX News reports that a hotel security guard confirms some of the National Enquirer's story.
___________________

Breitbart.tv has posted an "Intimate John Edwards Video Shot by Woman Caught-Up in Campaign Scandal."

That woman is Rielle Hunter, formerly known as Lisa Druck.

From the related link in the National Enquirer: "The woman linked to Presidential candidate John Edwards in a cheating scandal is more than six months pregnant and telling a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her unborn child, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively." This behind-the-scenes campaign video, the only one yet available, lists Rielle Hunter as the director.

I really don't know why Breitbart posted this video.

Hunter directed it. So what?

It doesn't prove anything as far as an intimate relationship between Hunter and Edwards goes.

Remember that a Clinton ally is closely connected to The Enquirer.

From Politico:

What the tabloid's readers, in politics and out, may not know is that a key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary.

The investment boutique which Altman founded and chairs, Evercore Partners, bought a controlling stake in American Media, which publishes the Enquirer, in 1999, which it still holds with a partner. Evercore's president, Austin Beutner, sits on American Media's Board of Directors, according to Evercore's website.

A spokesman for American Media, Richard Valvo, said in an email that Altman has "no involvement in editorial, ever." He said that Evercore owns 20 percent of the company through an investment fund. Altman didn't respond to an email seeking comment or to a message left with his secretary.

American Media has also published lurid and negative stories about the Clintons since its acquisition.

I don't think this proves that the Clintons are behind the Edwards story.

Yes, there's a connection. It's because the connection is so clear that it would be risky for Clinton to exploit it. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The sagging Hillary is certainly desperate.

The Nation weighs in on "Edwards and the Enquirer."

If the story is true, John Edwards is finished as a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The story is the National Enquirer top-of-the-page cover article -- which is set to go on sale at the checkout counters of the supermarkets and drug stores of Iowa, New Hampshire and the other 48 states Wednesday morning -- that claims the former senator from North Carolina is the father of a soon-to-be-born "love child."

...Edwards and the staffer are reportedly denying the story -- with the campaign issuing an absolute and unequivocal dismissal of its validity. The Enquirer counters with a claim that it has obtained confirmations from friends of the woman who say she shared the details of the affair and the pregnancy with them. Reporters for the weekly newspaper also claims to have seen emails that were purportedly sent by the woman regarding an affair.

The Enquirer and other tabloids, it should be remembered, broke stories of Bill Clinton's affairs in 1992. But Clinton had a reputation as a rogue. Edwards has always presented himself as a dedicated husband to Elizabeth, who is currently fighting cancer, and as the doting father of young children.

Under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Edwards campaign could survive a legitimate sex scandal.

It may not even be able to survive an illegitimate sex scandal.

Edwards has been surging in Iowa -- a new Insider Advantage poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers has him ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton and just one point behind Illinois Senator Barack Obama. But he cannot afford to lose the critical days leading up to the January 3 caucuses that will make or break his campaign responding to questions -- fair or not -- about whether he got a staffer pregnant.

I think it's far more likely that the alleged scandal is illegitimate.

That makes the whole thing even more troubling. If a candidate is going to implode, it shouldn't be because of a concocted story in a tabloid.

Unfortunately, the politics of personal destruction doesn't need facts to be effective. The mere suggestion of scandal is enough.

Obama was a cokehead.

Edwards has a love child.

And Hillary?

She's telling people to look in her mouth.

John Edwards' Love Child

UPDATE, August 13, 2008: "SEX, MORE LIES & VIDEOTAPE"

The ENQUIRER has uncovered that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!

The ENQUIRER has also confirmed that Edwards secretly visited Rielle and their love child three separate times at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles this year - a fact that proves he is still lying to America and his wife.

...After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.

Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle.

Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds.

...In denying he fathered Rielle's baby, Edwards told ABC that he would "be happy" to take a paternity test to prove he's telling the truth. (He has refused numerous previous requests by The ENQUIRER to take a paternity test.)

Edwards claimed he ended the affair in 2006, but sources say he restarted the illicit romance after confessing to his wife.

Rielle soon became pregnant after the affair was rekindled, say sources.

___________________

UPDATE, August 8, 2008: Edwards admits affair.
___________________

UPDATE, August 6, 2008: THE Photo

Actually, I'd like to see a photo of the ashen John Edwards hiding out in the bathroom of the Beverly Hilton Hotel.


___________________

UPDATE, July 25, 2008: FOX News reports that a hotel security guard confirms some of the National Enquirer's story.
___________________

UPDATE, July 22, 2008: "SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!"

