Dear John,
Just. Shut. Up.

The occasion of her instruction came because Edwards is now pondering

… “publicly” acknowledging paternity of his mistress’s baby, [though he] had not yet brought his wife around to the idea. With his mistress, baby in arms, testifying before a grand jury about the payments she received from Edwards’ associates, and the campaign aide he had pushed to claim paternity now shopping a book about the deceit, Edwards is reportedly considering a public affirmation of paternity as a way to spin the story in his direction — make it look like he is standing up to take responsibility, doing the “right thing.”

Ms. Estrich phrases the following like a delicate soufflé, perfectly timed as it comes out of the oven, piping hot and puffy:

Message to John Edwards: We know it’s your baby. Everyone knows that. You want to do the right thing? Do it privately. Do penance for the next 20 years. Wash your wife’s feet and help the poor. But don’t make public pronouncements or expect public forgiveness.

Nothing John Edwards can do will change the judgment we have reached about him. World-class scumbag doesn’t begin to describe it. I can think of no one in recent political history whose betrayal matches his.

While Ms. Estrich states that other politicians have likewise had affairs and does not excuse any of them, she points out in this case, his actions really go above and beyond the term “dog”:

How many times did I say that an extramarital affair is not an impeachable offense? It isn’t. But when your wife has metastatic breast cancer, when you use everybody around you, when you lie to her and your aides and the voters, when you distort a presidential race you had no business being in and bring a child into the world because of your arrogance and cruelty, then it’s an unforgivable one.

Therein lies the problem. His wife and campaign manager knew about the affair and advised Mr. Edwards not to run for the President in 2008. He did it anyway. I’m not going to play woulda coulda shoulda here, but the man campaigned in Iowa for two years. What if he were not part of the equation? He also took campaign contributions knowing he had this damning secret.

There was no way he could have believed he would get away with this all the way to election time. He was crucified for getting a $400 haircut. Although one could argue another man who is a political lightweight possessed of heavy personal baggage currently occupies the White House, we must remember that Edwards didn’t have the advantage of playing the race card daily to silence any critics or opponents.

Ms. Estrich rightly points out the continuing humiliation Elizabeth Edwards and her children must endure in processing this continuing mess, played out in front of a grand jury as it is determined whether or not Mr. Edwards acted illegally in funneling campaign monies to help support his mistress. Ugh.

I am reminded of the Democratic Convention last August. The second night was devoted to the accomplishments of women. Elizabeth was one of the scheduled speakers – until John Edwards’ actions were discovered. Suddenly not only he was scrubbed from the Convention, but her speech was cancelled as well. He did something wrong. She did nothing. Yet she must hide out along with him. She is an accomplished, respected woman who set an example with her courageous fight against cancer and should have been allowed to speak. She is not his chattel.

Just more of an unfortunate double standard that shows no signs of dissipating. I appreciate Ms. Estrich for saying what many should have said long ago.

It is cold comfort to discover that there is more than one politician who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.

… I’ve talked to a lot of former Edwards staffers about this. Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards’ staff didn’t believe rumors about the affair.

But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.

Several of them had gotten together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts.

Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards’ staffers have told me.

They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Uh, George. If his staffers were “Democrats first,” they would not have spent the money and effort in Iowa and New Hampshire. They would have confronted him and threatened to resign en masse unless he quietly resigned the race. They could have done a number of things. But they did nothing but help perpetuate a lie and help sabotage Hillary’s candidacy. Think about it, George. Think.

Gov. Blagojevich with BFF, Obama looking all warm and friendly (cough, cough).

In what is being called one of the most daring escape attempts in the history of law enforcement, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today offered the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama to the FBI agent who took him into Federal custody this morning.

According to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the astonishing escape attempt occurred moments after Mr. Blagojevich was handcuffed by the agent, who was wearing a wire and captured the entire expletive-laden offer on tape.

“‘You can be the [bleeping] junior Senator from [bleeping] Illinois if you let me out of these [bleeping] handcuffs,’” Mr. Fitzgerald read from a transcript. “‘And if that mother-[bleeper] Barack Obama tries to [bleep] with me, I’ll [bleep] him up.’”

According to Mr. Fitzgerald, “When I say ‘bleep,’ he didn’t really say ‘bleep’ on the tape,” adding, “I’m going to keep making that joke until one of you [bleepers] laughs at it.”

Gov. Blagojevich has been charged with a laundry list of Federal crimes, including stealing his haircut from the dad on “The Brady Bunch.”

Hey, this is just as likely a scenario as any other I can think of with this guy, this bunch of people.

And while I am doing some satire – the jokes practically write themselves on this whole thing – Chicago politicians and all – there is this “American Voices” from The Onion: Illinois Governor Arrested

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on corruption charges stemming from an alleged conspiracy to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by Barack Obama. What do you think?

Ethan Strouth,
Mailroom Worker
“I was moved by the governor’s heartfelt plea that he be given his f**king money back.”

Denise Simmonds,
Dog Groomer
“I should have never had those ‘Spitzer-Blagojevich 2012′ lawn signs printed up back in February.”

John Edwards,
Lawyer
“How much are Senate seats going for these days? I only paid $75,000 for mine back in ’98.”

Well, even counting for inflation, I’d say John Edwards got quite a deal on his Senate seat!

Hey, you gotta admit – as serious as all of this is – and it most definitely is, it is definitely ripe for some major “jokeificating”…Sometimes, you just has to laugh at the absurdity of it all…

Stand up America!

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates.

Wendy goes on to explain how she was first inspired by Edwards but not getting a job with his campaign, came to work for Obama:

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.
…
This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

Wendy then delivers the most blistering indictment of the current Democratic Party and certainly I agree with her reasons for holding them in such low esteem now:

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?

She correctly addresses the DNC’s outdated talking points and ideology in the midst of the economic storm we face. If Obama had any real clue as to policy, post–partisan genius that he is purported to be, he would think outside the box and propose something new. Clearly he is not capable of doing so, only stealing others ideas for his own; riding in late to take credit after doing none of the hard work required to get there. Remember “Congress will call me if they need me.”

…Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.”

Ms. Button remembers this outrage as well as the rest of us. All of Senator Clinton’s accomplishments and great policy ideas were tossed under the bus in favor of every negative speck of dust the press and Obama’s campaign could find to magnify.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
…
Here we are discussing Governor Palin’s clothes—oh wait, now we’re on to the make-up—not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn’t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.