Family Man Times Two?
____________________

Back in October, The National Enquirer ran a story on John Edwards' mistress.

I didn't buy it then. Although I think he'd make a terrible president, I defended John Edwards, the husband.

Now, there's another chapter in the alleged scandal.

Drudge is teasing with the next National Enquirer cover.



Edwards' mistress is pregnant and in hiding. Of course, she's not hiding very well, given the fact that THERE'S A PHOTO OF HER ON 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.

I think this "bombshell" is coming straight from Hillary's campaign.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Bill was dispatched to get this scandal in the oven.

I kid. I kid. But the scandal does have the Clinton style written all over it, and Hillary is really desperate right now.

The story could also be coming from Obama's campaign. When it comes to the politics of personal destruction, Obama can convincingly claim innocence because so many people know how dirty Hillary and the Clinton machine can be. More importantly, Obama has been a victim of the Clinton slime himself.

Seriously, I still don't buy the Enquirer story.

The timing of the "bombshell" is very suspect, catching people just before they zone out for the holidays but in time to get attention before the January 3 Iowa Caucus.

I'm going to need DNA proof or a teary-eyed Edwards begging for forgiveness on 60 Minutes before I'll believe it.

It's tabloid trash. It's dirty politics.

See what I mean about it having the Clinton fingerprints on it?

In Defense of John Edwards

UPDATE, January 31, 2010: Video.


_______________

UPDATE, January 21, 2010: John Edwards admits paternity, Elizabeth relieved

___________________

UPDATE, May 11, 2009: John Edwards and the Paternity Test
___________________

UPDATE, May 4, 2009: John Edwards, Federal Investigation
___________________

UPDATE, August 13, 2008: "SEX, MORE LIES & VIDEOTAPE"

The ENQUIRER has uncovered that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!

The ENQUIRER has also confirmed that Edwards secretly visited Rielle and their love child three separate times at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles this year - a fact that proves he is still lying to America and his wife.

...After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.

Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle.

Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds.

...In denying he fathered Rielle's baby, Edwards told ABC that he would "be happy" to take a paternity test to prove he's telling the truth. (He has refused numerous previous requests by The ENQUIRER to take a paternity test.)

Edwards claimed he ended the affair in 2006, but sources say he restarted the illicit romance after confessing to his wife.

Rielle soon became pregnant after the affair was rekindled, say sources.

___________________

UPDATE, August 8, 2008: Edwards admits affair.
___________________

UPDATE, August 6, 2008: THE Photo

Actually, I'd like to see a photo of the ashen John Edwards hiding out in the bathroom of the Beverly Hilton Hotel.


___________________

UPDATE, July 25, 2008: FOX News reports that a hotel security guard confirms some of the National Enquirer's story.
___________________

UPDATE, July 22, 2008: "SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!"

Family Man Times Two?
____________________

(Note: Original post, October 13, 2007, begins here.)

I would never vote for John Edwards.

I don't agree with his stand on the issues. I don't like the way he stretches the truth and panders. I really can't stand his call for Americans to sacrifice and conserve to save the planet while he's among the nation's mega-consumers, leaving an enormous carbon footprint trail. Politically, I can't stand the guy.

But I believe that he loves his wife.

The National Enquirer, however, reports that Edwards likes to spread his love around.

Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Sources have come forward to charge that the "other woman" previously worked on Edwards' campaign and followed the 54-year-old candidate on trips across the U.S.

A source close to the woman, whose name is being withheld by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, says that she confessed to having an affair in phone calls and emails, saying that her work with Edwards soon exploded into romance.

..."The affair started about 18 months ago," a friend says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately.

"She never expected it would turn sexual since John is married and is running for President. But it soon did — and she fell for him."

In one bombshell e-mail message provided to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, the woman confesses to a friend she's "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

In another e-mail, she writes: "Last night and this a.m., he actually has amazed me. He is a great man. My heart is loud and my head is silenced."

Disclosed her friend: "She initially confided in a few of her closest pals that she was sleeping with 'a married man named John.'

"It became clear the married man was John Edwards. They got together whenever they could, mostly at hotels where Edwards and his campaign staff stayed."

The woman later spelled it out in a phone call to her pal and talked openly about having an affair with Edwards.

Sometimes The Enquirer gets it right. That's undeniable.

This time I'm not buying it.

From the New York Daily News:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards Thursday vehemently denied a supermarket tabloid's story that he cheated on his wife.

"It's completely untrue, ridiculous," Edwards told reporters in Summerton, S.C., after being asked about a National Enquirer story that said he had an affair with a campaign staffer.

The Enquirer did not name the woman or the source of its information. But the Web site MyDD.com, a political "direct democracy" forum, posted a statement from Rielle Hunter, a woman who has made a series of short documentaries about the former North Carolina senator.

"The innuendoes and lies that have appeared on the Internet and in the National Enquirer concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous," Hunter stated. "When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional. This concocted story is just dirty politics, and I want no part of it."

..."I've been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years and, as anybody who's been around us knows, she's an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known," Edwards said. "So the story's just false."

I think this is just silly, concocted tabloid trash.

I don't for one minute believe that Edwards would cheat on his wife, especially given her health situation.

During their marriage, they've faced tragedies and challenges together. There's no way Edwards would do that to her.

I don't believe it.

Actually, I think this story will help Edwards rather than hurt him. I think it's likely to bring people to his defense instead of shoring up support for his political opponents, like smear-meister Hillary Clinton.

Tim Russert and John Edwards

John Edwards was Tim Russert's guest on Meet the Press this morning.

I didn't watch all of it, but I watched enough to see that Russert was not tossing softball questions at Edwards.

The way politicians and members of the media interact really has become odd.

Presidential politics in the 21st century is so strange. There's a lack of decorum.

RUSSERT: How did the Clintons screw us?

I don't know this as fact, but I would bet that during his decades on Meet the Press Lawrence Spivak never asked, "How did the ________ screw us?"

To be fair, Russert's question was based in a quote from David "Mudcat" Saunders, Edwards' campaign consultant.

From the Boston Globe:

Here's looking at you . . . or, at least, for you.

That's what John Edwards is doing as he takes his populist pitch to New Hampshire's North Country: embarking on a Bubba hunt.

To help, Edwards has rounded up Bob Jones, perhaps better known to TV viewers of a certain age as Cooter from "The Dukes of Hazzard," and the Bluegrass Brothers, who are cranking out some foot-tapping high harmonies.

If Cooter is leaning hard into his good ol' boy role, campaign consultant David "Mudcat"' Saunders is in full angry mode.

The official name of this campaign swing is "economic fairness for the North Country," but he and Cooter and the boys call it the " 'Let's help John Edwards screw those who screwed us tour,' " Mudcat says. Us being rural America.

And who would that be?

"Who screwed us?" he asks, voice rising in incredulity. "The Clintons screwed us." And, he adds, "Anybody that says different is delusional."

The Clintons did it with NAFTA, and the Bubbas know it, Mudcat says.

I know politics has always been rough and dirty, but now it's not behind the scenes ugly. It's right out there.

Another odd moment came when Russert spoke of Daily Kos.

In discussing John Edwards' decision to accept public funds, Russert cited the radical, far Left-wing website Daily Kos. According to Daily Kos, "this makes him a very dangerous candidate."

Russert talked as if the site has the same clout and meets the same journalistic standards as one of the country’s major publications, like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Come to think of it, I guess Daily Kos is on par with those media outlets.

Bottom Line: It was a weird interview.

Elizabeth Edwards to the Rescue

Once again, Elizabeth Edwards does the dirty work for her husband John.

This time she wasn't on the attack. She didn't call Hillary a man or anything like that.

This time she sort of, somewhat, kind of gave a gentle, little slap on the wrist to MoveOn.org for its "General Betray Us" ad, breaking the deafening silence from the Democrats.

Ben Smith has the quote:

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

It's Elizabeth to the rescue.

So, John's hands remain clean. He didn't have to say anything to irk MoveOn; but Elizabeth was able to say that Gen. Petraeus didn't deserve to be mocked by being called "General Betray Us."

That's not exactly a smackdown slap at MoveOn. She didn't say the content of the ad was inappropriate. She didn't comment on that at all. She just said the name-calling was wrong.

Elizabeth almost had to say what she did, given how she's railed against Ann Coulter for making personal attacks.

Remember back in June, the planned ambush when Elizabeth called in to Chris Matthews' low-rated MSNBC show to confront Coulter when she was appearing as a guest on a Hardball?

Transcript excerpts:

MATTHEWS: You know who is on the line? Somebody to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today. We said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You‘re on the line with Ann Coulter.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS, WIFE OF JOHN EDWARDS: Hello, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Do you want to say something directly to the person who is with me?

EDWARDS: I‘m calling—you know, in the South, we—when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it.

I would like to ask Ann Coulter to—if she wants to debate on issues, on positions, we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today. But—but it is quite another matter to—for these personal attacks.

That‘s—the things that she has said over the years, not just about John, but about other candidates, is—lowers our—our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.

So, I—I want to use the opportunity, which I don‘t get much, because Ann and I don‘t hang out with the same people—to ask...