Most interesting to me was Wendy’s take on Sarah Palin. It was encouraging to me that a die hard Democrat would take the time to put aside any preconceived notions and actually looks at Palin’s record:

Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper.

Obama, who wouldn’t know strong moral code if it bit him, and can’t seem to find a policy he likes well enough to hold on to against the changing winds, might want to take a page out of Sarah Palin’s book — instead of belittling her.

When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

Her statements about Iraq were also surprising; certainly unusual coming from a Democrat:

But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

In closing, I think Wendy echoes the sentiments of a great many Hillary supporters who, alternately, sit in wonderment and horror that the Democratic Party they fought for, donated to, campaigned for and believe in all these years would exhibit the behavior Ms. Button discusses here:

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, [McCain] is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I’ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with “D’s.”

Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”

Just yesterday, Senator Biden made another mind bending statement when he said “this is a new Democratic Party not the party of the 70s and 80s. This is a party that has adjusted to the realities of a new world order.”

I am not sure what ‘new world order’ he is talking about, but if it includes demeaning women, belittling working class voters and ignoring the issues that weigh heavily on our country at the moment in favor of pretty, vacuous sound bites and “word salad.” obviously I am not a part of it.

Thanks Wendy, for having the courage to speak up and tell the Democratic Party off.

It seems that others are noticing the rampant sexism/misogyny, and the hypocrisy of the “liberal elite” when it comes to who can be a feminist or not. Victor David Hanson would be one such person in his article,An Instructive Candidacy: What Sarah Palin taught us about ourselves. In his excellent piece, parts of which are excerpted here, Mr. Hanson takes on not just the Feminist Police, but the journalists who have been “reporting” during this campaign season:

Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.

Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.

First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin’s career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama’s own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

Well, true that. Everyone seems to have convenient amnesia when it comes to the accomplishments of the Governor of Alaska. Far too often, I have seen letters to the editor or comments at blogs claiming she is “just a mother of five.” No, she is that, which is no small thing, by the way, to which my mother can attest, but she is One of FIFTY governors in the entire United States, with the highest approval rating of any governor, as well as one who has taken on her own party, and WON, thank you so much.

But I digress:

So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama’s current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.

No FREAKIN’ KIDDING! Obama hasn’t had a tenth of the vetting in eighteen months that Palin has had in two months – nice that some people are keeping score here. Hanson continues:

Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while (we? they?) have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin’s falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama’s own falling in with those who ran Chicago.

Uh, yeah. For some reason, while still in the Primary season, the MSM were all too happy to do their level best to ignore anything to do with Wright. They downplayed the videos, believed Obama when he claimed he certainly didn’t hold the same beliefs that Wright does even though his butt was in the pew in that church for over twenty years, and even though he called Wright his “uncle.” Oh, no – we must take him at his word that he would NEVER believe in that hate mongering theology. Just like we are supposed to take him at his word about Bill Ayers, Domestic Terrorist-Who-Wishes-He-Had-Been-More-Successful! Never you mind that they have been hanging around with each other for the past 13 years, working together, living near each other, and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Ayers’ “unique” ideology to the youth of Chicago, through Wright, of course. Obama is such a straight shooter, naturally we must believe every word that escapes his lips, right?? Evidently.

And now is when we get to the issue of feminism:

Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin’s critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.

We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour— or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.

Right? I’ve known people who couldn’t endure the stress of their partner getting a PhD., for cryin’ out loud, much less the stress of moving from one level of government to another with five kids, one of whom is a Special Needs child. Add to that the lack of support from her own party in doing these things, and you got yourself some stress. Which Sarah Palin has handled with seeming ease, a feat that should have been CELEBRATED by feminists, not ridiculed.

Hanson then takes on the whole Biden v. Palin contest:

Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.

Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol’ Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.

Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden’s gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush…

Amazingly, very, very little is made of either Biden’s OR Obama’s gaffes, though BOTH of them have PLENTY. Had Clinton, or McCain, or Palin, or anyone else made the factual inaccuracies or flat out lies that either of these men have made, they would be running across the bottom of your screen for days on end. But Biden and Obama? Hahaha, they made a mistake, move along, nothing to see here. Sheesh. Here are just a few for you:

Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — “John McAmerica,” “a Palin-McCain administration,” “Senator George Obama,” “Congressman Joe Biden,” who is both “good looking,” and “drop-dead gorgeous.” Or “I guarantee you, John McCain ain’t taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break.”

Or “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Or “Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me.”

Holy toledo. Reversing the positions helps to highlight just how absurd all of this has been…I agree with the following assessment:

The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.

I don’t know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry’s pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

He’s got a point, don’t you think?

And in conclusion, while looking for videos for something else, I stumbled upon the following video. From this person’s lips to the powers-that-be in the universe:

Uh, yeah, so Edwards apparently spends a lot of time with ACORN. But wait – it gets better (and by better, of course, I mean on the issue of voter fraud):

I see (and as you can see, this is part 6 of 6 – the other 4 parts were the conclusion of his speech, and then more questions). It isn’t that ACORN is fraudulently registering people that’s the problem, because – hey – they’ve “registered” over 1 million people! – but it is the INVESTIGATION into those “voter registrations” that is the problem because they may suppress “voting.” I gotcha.

Now, look – as the politicians ALL like to say (Joe Biden and Barack Obama especially) – I am ALL for lawfully registering people to vote, and I am adamantly opposed to any real attempts at voter suppression in any communities by anyone. To attempt to thwart anyone’s right to vote is just flat out wrong.

That being said, when ACORN registers 666,000 (okay – am I the only one who finds the “666″ part to be a bit telling?!?!) in a state that has been steadily declining in population, and when it is already acknowledged by the “powers-that-be” that approximately 200,000 are fraudulent, it makes the argument that this is all about voter suppression, just a bit weak (here’s a LINK for more information on that, and actual voter fraud in OH)…Just a little tiny bit…I wonder why the applause wasn’t QUITE so loud about Edwards’ suggestion of paper balloting? Hmmm – I could be reading into that, but then again, maybe not…

Anywho – I thought this was all pretty interesting, the connections Edwards has with ACORN, too. Maybe not quite as many connections as Obama, but hey, if he did, maybe he’d be the nominee right now! Hahaha – just kidding. We all know the fix was in for Obama. Still – sure seems like ACORN has a mighty wide net for prominent Democrats, especially for a “nonpartisan” organization! Ahem. I reckon that’s how they ended up with $31 million of our money. I’m sure they do some good with it, but they sure do some major shenanigans with it, too. I reckon it’s the latter that’s exactly why they DO get so much money, especially in election years, don’t you? Yeah. That’s what I thought.