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: ... have enough money.

EDWARDS: .... her politely to stop the personal attacks.

COULTER: OK. So, I made a joke, let‘s see, six months ago. And, as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months, since then.

MATTHEWS: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

COULTER: I didn‘t say anything about him, actually, either time.

EDWARDS: Ann knows—you know that‘s not true. And, what‘s more, this has been going on for some time.

COULTER: And I don‘t mind you trying to raise money. I mean, it‘s better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor...

EDWARDS: I‘m asking you—I‘m asking you politely...

COULTER: ... just to use my name on the Web pages. But, as for a debate with me, yes, sure.

EDWARDS: I‘m asking you politely...

COULTER: Yes, we will have a debate.

EDWARDS: ... to stop—to stop personal attacks.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: How about you stop raising money on your Web page, then?

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: No, you don‘t have to, because I don‘t mind.

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: It did not start with that. You had a column a number of years ago...

COULTER: Great. OK.

EDWARDS: ... where you suggested that...

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: The wife of a presidential candidate is calling in, asking me to stop speaking?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let her finish the point. Let her finish the point.

COULTER: You‘re asking me to stop speaking? Stop writing your columns. Stop writing your books.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Ann, please.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: OK.

EDWARDS: You had a column a couple of years ago which—which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean‘s death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, “Ask me about my dead son.”

COULTER: That‘s now three years ago.

EDWARDS: This is not legitimate political dialogue. It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can‘t have a debate about issues if you‘re using this kind of language.

COULTER: Yes, why isn‘t John Edwards making this call?

MATTHEWS: Well, do you want to respond? We will end this conversation.

EDWARDS: I have not talked to John about this call.

COULTER: I think this is just another attempt for...

EDWARDS: I‘m making this call as a mother. I‘m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate. These young people behind you are the age of my children. You‘re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness, instead of on the issues.

And I don‘t—I don‘t think that is serving them or this country very well.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Elizabeth Edwards.

Do you want to—you have all the time in the world to respond to that.

COULTER: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking.

No.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, she said you should stop being so negative to people individually.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries, based on science...

MATTHEWS: OK.

COULTER: Wait. You said I would have as long as I would have.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

COULTER: And you instantly interrupt me.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors, who now can‘t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don‘t talk to me about how to use language.

MATTHEWS: Elizabeth.

EDWARDS: ... language of hate. And I am going to ask you again to politely stop using personal attacks as part of your dialogue.

COULTER: OK, I will stop writing books.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Why do you talk about...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: If you can‘t write them without them, then that is fine.

Yes, Elizabeth can hardly condone "General Betray Us."

And I doubt that the MoveOn mob will attack the untouchable Mrs. Edwards for slightly breaking ranks.

It's important to note that Elizabeth didn't really criticize MoveOn for the ad. She worded her comment very carefully. She only said Gen. Petraeus didn't deserve to be called a name.

She didn't say that the ad was an ugly attack on an honorable man's character.

Will Democrat candidates be asked to comment on Elizabeth Edwards' remarks?

I'd be surprised.

The lib media aren't about to make the Dems' smearing of an American hero an issue.

This is just another example of the Edwards campaign using not so secret weapon Elizabeth to say something that John can benefit from without being held personally accountable -- not by the other Dem presidential candidates and not be the fringe Left kooks who hold them all hostage.

John Edwards' Small Change and Big Bucks

John Edwards' spent a mere 20 minutes speaking at his "Small Change for Big Change" event in Milwaukee yesterday evening.

His supporters must have been a bit disappointed that his remarks were so brief.

I guess he gave the "small change" crowd the "small change" version of his stump speech.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

With a message aimed directly at the party's core, John Edwards positioned himself Monday as the only contender in the Democrats' presidential derby who is willing to turn America's focus back to the poor and the working class.

Speaking for about 20 minutes on Milwaukee's south side, Edwards pledged to create a universal health care program, raise the minimum wage, fight global warming and stand with unions and average Americans. He described a political system that is beholden to drug companies, oil companies and powerful lobbyists.

"This system is broken," said Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina. "It's rigged. It's rigged against you and against ordinary American citizens."

He later added: "We desperately, desperately need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. I don't know about you, but I do not want to see us replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats."

"Corporate Democrats"?

Who are the "corporate Democrats"?

That's a swipe at Hillary Clinton and the massive, deeply-entrenched Clinton political machine.

Barack Obama probably qualifies as a corporate Dem, too. In spite of his grassroots support, a candidate with a corporate giant like Oprah on his side isn't a "nobody's president but yours" sort of guy. At least that's what Edwards wants people to believe.

Personally, I don't buy it.

..The event, which organizers said drew about 500 people, was a fund-raiser, though it probably carried greater weight as a means to draw attention and early support. Attendees were asked to give $15, part of a series of Edwards events around the country dubbed "Small change for big change."

Earlier in the evening, Edwards - who had a successful career as a trial lawyer before entering politics - attended a more expensive fund-raiser that lawyer Robert Habush hosted at the University Club.

The setup was similar to an April visit by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who, after a $1,000-a-person fund-raiser, drew about 4,000 people to a speech at the Milwaukee Theatre.

Although the Obama speech - on the day of the Virginia Tech shootings - was a low-key, reflective affair, Edwards was in full fire-up-the-troops mode.

He took the stage with his tie undone, sleeves rolled up. The crowd, heavy with union members who have formed the backbone of his presidential bid, cheered Edwards at every turn.

The union guys cheered on cue. Big deal.

So the "un-corporate" Democrat Edwards reserved 20 measly minutes to talk to the "small change" people. He was probably tired out after the Robert Habush hosted University Club "big bucks" event.

...In his speech, Edwards said Democrats in Congress should "do what the American people put them in charge of doing" and end the war in Iraq. He did not mention New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or Obama by name, but both - like several other presidential contenders - are members of Congress.

Of course, the one-term former U.S. Sen. Edwards was in Congress long enough to vote FOR the war in Iraq.

Apparently, he believed that was what the American people put him in charge of doing.

It's easy for Edwards to criticize Clinton and Obama and the other congressional Democrat presidential wannabes for being ineffective.

Edwards has had four years since his failed bid to be vice president. He's protected by that buffer of having no accountability for recent Washington business and having such a meager political history in the first place.

WisPolitics has more.

Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards bemoaned the United States' diminished reputation with the rest of the world in a speech Monday night, saying it needs to once again be a source of hope and light.

Edwards spoke for thirty minutes to a crowd of several hundred at Serb Hall in Milwaukee. He emphasized America’s failure as a prosperous nation to provide universal health care and criticized the recent troop surge policy.

This account clocks Edwards' speech at 30 minutes rather than 20.

”We don’t need a surge in Baghdad, we need a surge in New Orleans,” said Edwards to great applause.

Edwards made it clear that he feels the Bush administration must shoulder the blame for America's tarnished image.

“I don’t think George Bush has damaged our reputation in the world. I think he has destroyed it,” said Edwards. “We have to be the source of hope again, the light for the rest of the world. We used to be that light.”

Blah, blah, blah.

That's boring. We've heard it all before, some of it as far back as 2004.

He should have said that Hillary was trying to be a man or whined about the deck being stacked against him because he's not a woman or black.

He should have said, "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

That would have been more exciting.

Edwards at least could have mentioned "she-devil" Ann Coulter to spark things up a bit.

...He also outlined plans for the withdrawal of as many as 30,000 troops by next summer. The reduction would return the number of troops in Iraq to about the same level in place when the president ordered a buildup last winter.

Edwards said it was time for the war to end.

“It’s time that Congress does what the American people put them in charge to do, and that is to put an end to this war in Iraq; they should not submit a single funding bill without a timetable for withdrawal attached,” Edwards said.

In other words, John Edwards knows better than General Petraeus. All the Dems claim to be military geniuses.

This one-term senator has a better grasp of military strategy than Petraeus. Yeah, right.

Creating a universal health care system and finding a way to tackle the issue of global warming also stood out as he delivered his campaign message.

Oh, goody! Socialized medicine!

Edwards referred to global warming as “an enormous crisis” and called for a cap on carbon emissions. He pushed spending more money on developing solar power capabilities and spoke out against building any new nuclear power plants.

What an environmental hypocrite!

The guy lives in a 28,200-square-foot home on a 102-acre estate.

The main house is all on one level except for a 600-square-foot bedroom and bath area above the guest garage.

The recreation building contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.”

Edwards should do his part to alleviate the environmental crisis and cut back on his extravagant lifestyle.

He preaches sacrifice, giving up SUVs; but he's not practicing what he preaches.

There's a surprise.

Prediction: John Edwards will not be the Democrat presidential nominee.

John Edwards at Milwaukee's Serb Hall

small change
–noun
1. coins of small denomination.
2. someone or something insignificant or trifling: Those people are small change.

[Origin: 1810–20]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

This is no Oprah-sponsored, star-studded Barack Obama $3 million fundraiser.

This is no Hollywood bash to rake in cash for Hillary Clinton, with Barbra Streisand and Mr. Barbra Streisand seated next to the candidate.