UPDATE:
As it turns out, an attorney for ACORN also thinks there are some issues with charitable funds and ACORN. Oh, yes – it was in the NY Times yesterday. Yes, the attorney, Elizabeth Kingsley, lays out all of her concerns regarding ACORN and charitable giving, as well as THIS little gem:

It also offers a different account of the embezzlement of almost $1 million by the brother of Acorn’s founder, Wade Rathke, than the one the organization gave in July, when word of the theft became public.

“A full analysis of potential liability will require consultation with a knowledgeable white-collar criminal attorney,” Ms. Kingsley wrote of the embezzlement, which occurred in 2000 but was not disclosed until this summer.

Here’s one of the best parts, though. Guess which voter registration group is affiliated with ACORN? Project Vote. So what, you ask? Well, alert citizens know that to be the group for which OBAMA worked in IL. Turns out that the only people on its Board of Directors are from ACORN. Wanna tell us again, Barack, about your relationship with ACORN, of the rampant voter registration fraud?? *Crickets* Yeah, that’s what I thought.

If only the NY Times had acted like a real newspaper and not pooh-poohed this whole idea that ACORN was acting in a fraudulent manner. One can only imagine what could have happened had they acted to INFORM rather than CAMPAIGN for their chosen candidate. Sadly, that’s all we can do – imagine. Hopefully, though, this is not TOO little too late, and the people of the US might get the clue that there are organizations working HARD to undermine our right as citizens to cast a vote that matters. Let’s not just hope, though – let’s spread the word. Our votes must matter!

Rwanda’s Women Are Leading the Way

I have recently returned from Rwanda. I was last there in 1994, at the height of the genocide that claimed the lives of more than 800,000 Rwandans. The memories of what I saw haunt me still.

I wasn’t sure what to expect all these years later, but I found a country that has found in its deep scars the will to move on and rebuild a civil society. And the renaissance is being led by women.

Women are at the forefront of the physical, emotional and spiritual healing that is moving Rwandan society forward. One of them, from eastern Rwanda, told me her story — a violent, tragic and heartbreaking testimony of courage. She spoke of surviving multiple gang rapes, running at night in fear of losing her life, going days without food or water and witnessing the death of her entire family — one person at a time, before her eyes.

The injuries she sustained left her unable to bear children. Illness, isolation and an utter lack of hope left her in abject despair.

And yet the day I met her, she wasn’t consumed by hatred or resentment. She sat, talking with me and a few others, beside a man who had killed people guilty of nothing more than seeking shelter in a church. She forgave him. She forgave the perpetrators of her tragedy, and she explained her story with hope that such cruelty would never be repeated.

It is a humbling experience to be in the presence of those who have such a capacity for forgiveness and care. It is also instructive. If wealthy nations want their assistance programs to be effective, they should look to the women who form the backbone of every society. With some education, training, basic rights and empowerment, women will transform a society — and the world.

Women today make up a disproportionate percentage of the Rwandan population. In the aftermath of the genocide, they had to head households bereft of fathers. They had to take over farms, and take jobs previously done by men. But there were opportunities, too: Today, 41% of Rwandan businesses are owned by women.

I saw their impact first hand at a coffee project in the city of Nyandungu. All the washing and coffee-bean selection is done by hand, by women there. Women for Women International1, a remarkably active and innovative nongovernmental organization, has already helped over 15,000 Rwandan women through a year-long program of direct aid, job-skills training and education.

The organization is launching a project to train 3,000 women in organic agriculture, and is reaching out to females across the country. The women who instruct their fellow war survivors in economic development are an inspiration to those who cherish the essential benevolence of humanity.

But that is just the beginning. A new constitution ratified in 2003 required that women occupy at least 30% of the seats in parliament. (In our House and Senate only about 17% of the seats are filled by women.) Some wondered at the time whether it was feasible to meet this target. Now, nearly half of parliament and a third of the president’s cabinet posts are held by women. Rwanda today has the world’s highest percentage of female legislators.

Rwanda has a dark past but a bright future. It has a long way to go — the country remains one of the world’s poorest, and the social reverberations of the genocide are evident everywhere. Yet in the midst of tragedy, the women are building something genuinely new. Perhaps it is fitting that a nation so wracked by death could give birth to a vibrant new age. I know that one thing is clear: Through their bold and courageous actions, these women should inspire not only their fellow Africans, but all individuals — men and women — across the globe.

Mrs. McCain, the wife of Sen. John McCain and mother of four, founded the American Voluntary Medical Team, which helps bring doctors to war-torn countries.

Now that’s some solidarity. Something in which we have been sorely lacking in this campaign season, if you ask me. Moreover, Mrs. McCain makes a GREAT point in her piece – the importance of supporting women because they are typically the backbone of the community.

I admit, I had no idea Mrs. McCain was involved in so many humanitarian efforts (and I found out yesterday on the Rachel Ray Show that Mrs. McCain was a Special Ed teacher before she got married to John McCain – who knew??).

Not only does she work with this group, but she works with the Smile Train (their adopted daughter had a cleft palate) and The Halo Trust, an anti-landmine organization. And I have to admit, learning this about her made me see Senator McCain in a new light. Not unlike Elizabeth Edwards did for John Edwards (let’s face it – she was the more compelling person, and is totally awesome in her politics. Without her John was just okay. Which makes his cheating on her all the more offensive, the putz).

figure if he is married to someone like Cindy, he’s a pretty decent fellow (I have said before that I have always thought of him as honorable, and this confirmed it). Cindy McCain seems to have internalized the biblical mandate which basically says, to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48).

You know who else is like this? Hillary and Bill Clinton. Yep – they care a lot about others, and spend millions helping them out. Bill Clinton’s Foundation is an amazing organization, with extremely low Administrative costs – most of the money goes to doing the actual work. And we all remember Hillary’s brilliant speech on Women’s Rights as Human Rights, along with her efforts on behalf of women and other disenfranchised people before and after, that speech.