This is SMALL CHANGE.

It's Serb Hall on Milwaukee's south side.

John Edwards will walk among the REAL people later today at an event his campaign calls, "Small Change for Big Change."

Small Change for Big Change
Sep 10, 2007
6:30 p.m.
"Small Change for Big Change" grassroots fundraiser with John Edwards and you
American Serb Memorial Hall
President's Hall
5101 W. Oklahoma Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53219

Click here to RSVP for this event

* Cash Bar *

Tickets are $15

You may purchase a ticket online or at the door

I know it's a cash bar, but does the $15 at least get you unlimited beer, soda, and snacks?

Multi-millionaire Edwards needs to court voters, not pick the "small change" from their hard-working, over-taxed hands.

It's supposed to rain in Milwaukee today.

That's bad news for John Edwards' hair; but he'll be there to rub shoulders with the Serb Hall small change crowd.

The Edwards Campaign says the grass roots event is designed to reach out to all Americans, not only those who can give the maximum donation.

Wow. Edwards is using his precious time to reach out to the unwashed masses.

What a trooper!

When you include the cost of hairspray, it will cost Edwards a lot more to make the Serb Hall appearance than he'll get back in fundraising.

Foiled Again

"It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired — and is now part of the problem. The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."

--John Edwards

Another day, another terrorist plot foiled in that fake War on Terror....

People don't seem to get too riled up about thwarted terrorist plots.

It's as if they take their safety for granted. They seem oblivious to the ongoing threat of Islamic extremists.

BERLIN -- Three suspected Islamic terrorists from an al-Qaida-influenced group nursing "profound hatred of U.S. citizens" were arrested on suspicious of plotting imminent, massive bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Germany, prosecutors said Wednesday.

German Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said the three, two of whom were German converts to Islam, had trained at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, a group based in Central Asia. They had obtained some 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide for making explosives.

"We were able to succeed in recognizing and preventing the most serious and massive bombings," Harms told reporters.

Harms declined to name specific targets, but said the suspects had an eye on institutions and establishments frequented by Americans in Germany, including discos, pubs and airports.

...On Tuesday, Denmark's intelligence service said it thwarted a bomb plot and arrested eight Islamic militants with alleged links to senior al-Qaida terrorists.

Ziercke said that although there were similarities to the group arrested in Denmark on Tuesday, no direct connection between the two had been established.

The Tuesday arrests in Denmark sent jitters through a country that was the focus of Muslim anger and deadly protests over the cartoons. Jakob Scharf, head of the PET intelligence service, said that the eight suspects arrested were "militant Islamists with connections to leading al-Qaida persons."

The European Union's top justice official said Wednesday that the threat of a terror attack remained high in the 27-nation bloc. EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini said the EU executive would push ahead with plans to set up an EU-wide airline passenger data recording system despite privacy concerns.

"The threat of new terror attacks continues to be high," Frattini said, citing Spain, Italy, Belgium, Britain and Germany as countries where the risk has been the highest.

The foiled attacks should be a sobering reminder that the Democrats and their allies aren't capable of waging the War on Terror.

Democrats like Russ Feingold have actively worked to undermine U.S. efforts to prevent attacks.

Media outlets like The New York Times splash details about programs to combat terrorism.

Journalists like Brian Ross of ABC have wallowed in reporting "secret information."

Here's a newsflash: There is a War on Terror. The threat is real. Some Americans aid and abet the enemy.

Edwards Treads on Liberties

"It is better to look good than to feel good."

John Edwards is NOT pro-choice when it comes to his proposed health care plan.

He wants the government to dictate when people seek medical care.

TIPTON, Iowa -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

"If you are going to be in the system, you can't CHOOSE not to go to the doctor."

Really?

Edwards not only wants the government to take over health care for all Americans, he wants to force check-ups on them.

Of course, it's a good idea to have regular medical check-ups; but this notion of forced doctor visits is creepy. It's way too controlling.

How would it work?

Would people be penalized or denied care if government records showed they didn't keep their government mandated doctor appointments?

Would people be warned that they must see a doctor or face consequences?

Would their universal health care card expire and leave them without access to doctors?

I don't want health care to become a version of the IRS or the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This all speaks to Edwards' attitude about the government's role in the lives of Americans. It's a truly frightening concept.

He wants Americans to forfeit their liberty. He wants them to subject themselves to government control.

...Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

The whole idea is to take choice out of the hands of Americans when it comes to health care and let the government determine what's best, what's available, and what the timetable of care will be.

Edwards' vision eliminates freedom and treads on privacy.

The thought of health care being run by the government with all its required "take a number," bureaucratic crap makes me sick.

I don't trust "Dr. Government" to provide proper care or quality care. I don't want "Dr. Government" to be responsible for the health of me and my family.

I want to make choices, not have my health care mandated by bureaucrats.

Simply put, a "one size fits all" approach to medicine isn't a good approach.

In addition to explaining his batty universal health care scheme, Edwards tried to explain why he drives SUVs yet he expects Americans to sacrifice and give up their SUVs.

Edwards, who has been criticized by some for calling on Americans to be willing to give up their SUVs while driving one, acknowledged Sunday that he owns a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, purchased within the year, and a Chrysler Pacificia, which he said he has had for years.

"I think all of us have to move, have to make progress," he said. "I'm not holyier-than-thou about this. ... I'm like a lot of Americans, I see how serious this issue is and I want to address it myself and I want to help lead the nation in the right direction."

He said he would not buy another SUV in the future.

The Ford Escape, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated 36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.

That's not a good answer. It's an unbelievably bad answer. We "have to move, have to make progress."

Good grief. Edwards says, "I'm not holyier [sic]-than-thou about this."

BS.

What's particularly noteworthy is that Edwards had plenty of time to prepare a response to his SUV hypocrisy. That's the best he can do?

Not too smooth for a trial lawyer that should be able to talk his way out of anything.

He's literally saying that he wants to lead Americans but Americans can't expect him to live out his own expectations for citizens.

In other words, "Do as I say, not as I do."

I think Edwards will have to call out the big guns, wife Elizabeth, to bail him out of this mess.

Bottom line: I don't like Edwards' intention to strengthen government at the expense of the individual. The same goes for all the other Democrat candidates with similar plots.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Don't tread on me, or my beloved free country.

Edwards Asks Americans to Sacrifice

John Edwards thinks Americans need to conserve energy.

He wants them to give up their SUVs.

Edwards complains that Americans are the worst polluters on the planet and the country must change.

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."

...He also said as president he would ask residents to conserve energy and said the U.S. needs to focus on being a leader in creating alternative energy. He said he wants a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year.

"We are the worst polluter on the planet. We are 4 percent of the world's population, we're putting out 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas," Edwards said. "America's going to have to change."

Apparently, Edwards considers himself exempt. He's not one of the Americans that he believes must make sacrifices for the good of the planet.

One need only take a quick look at his 28,200-square-foot home on his 102-acre estate in Orange County, North Carolina to get an idea of what a hypocrite he is.

[T]he Edwards home total[s] 28,200 square feet of connected space. The main house is 10,400 square feet and has two garages. The recreation building, a red, barn-like building containing 15,600 square feet, is connected to the house by a closed-in and roofed structure of varying widths and elevations that totals 2,200 square feet.

The main house is all on one level except for a 600-square-foot bedroom and bath area above the guest garage.

The recreation building contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.”

"Guest garage"?

"Recreation building"?

"A 600-square-foot bedroom and bath area above the guest garage"?

That's extravagant.

It's excessive.

Edwards was asked during his appearance how he explained the contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he's living in a 28,000-square-foot (2,600-square-meter) mansion.

He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.

"I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life," he said to loud cheers. "My entire life has been about the same cause, which is making sure wherever you come from, whatever your family is, whatever the color of your skin, you get a real chance to do something great in this country."

Huh?

What gives Edwards the right to live in an enormous mansion and consume massive amounts of energy?

He claims he makes "no apologies whatsoever" for what he believes he's earned.

What about SUV owners?

Why is Edwards asking them to give up what they've worked hard to attain?

Shouldn't those people have the right to say that they make no apologies for driving SUVs because they've worked hard all their lives?

If Edwards wants Americans to sacrifice, he needs to set an example by making some sacrifices of his own.

Maybe he could scale his recreation building back just a bit to save a little energy. Maybe some homeless people could live at his place.

Bottom line: Edwards' call for Americans to give up their SUVs is a joke.

Poverty in America

There's some good news.

U.S. poverty rate declines significantly

The nation's poverty rate dropped last year, the first significant decline since President Bush took office.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent — were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005.

The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.

The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration. In 2005, the poverty rate dipped from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.

The poverty numbers are good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. However, the numbers released Tuesday represent economic conditions from a year ago.

The poverty level is the official measure used to decide eligibility for federal health, housing, nutrition and child care benefits. It differs by family size and makeup. For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level is $20,444. The poverty rate — the percentage of people living below poverty — helps shape the debate on the health of the nation's economy.

For Milwaukee, there's some bad news.