Frankly, this country is lucky as hell to have these two dedicated public servants, a fact at least John McCain acknowledges, certainly in terms of Hillary Clinton and her work in the US Senate. Know who else thinks so? Senator Joe Biden! Yes, I am sure we have all seen the YouTube video of him claiming Senator Clinton is certainly qualified enough to be President, and as qualified as he, if not more, to be vice president (if you did not see it, here is the LINK).

All that is to say, the hearts of the ones in the White House matter. How they see others, and treat them, matters.

I think there is a world of difference between how the McCains and the Obamas see other people. I cannot imagine for the life of me, Senator McCain flipping off Senator Clinton or Obama. I cannot imagine Cindy McCain saying she is just now proud of her country. What I have seen in both McCains is humility, and the desire to serve.

What I have seen in the Obamas is arrogance, and the desire for power (I might add, this perception is borne out in fact by the Citizens Against Government Waste who said McCain voted 100% FOR the taxpayers in 2007, and Obama voted only 10% of the time for the taxpayers. WOW.). I’ll take a servant’s heart any day (I don’t mean this with a specifically Christian connotation, but in terms of being a true public servant, one who cares about the people whom one serves, who takes THEIR concerns to heart and works to ease their trials and tribulations, who wants to make their lives better, to raise up the disenfranchised, who works for equality for all people, who fights the good fight because it is the right thing to do, not because of the accolades it will bestow. Like that.).

Hillary has it, Bill has it, and so it seems, do John, Cindy, and Sarah Palin, too. I don’t agree with a lot of their politics, but I cannot deny their dedication, commitment, and humility. I think I can live with that for four years. I cannot live with arrogance, condescension, and bullying for four years. Just sayin’.

Well, golly gee – at least Mike Barnacle is trying to PRETEND like he didn’t say completely assholic things about Senator Clinton when she was running. But, hey, Mike – there’s this little thing called VIDEO!!! If someone actually DOES go back after the past 20 yrs, Mike, you’ll be in there, too. GeekLove caught what you, and others of your ilk, said in this video, which really, says it all.

I think this is exactly what we can expect with Gov. Palin from the media (no, you don’t have to watch the whole thing again – it is an outstanding video, though, and I think will be mighty prescient for the upcoming campaign season. Especially the first part, though. Now, you can just hear all of these so-called “journalists” saying she should be at home with her babies where a woman belongs, dammit!):

And for even more crapola the “journalists” are about to unload is this little story from Stephen Hayes, “The Media Descend To A New Low“:

Time’s Mark Halperin has posted an advance copy of the cover of US Weekly magazine, the tabloid published by Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner. That cover shows a smiling Sarah Palin, holding her youngest son Trig. The screaming headline: “Babies, Lies and Scandal: John McCain’s Vice President.”

Wenner has contributed $5300 to Obama’s campaign since 2007.

The cover was sent to select news organizations by Mark Neschis, the head of corporate communications for Wenner Media and former director of television in the Clinton White House. An email from Neschis that accompanied the cover read: “Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out. (Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)”

“How the news is playing out.” That’s an interesting way of putting it. In one sense, it’s accurate. The mainstream media have been focused on pseudo-scandals about McCain’s running mate. Does it really matter at all that Palin’s husband, Todd, had a DUI in 1986? Who cares? And yet I’ve seen and heard news organizations mention — even discuss — the issue several times over the past couple of days.

The “news is playing out” that way because irresponsible journalists publish cover stories promoting “Babies, Lies and Scandal,” without any evidence of an actual “scandal.” Maybe US Weekly will publish news of an actual “scandal” by Friday, when the magazine is scheduled to hit the newsstands. But the three it mentions on its cover are not scandals. (”Under attack, admits daughter, 17, is pregnant” and “Investigated for firing of sister’s ex-husband” and “Mom of Five: New embarrassing surprises.”)

There are legitimate questions about how Palin was vetted. But many news organizations are using the vetting issue as an excuse to make insinuations about Palin’s family and her role as a mother. Instead of asking whether McCain knew that Palin wanted “an exit plan” from Iraq in December of 2006, for example, reporters are obsessing about Bristol Palin’s fiancé and whether Sarah Palin can serve as vice president and be a good mother.

It’s ironic, of course, that the same establishment news organizations consumed by such tabloid issues not long ago refused to investigate reports that John Edwards was having an affair and had a child out of wedlock. Why? The story was originally broken by the National Enquirer and deemed too tawdry to touch. And, perhaps as important, Edwards was running for the Democratic nomination for president, with an agenda favored by the liberal media establishment. (RRRA here – I do not believe the media is “liberal,” given their kid glove treatment of Bush since 2000. I do think they have shown tremendous bias FOR Obama, though.)

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Holy cow. What in the hell is the MATTER with these people?

But as low as the media has sunk, it is NOTHING compared to this article by Erick Erickson that came out last night: “Democrats Release Sarah Palin’s Social Security Number.” I kid you not. Here it is, along with an update:

The Politico has received an opposition research file from the Alaska Democrats. You can read it in PDF here (the page has moved, and is not available right now).

In the file, the Democrats have released Sarah Palin’s social security number minus the last four digits. Also tied to the information are her various home addresses.

Back in 2005, Democrats used Michael Steele’s social security number to get his credit record.

It is atrocious that the Democrats would not only seek out Sarah Palin’s social security number, but release it in opposition research to the press.

We need to know who did this. We also need to know what happened. We also need to know if it was used to bolster the Democrats’ opposition research.

When it happened to Michael Steele, it turns out the Democrats knew about it and did nothing.

They cannot not take action now.

UPDATE:

The Alaska Democratic Party says it did not release the information. From Ben Smith, at the Politico, I got this:

Our story doesn’t say that “Alaska Democrats” gave us that document. It was a document prepared for Tony Knowles two years ago. We haven’t revealed our source.

You should also note that it’s a partially REDACTED social security number. That seems relevant. If less sensational. It’s missing four digits.

Here is the key take away: Yes, the SSN is redacted and people can pay for themselves.

Now, here are additional points:

If the AK-Dems didn’t do this, who did? Obama? The DNC? Who? They’re releasing the whole thing now and letting the media make hay of it.