Milwaukee has 8th-highest poverty rate

Milwaukee has the eighth-highest rate of poverty among large cities in America, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Around one in four Milwaukee residents (26.2%) live in poverty. Higher rates were recorded in Detroit, Buffalo, N.Y., Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis and El Paso, Texas.

On a positive note, Wisconsin's poverty rate is below the national average. That's in spite of Milwaukee's high placement on the most impoverished cities list.

Overall, Wisconsin's poverty rate is 11%, with 591,850 people in poverty.

Lots of numbers.

What does it really mean to live in poverty in America?

I'm not saying it's pleasant, but it's certainly not as bad as living in poverty elsewhere in the world.

Robert Rector gives some details on what it's like to be poor in America.

In the past, [John] Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a “plague” which forces 37 million Americans to live in “terrible” circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing “one in eight” Americans lack “enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” caught in a daily “struggle with incredible poverty.”

However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as “poor,” reveals that America’s poverty “plague” may not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends.

If being “poor” means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America’s 37 million official “poor” people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

---46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

---80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

---Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

---The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

---Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

---97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

---78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

---62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

---89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Rector also notes that poverty in America can be traced to a few specific factors, such as the absence of fathers in homes.

Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced.

Another factor in poverty is ILLEGAL immigration.

Another important factor boosting poverty in the U.S. is our broken immigration system which imports hundreds of thousands of additional poor people each year from abroad through both legal and illegal immigration channels. One quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by Census is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. Immigrants tend to be poor because they have very low education levels. A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree.

As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

I'm not dismissing the issue of poverty in the U.S., nor am I suggesting that people have no moral obligation to help the disadvantaged.

However, I do think it's important to understand what the poverty figures mean.

I also think it's extremely important not to be bamboozled by John Edwards' rhetoric (lies).

I strongly believe that government handouts aren't the answer to poverty. In fact, we have decades of proof that entitlements create a culture of poverty.

Welfare is not a family business to be handed down to the next generation.

Somali Man Poses for Bumper Sticker

"It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired — and is now part of the problem. The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."

--John Edwards

In addition to Edwards, three other Democrat presidential candidates are on the record as saying that they do not believe there is a global War on Terror -- Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

If these geniuses don't believe that we at war with an enemy, Islamic fascists (AKA terrrorists), then what would they call it?

They admit that these animals are a threat; but it's a mistake to speak of being at war with them. They claim that the Bush administration is engaged in sloganeering and political games.

According to Edwards and those of his ilk, there is no War on Terror. It's a myth.

Bush is the enemy.

This line of thinking is mind-boggling to me.

We are at war.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A Somali immigrant the government says plotted to blow up an Ohio shopping mall pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Nuradin Abdi, 35, entered his plea before U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley a week before his trial had been expected to start Aug. 6.

“In this climate an American jury, we felt, could potentially find him guilty because of all this negative stuff that’s coming in, and if they found him guilty he was looking at spending the rest of his life in custody,” said Abdi’s attorney, Mahir Sherif. “The government came back with another offer, so he decided to take it.”

Under a plea deal, Abdi is expected to receive a 10-year sentence on the count, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Three other charges were dropped and he will be deported after serving his sentence.

The Justice Department accused Abdi of suggesting the plan to attack an unidentified Columbus shopping mall during an August 2002 meeting with now-convicted al-Qaida terrorist Iyman Faris and a third suspect, Christopher Paul. The suspected plot was never carried out.

Abdi testified under oath that he talked with Faris and Paul at a coffee shop in suburban Columbus where he suggested they “plan to detonate a bomb in a shopping mall to avenge U.S. policy and military action in Afghanistan,” according to a statement of facts submitted by the government during Tuesday’s hearing.

...Faris is serving 20 years in a maximum-security federal prison in Florence, Colo., for his role in an al-Qaida plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris scouted the bridge and told al-Qaida its plans wouldn’t work, court papers have said. Prosecutors accused Paul, who was arrested in April, of joining al-Qaida and plotting to bomb European tourist resorts and U.S. government facilities and military bases overseas.

Prosecutors also say Abdi gave stolen credit card numbers to a man accused of buying gear for al-Qaida, and lied on immigration documents to visit a jihadist training camp.

Abdi’s attorneys said he was merely upset at the war in Afghanistan and reports of civilians killed in bombings by the U.S.-led invasion. They have said that the stolen numbers were never used and that the Justice Department never alleged what organization they believed was running the camp, what Abdi intended to do with the training, or whether he ever actually went.

Nuradin Mahamoud Abdi (Photo/AP)

I think this picture would look great on a bumper sticker.

It could read, "I want to kill your honor student at the mall."