Why didn’t the SSN get fully redacted?

It’s ironic the party that thinks only Republicans invade privacy, invaded the privacy of Sarah Palin enough to learn her social security number and distribute it to the media.

HOLY SHIT. Could this POSSIBLY be Democrats doing this kind of thing?? Am I really that naive that this has been their MO all this time and I just did not see it? Is this the New Party of which Donna Brazile spoke, one that emulates Chicago Politics on a National Scale?? Like I said before, I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, and I have voted the Democratic straight-ticket every single time I have voted, and that has been every single time there was an election, but this – this is so wrong on so may levels I am ALMOST speechless about it. Almost. For those who say it isn’t that big of a deal, it would be EASY to get her full social security number – EASY. It wouldn’t even TAKE that long, either. These thugs, these miscreants who would put out this information are the lowest form of pondscum. They need their comeuppance and NOW. The DNC and Obama must speak out on this.

I’m not holding my breath, though. This is now the Democratic Party that steals votes from one candidate to give to another in broad daylight, so why should I think they would feel an OUNCE of shock about this? All it does is show how completely terrified they are of Sarah Palin; how incredibly sexist they are; how much they devalue women (you should SEE all of the stories out about her – many of them focus on how she should take care of her family instead of doing what she’s doing. Funny, I don’t remember these people saying the same thing to Mitt Romney with his huge brood or ANY other MALE candidate, including OBAMA, who has children. Nope – only the women get this kind of detestable punditry.); and how thuggish they have become from top to bottom. It is disturbing beyond belief.

By the way, Senators Clinton, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, et. al, Rep. Pelosi, et. al, and Governor Gregoire – you need to speak out against this rampant sexism directed at Sarah Palin, and you need to do it NOW. The DNC and the media are taking women back 40 years with these blatant attacks on women. The DNC used to be the party for women. Now, it has become the Party that attacks women – for being women. I never thought I would see this kind of treatment at this point in my life, but unfortunately, I was sadly mistaken. All I can say is I have to hope that when Obama loses this November, there will be a full-fledged housecleaning of the DNC and some of the Congressional Democrats who were the worst offenders this season.

In the meantime, whoever exposed Governor Palin’s SSN, whether it be anyone affiliated with the Demcorats or not, has sunk to a low I never thought possible. The media has sunk to a new low in terms of women. The DNC is going right along with it. And they need to stop. Now. NOW.

After I had lined up all of my facts, I published the findings at some “left” blogs, and here. The attacks were immediate, and vicious. ONE key point I had made in my article was that Sen. Hillary Clinton and then-senator John Edwards both voted for the “live birth” law — in fact the ENTIRE U.S. Senate voted unanimously for the “live birth” measure. Obama’s devotees explained his state senate votes (actually, they ranted) by informing me that it was what Planned Parenthood had TOLD him to do. (Let me get this right: A lobbying group instructed him? And he just blindly went along? Without using an iota of common sense about the ramifications? He — the man with enormous political ambitions — didn’t THINK OUT the future fall-out? He didn’t know, in an instant, that this would come back to haunt him? NONE OF THIS MADE ANY SENSE to me.)

Why did I write that story last winter? Why did I dare to publish that story in a hostile environment? I wanted to WARN fellow Democrats that this was an issue that the GOP could successfully use against Obama, and not only with conservatives but also with ANY liberal with a heart, and most especially any parent, no matter if the parent is a Republican or Democrat. Furthermore, the second Illinois state senate bill — the one that state senator Obama voted NAY on — was IDENTICAL to that passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate.

Today, I wake up and find out that the MSM has begun to discover exactly what I knew in 2007. There are numerous media reports (check Memeorandum.com). The article I choose to feature is that by David Freddoso, the author of the new book on Obama — which happens (and isn’t this interesting) to be the ONLY book that the Obama camp does not attack. Why is the Obama campaign not attacking that book? Might it be because a true journalist has written a truthful book? Could the REAL AGENDA of the Obama camp behind its all-out attack on blowhard Jerome Corsi’s book be because they wish to divert attention from David Freddoso’s far better book?

In today’s “Life Lies: Barack Obama and Born-Alive.,” Mr. Fredosso — who earned a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University, one of the toughest journalism schools to get into in the nation — writes:

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush. …

Fredosso then addresses Sen. Obama’s immediate predicament:

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

“Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe.” That is NOT what Obama’s devoted followers have been telling you, is it?

What is worse is that Obama made this disastrous decision as late as 2003:

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about: …

Mr. Freddoso then provides the actual language of the state senate bill, as well as the TRUE history of eyewitnesses to the Illinois state senate deliberations.

Here is a link to the single-page version of Mr. Freddoso’s entire article today.

This saga reveals far too many disturbing problems about Mr. Obama’s character and decision-making abilities:

(1) He took orders, supposedly, from a lobbying group without thinking through the ramifications;

(2) He let lobbying money determine his vote on a matter that is highly sensitive and disturbing to ALL human beings, not just to right-to-life zealots;

(3) He didn’t consider how people would instantly react to the entire idea — that no one, in the extremely rare instances in which an infant might happen to be born alive following an abortion, would ever set an infant down on a table and let it die without doing everything possible to keep it alive. Only the cruelest person would ever do such a thing. It has NOTHING to do with politics. It has EVERYTHING to do with having a heart.

(4) And now he is repeatedly lying about those incredibly ill-advised and illogical decisions during his tenure as a part-time state senator.

It is bad enough that he didn’t think through the implications of his votes in the 1990s and as late as 2003.

It is worse that he has taken out a shovel, and is digging himself in deeper.

All of this, both his past bad decisions and his current ill-advised decision to prevaricate, will profoundly affect voters — no matter their liberal or conservative preferences.

Mr. Freddoso concludes his article with this additional proof, and a sad repetition of Mr. Obama’s continuing lies:

[A]fter the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:

…I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

The senator is right. Someone is lying.

And now it is left to the Democratic party to clean up the mess it has created for itself.

Good luck, DNC. You’re going to need it.

You did not properly vet this man.

You ignored articles such as mine and Larry Johnson’s.

We were not consumed with hatred, as you chose to believe.

We were genuinely worried that you were missing the opportunity to elect a truly qualified candidate whose life was already an open book, and who wouldn’t be subjected to the fact-checking in the HEAT of a post-primary presidential campaign.

Have you forgotten that the entire purpose of a long primary contest is to VET THE CANDIDATES?

Have you forgotten that the importance of a LONG primary contest is to give people the time needed to stop “falling in love” with a candidate — to get past the honeymoon phase — and to really take a HARD look at the candidate?

Here’s a news flash: Not only is the honeymoon over, but you are walking down the aisle and into a BAD MARRIAGE.

But note that I just wrote that you are still “walking down the aisle.”

There is time to turn around and walk out.

You have precisely one week left to come to your senses.

Will you react like too many brides and grooms? Will you worry about all the guests you’ve already invited? Will you fret about the caterers and wedding planners you’ve already paid? Will you be too afraid to confront your soon-to-be spouse?

Or will you save yourself, at the last instant, from the worst mistake of your lives?

Okay – what did you see? As promised, Hillary Clinton will be speaking – among 274 other people. Okay – not really that many, but now she is one of TEN – 10 – speakers. Oh, yes – all kinds of people are thrown in there. I guess this way, they can try and (micro)manage her impact on the Convention crowd. But get THIS: SHE is not the Keynote Speaker. Oh, no – that honor goes to FORMER Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mark Warner. Who, you say?? Yeah. See, I know him because I lived in Virginia when he was governor. But really – seriously – honestly – out of ALL the people Obama could have picked (and HE is the one who sets the schedule), he picked Mark Warner. Yep.

Oh, but wait. It gets even better than this. The candidate Planned Parenthood and NARAL picked, Planned Parenthood for the second time EVER with a presidential candidate, that one? Barack Obama? Guess who he picked to speak that night? Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. No, I am not kidding! He DID! On the anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, not only did he not pick a WOMAN for Keynote Speaker, but he picked an ANTI-CHOICE Senator to speak on the anniversary of Women’s Suffrage!! Can you just IMAGINE – just IMAGINE, the hew and cry if it was ANY OTHER MAJOR GROUP, and someone who was opposed to their ability to CHOOSE their own course in life, was picked to speak?? You know people would be going NUTS. Rightly so. What a slap in the face.

And if this is not enough to get your blood boiling (just consider this a cardiovascular workout, courtesy of Barack Obama – he’s such a giver), there are only FIVE – 5 – speakers on Monday night, August 25th. No, I am not kidding. Senator Clinton gets squeezed like a lemon, but MICHELLE OBAMA will kick everything off, being introduced by her BROTHER. And Obama’s sister, the one who has his same BIRTH CERTIFICATE NAME, Soetoro, will be there, too. So, it’s Family Night at the DNC Convention. Oh, and Claire McCaskill and Nancy Pelosi will round out that evening. I am sure you are ALL dying to see THAT. Hahahahaha!!!! Yeah, me neither.

So, here it is – a BIG F-U to women in general, and Hillary in particular, courtesy of Barack Obama, the Big Uniter. Oh, he’s a uniter alright – uniting us in hatred of him and the DNC. And the DNC bears HUGE responsibility for not just shoring up, but PICKING the most unqualified, inexperienced, arrogant, narcissisitc, sexist candidate I have seen in my entire life. The one who, having mostly his family speak on August 25th, has almost completed the DNC becoming the BOC. Yes, the transformation is almost complete. Thanks, Howard, Nancy, Donna, Ted, John, John, Claire, et. al., for propping up the worst candidate EVER. And for stabbing in the back one of the BEST candidates ever, while also twisting the blade in for all women. That takes some doing, but somehow you managed it. What pieces of work, the whole lot of them…

So, yes – “Babylon” it is.

OK, I have not written much about the “breaking” news regarding John Edwards. Of course, the only “breaking” part about it was that it had been known for over a year already by the Press, and they SAT on it.

Oh, yes – they KNEW about it in 2007, which has been one of the issues: that John Edwards, the sanctimonious one, LIED about the affair when questioned a couple of times.

But only the National Enquirer, of ALL places, was willing to expose this man for the hypocrite he is. Now, let me just say, what happens in some one’s private life is their OWN business.

I always felt that what happened to Bill and Hillary Clinton with Monica Lewinsky was NO ONE’S business but their own. To foist the ridiculous investigation, at the expense of the TAXPAYERS of this country, was reprehensible.

It was NONE of our business, and had nothing to do with the case at hand. It was merely an attempt to embarrass a popular president who had restored this country to economic stability. I mean, really, if BUSH was not impeached after his lies that led us into a preemptive, Constitution-violating war, there is no WAY Clinton should have been impeached.

So, why am I bringing up John Edwards then?

Well, because of the following conversation he had with Katie Couric (H/T to TalkLeft.com) on the very issue of Infidelity (she asked all of the major Democratic candidates):

Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with … it’s fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them.

Couric: Do you think … what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts …

Edwards: Right.

Couric: … who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character …

Edwards: Right.

Couric: … when it comes to infidelity …

Edwards: Right.

Couric: I guess is what I’m getting at.

Edwards: Yes.

Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It’s not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

Couric: So you think it’s an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

Edwards: Yeah. But I don’t think it’s controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the … stories we’ve all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don’t think it controls the issue. But I think it’s certain … something reasonable for people to consider.

Bear in mind that this conversation happened almost a full YEAR after Edwards took his mistress on his Presidential Announcement Tour (H/T to memeorandum.com). No, I am not kidding. He took his mistress with him. Then had the audacity (ahem) to talk about sincerity and honesty in regard to the issue of INFIDELITY. So, not only did he attack Hillary Clinton for Obama time and time again (see “How John Edwards Helped Destroy Hillary“0, but he was sanctimonious about it. And the whole time, he had cheated on his wife, for whom I had the utmost respect. Just more of the same, I guess – this arrogant man thinking he could do whatever he wanted and not get busted for it. And of course, lying through his teeth every time he was asked about it.

And the media? Well, they failed us again. Miserably. If they had done their jobs, like *GULP* the NATIONAL ENQUIRER, then the whole Primary would have gone very differently indeed. Just sayin’. Tim Rutten, of the LA Times, had a great piece about this very topic on Sunday in which he discussed the lack of MSM coverage: Coverage of Edwards Ends an Era.

And if we actually had an investigative media, we might find out just how it came to be that Edwards endorsed Obama when he did. It does look just a tad suspicious, coming like it did right after Clinton blew Obama out of the water in West Virginia. Sigh. If only we had a decent media, maybe we’d find out the answers to how all of this played out. Me? I’m not holding my breath for THEM to do it. Hopefully, some enterprising group will do the work the media should, and get the answers we seek. It would be nice if they could accomplish that before the end of August, though. Just a thought!

Instead Edwards stayed in the race, harboring his secret life, knowing that it was likely to be exposed and that if he were somehow to emerge from the primary pack he would be humiliated and obliterated, just as he is now.

In the meantime, knowing full well that he was damaged goods, Edwards engaged in a ferocious negative campaign against Hillary–not Obama.

In effect, he was acting as Obama’s running mate. And Obama benefited enormously from having Edwards do some dirty work against Hillary.

Here’s Edwards’ record of negative attacks against Hillary below. For this, more than for his human failings, he deserves scorn.
 
EDWARDS:
12/04/07 Edwards said Hillary puts ‘the profits of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street.’ 
[Source: Edwards Statement]

11/29/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Hammers Clinton by Taking Aim at Lobbyists 
[Source: Wall Street Journal]

11/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards gambles on attacking Clinton 
[Source: Raleigh News & Observer]
11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards goes atomic on Hil for dodging nuclear energy question 
[Source: Daily News]

11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Criticizes Clinton over Iraq 
[Source: AP]

11/18/07 Edwards: ‘Senator Clinton was not for universal health care at the beginning of this year, at the beginning of the campaign.’ 
[Source: CNN Late Edition]

11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary wants to ‘protect politicians instead of talking about what we can do together.’
[Source: CNN Late Edition]

11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary was ‘walking away from [her] leadership role as a presidential candidate.
[Source: CNN Late Edition]

11/15/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt.’ 
[Source: Democratic Debate, CNN]

11/14/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton at Dubuque labor event 
[Source: AP]

11/12/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton for ‘double talk’ 
[Source: AP]

11/12/07 Edwards chief advisor Joe Trippi: ‘Let’s kick her ass.’  
[Source: Politico.com]

11/10/07 Edwards said ‘Sen. Clinton in many ways represents the status quo.’ 
[Source: Politico.com]

11/06/07 Edwards accused Hillary of ‘double talk and evasions.’ 
[Source: CNN]

11/05/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Accuses Clinton of Two-Faced Foreign Policy 
[Source: Fox News]

11/04/07 Edwards said that Hillary ‘operates within a corrupt system and defends it.’  
[Source: ABC News]

11/02/07 Edwards accuses Hillary of ’spin, smoke and mirrors — the same kind of double talk.’ 
[Source: CNN.com]

10/31/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘is trying to have it both ways.’ 
[Source: AP]

10/30/07 Edwards: ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton’s your candidate’: 
[Source: MSNBC Debate]

10/30/07 Edwards compares believing Hillary will be ‘the person who brings change’ to believing in ‘Santa Claus’ and ‘The Tooth Fairy.’  
[Source: MSNBC Debate]

10/29/07 Edwards says Hillary was not in ‘tell the truth mode.’  
[Source: Foster's]

10/28/07 HEADLINE: Edwards accuses Clinton of failing to connect with voters 
[Source: AP]

10/25/07 HEADLINE: Edwards blasts Clinton, Romney on Iran 
[Source: AP]

10/23/07 Edwards advisor said that Hillary would have ‘toxic coattails.’ 
[Source: LA Times]

10/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards attacks Clinton fundraiser 
[Source: United Press International]

10/19/07 HEADLINE: Edwards campaign slams Clinton push for rural vote 
[Source: Boston Globe]

10/19/07 Edwards Campaign manager says Hillary ’should explain why she does not mean what she says.’ 
[Source: Bonior Statement]

10/08/07 Edwards spokeswoman says Hillary is ‘defending a rigged system in Washington.’ 
[Source: Washington Post]

09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards hammers Clinton on health care 
[Source: Chicago Tribune]

09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton fundraising lunch 
[Source: AP]

09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton on health care
[Source: AP]

09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Takes On Special Interests, Hits Clinton 
[Source: AP]

08/27/07 Edwards advisor says Edwards ‘has a better chance of being elected pope’ than Hillary elected president.
[Source: Washington Post]

08/24/07 HEADLINE: Edwards takes shots at Clinton ‘nostalgia’ 
[Source: Chicago Tribune]

08/23/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton, ‘establishment elites’ 
[Source: CNN.com]

08/07/07 Edwards said I am not “the candidate that big corporate America is betting on.”
[Source: AFL-CIO Forum]

07/24/07 Edwards said ‘we will not have big change through compromise or triangulation.’
[Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution]

06/07/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Assails Clinton’s Terror Remarks’
[Source: AP]

05/04/07 Edwards called Hillary’s proposal to deauthorize the Iraq war ‘just noise.’
[Source: Edwards statement]

02/05/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Steps Up Hill War’
[Source: New York Post]

Instances of the DNC’s poor judgment keep piling up so it’s hard to keep it all straight, but four years ago, this elitist boob was our Presidential nominee. He was destined to join the ranks of Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern and yes, even the incredibly smart Al Gore must be counted here. It seems they don’t know how to run a campaign without their noses in the air, so superior and so much smarter than the other guy. The ‘Captain of the debating team’ strategy doesn’t seem to work out so well for the Dems.

I think Hillary is an exception to the debate rule because she can string three sentences together without coming across as a snob.

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons the DNC elite can’t stand her. Too middle class. Too plain spoken. Too good at throwin’ back the occasional bourbon shot with us regular folk. Heaven forefend we pick someone who actually understands the reality of having to live on Social Security or the need for having affordable health care. Does she have a top notch education? Yes. She’s a millionaire, you say? True. But that wealth was acquired relatively late. She knows what it is to work for a living. She spent seven years working for the Children’s Defense Fund right out of school, and throughout her life has worked for veterans, first responders, women, health care and education.

She was accused of many things, but no one ever said she looked down her nose at anyone. Right, Barack? Come to think of it, maybe that’s why they chose him – he can’t debate either! He’s just a snob. Finally! I have unearthed the DNC’s strategy for victory! Get someone who can eerrr uuuhh aaaaah his way into office.

But let’s get back to Kerry, the feller who hand-picked Obama to give that Convention speech back in 2004…

Remember when Bush Sr. was running for re-election in ’92 and got labeled as out-of-touch because he didn’t know what a bar code was? Kerry recently had a ‘barcode’ moment of his own. A young woman made a moving appeal to Senator Kerry to obtain fuel assistance benefits for a senior citizen in need of a new boiler. The elderly lady apparently supplements her Social Security with a part time job. She was told that because she earned $30 too much a week, she was not eligible – ergo, no money for heat.

Senator Kerry’s idea was “why doesn’t she cut back a couple of hours?”

Well, no, John, because a) she needs the money, b) that’s like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and c) when you’re fortunate enough to get a part time job, you don’t generally tell your employer when you feel like showing up. But I guess if you’re a U.S. Senator and married to the Heinz fortune, you don’t worry about such piddling details.

Kerry has likewise shown himself to be a turncoat dunce on many occasions. First, he endorsed Obama over Clinton. Never mind Hillary, he endorsed Obama over Edwards, his former running mate, without so much as a “Dear John” letter.

Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Duval Patrick made a grand showing of trumpeting Obama before the Massachusetts primary. Odd that Hillary still trounced him to the tune of 15 points.

This was the most telling primary of all 50 states (yes, 50, not 57) since David Axelrod was also Patrick’s campaign manager. The people of Massachusetts had already experienced Obama 1.0 in the person of Patrick, and he’s not doing so well, so they decided not to sip the hopey-changey koolaid a second time.

Kerry stated Hillary Clinton’s health care plan was ‘a non-starter.’ Uh, it’s the only health care plan that would actually cover everyone. ‘Dead on arrival’: those were his words. Didn’t Chairman Dean say universal health care is a moral imperative? Not so much, I guess.

Then Kerry gave the New Bedford Standard Times an interview basically saying that we needed to elect Barack because he is African American and would build a bridge between us and the Muslim community. That’s like saying if my mother had family in Austria, she could have talked Hitler out of invading Poland. And dare I say it, John, wanting to elect someone because of their skin color is…racist.

In July, Kerry allowed his new good buddy Barack and his clueless campaign people to ‘diss’ and dismiss none other than one of the heroes of the Democratic party: Max Cleland. But I thought he was John’s good friend?

Kerry was furious that Cleland was swift-boated in 2002 by the Republicans. That negative campaign cost Cleland his Senate seat. Oddly enough, Kerry had nothing to say when Barack ‘uninvited’ Cleland from a campaign event because he was labeled a ‘lobbyist’ and Obama has ‘nothing to do with lobbyists.’ M’kay.

Cleland occasionally works on behalf of Tissue Regeneration Technologies, a company that helps injured vets recover faster. Fitting that Max would do this since he lost three limbs fighting for his country in Viet Nam and sits in a wheel chair. And they asked him not to attend a campaign event for Obama? Why? Because they were ‘afraid they would be criticized’ for having someone in attendance with ‘lobbying ties.’ How courageous.

Way to win the military vote, Barack.

Do you have any idea how many vets out there are still angry with Kerry for his protests back in ’71??? I remember this clearly because I spent many hours campaigning for him in ’04 – not because I thought he was great, but because we needed to get Bush out. Many people I spoke to with military backgrounds acted like Kerry’s protests happened yesterday. These wounds don’t heal easily.

Not everyone lives in the disposable society that Senator Obama’s campaign seems to encourage with its’ every condescending or insensitive comment or action. Something I would have thought Senator Kerry learned the hard way, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2004 running against arguably the worst president in history.

Here’s how many words of support for Max or rebuke for Barack were uttered from John Kerry’s lips: zero. Max Cleland, another dutiful Democrat, God bless him, remained silent. That silence spoke volumes.

Kerry’s latest lead-footed behavior was in evidence last Sunday on Meet The Press, when John decided to show what a good Obamabot he is by bringing up a subject I thought had worn itself out in the news cycle: throwing General Wesley Clark under the bus. He roundly criticized Clark for his appearance on Face the Nation where, aiming to board the unity pony, Clark made this unfortunate statement regarding McCain: “being shot down in a plane does not qualify you to be President.” It was a poor choice of words, even if true.

But there was no reason for Kerry to bring this up — again. The ‘courageous’ Obama had already thrown Clark under the bus weeks before. Did Kerry forget how hard Wes campaigned for him in 2004 after losing his own Presidential bid? Believe me, Clark would have made a far better President than Kerry, and is far less mind-numbing to listen to. While I may be furious Clark would speak on behalf of the empty suit, Obama, in the first place, if anyone can make an argument against McCain, it’s Clark. Did Kerry forget that Clark took four bullets in a jungle and still led his troops to victory in Viet Nam and has 34 years of distinguished service in the military?

Kerry allowed himself to be swift boated by the Republicans with nary a whimper and now he’s pulling the same crap? To what end? Clark has worked tirelessly for down ticket Democrats for the last five years.

I also remember Kerry campaigning before the Latino community back in ’04. He wagged his finger, reminding them in very rudimentary Spanish that voting is “muy importante”. He sounded as though he were talking to three years olds. Talking down to the voters; sounds like someone else we know.

John Kerry managed to accomplish one thing with all the above actions. He’s made me ashamed that I ever canvassed for him or made a phone call on his behalf.

And after all the years he and the rest of these pompous fools chose to back Mr. Wrong, wouldn’t you think for once they’d cop a clue and back Ms. Right?

I don’t recognize this party any more. I can’t figure out their endgame except that the losers’ club of Kerry, Dodd, Dean, Richardson and the rest, unable to win the Presidency themselves, think they will grow their own power whispering into this neophyte’s ear.

Kerry has been a Senator for 24 years and is so cozy in his job that he won’t even grant a debate to his primary opponent. Hmmm. That sounds familiar. That’s right. Kerry has a Democratic challenger in the person of Ed O’Reilly. O’Reilly may actually have a shot. Certainly there are many in Massachusetts not pleased with Kerry at the moment. Perhaps O’Reilly, a real salt of the earth gentleman, by the way, has a chance to pull this off. I’ve sent some dough to help. The primary is September 16th.

I think it’s time to send a shock wave to Kerry and the DNC. They keep advocating for change. Maybe it’s time to change them.