| |
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Rielle Hunter InterviewWas obviously set up to portray her and the Silky Pony rather favorably. My first impression of Hunter, when she opened the back door of the screened porch filled with toys and strollers in the three-bedroom house she is renting (for $1,500 a month), her hair pulled up in a scrunchy, was that she was much prettier, and a whole lot softer, than all those National Enquirer spy photos suggest. We learn that she calls him Johnny: I feel comfortable talking now, because Johnny went public and made a statement admitting paternity. I didn't feel like I could ever speak until he did that. Because had I spoken, I would have emasculated him. And I could not emasculate him. Also, it is not my desire to teach my daughter that when Mommy's upset with Daddy, you take matters into your own hands and fix Daddy's mistakes. Which I view as one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships. Check out the goofy, softcore porn photos of Rielle here. Labels: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Least Surprising News of the DayJohn Edwards: It's my kid. I am Quinn’s father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves. I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace. Labels: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter
Monday, January 11, 2010
Edwards the MonsterGood lord, what a tawdry tale the whole J ohn Edwards/Elizabeth Edwards/Rielle Hunter saga turns out to be. The Silky Pony comes off pretty poorly: Many of his friends started noticing a change—the arrival of what one of his aides referred to as “the ego monster”—after he was nearly chosen by Al Gore to be his running mate in 2000: the sudden interest in superficial stuff to which Edwards had been oblivious before, from the labels on his clothes to the size of his entourage. But the real transformation occurred in the 2004 race, and especially during the general election. Edwards reveled in being inside the bubble: the Secret Service, the chartered jet, the press pack, the swarm of factotums catering to his every whim. And the crowds! The ovations! The adoration! He ate it up. In the old days, when his aides asked how a rally had gone, he would roll his eyes and self-mockingly say, “Oh, they love me.” Now he would bound down from the stage beaming and exclaim, without the slightest shred of irony, “They looooove me!” Saint Elizabeth does even worse: With her husband, she could be intensely affectionate or brutally dismissive. At times subtly, at times blatantly, she was forever letting John know that she regarded him as her intellectual inferior. She called her spouse a “hick” in front of other people and derided his parents as rednecks. One time, when a friend asked if John had read a certain book, Elizabeth burst out laughing. “Oh, he doesn’t read books,” she said. “I’m the one who reads books.” It's an amazing read, but keep in mind that the sources for it are from the Edwards campaign and have a vested interest in maintaining their own viability for the future. Labels: Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards, Rielle Hunter
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
John Edwards: Still Lyin'And perhaps sadder, his wife still believes him: It didn't occur to me that at a fancy hotel in New York, where he sat with a potential donor to his antipoverty work, he would be targeted by a woman who would confirm that the man at the table was John Edwards and then would wait for him outside the hotel hours later when he returned from a dinner, wait with the come-on line "You are so hot" and an idea that she should travel with him and make videos. The other woman as a "stalker". And get this: And the next day John and I spoke. He wasn't coy, but it turned out he wasn't forthright either. A single night and since then remorse, was what he said. There were other opportunities, he admitted, but on only one night had he violated his vows to me. Except: A single night, another opportunity, but that was it and he had wanted away from her.... It turned out that a single time was not all it was. Labels: Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Poll Vault South CarolinaOnce again, a LOT more people came out for the Democratic primary; somewhere around 20% more. In a state where Republicans got 40% more of the vote in the general election in 2004. I don't see a good way to spin that positively for the GOP. Although turnout was only 51%-49% male to female on the Republican side, it was 61%-39% female to male today. Running the numbers reveals that overall 537,000 women came out to vote in SC, while 430,000 men cast ballots. Although women did support Hillary more than men in the Palmetto State, they still voted overwhelmingly for Barack. If the Clinton's goal was to define Obama as the black candidate, then it appears that in South Carolina they succeeded. Barack won huge margins among blacks of all ages, not only lost white voters of all ages over 30, but finished third, behind Edwards and Clinton. Obama loses votes steadily as the population ages, something that does not bode well for him in Florida. Interestingly Edwards' percentage went up steadily as religious attendance declined. There was a sense of reality among voters; even those who voted for Obama appear to recognize that Hillary is more electable and more qualified to be Commander in Chief (my God!). Despite Edward's populism, he did slightly better among college graduates than those without a degree, and his percentage of the vote pretty steadily rose with income. Is it ironic that socialism seems more popular with the wealthy than the poor. Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, South Carolina
Friday, January 11, 2008
If You're Tired of the Infighting on the Right...Check out the infighting on the Left. Lawrence O'Donnell tips the ball up: If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation. Well, you can imagine how John Edwards' many friends in the Libbysphere took that one. Jane Smiley: When I read Lawrence O'Donnell's post calling John Edwards a "loser" and threatening a lifetime of infamy if he doesn't get out of the race, I immediately went to O'Donnell's bio to see his party affiliation. I was sure it would say "R" -- but it didn't. It didn't say anything. Let me get this straight. Jane Smiley doesn't know what party affiliation Lawrence O'Donnell has, and she's opining on politics on the HuffPo? However, I am fairly sure in my own mind that Karl Rove paid him to write that post. Look at it this way: O'Donnell attacks the only candidate in the race with explicitly progressive policy positions, and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money, and the only candidate in the race who understands how corporations are poisoning American politics and American life with their unrestrained power and influence. Translation: He's attacking my guy! Jane Hamsher: 2. Edwards has pretty much single handedly driven the populist, anti-poverty message this campaign, which both Clinton and Obama have been heavily appropriating of late. Just as Bill Richardson made a valuable contribution with his "no residual forces in Iraq" promise in the debate, so too has Edwards dragged everyone kicking and screaming onto the "dangers of corporate America" turf. That has value, and that value is ongoing unless you want to boil the slog to November down to simple horserace politics. Translation: He's attacking my guy! Look, it's simple. O'Donnell's right. The Breck Girl hasn't got a prayer of winning in this election. His economic populism isn't even selling with liberals. Edwards got 17% of the vote in New Hampshire, less than half of what Hillary and Obama each received. That's not to say that the "Creepy Liar" isn't wrong too. The assumption that Edwards' supporters would automatically shift over to Obama is far from assured. It's certainly plausible that Obama and Edwards are both getting the "Stop Hillary" vote, but it's hardly racist for Edwards to stay in the race; it's just self-delusional. Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards
Friday, June 15, 2007
How Delusional Are These People?Answer: Pretty delusional. Power Line points to a post over at MyDD about the race for the Democratic nomination. I agree with Mirengoff's take: But what both Obama and Clinton have figured out is that the best way to protect themselves from Republican criticism (aka "rightwing ammo") in the general election is by not allowing their positions and their persona to be shaped by the hard left. If Obama is nominated, the left-wing bloggers will do their bit by urging leftists (the only group with whose voting pattern they even arguably can influence) to vote for him. And, having kept his distance from these bloggers, Obama will be in a good position to compete for independent and centrist voters.
The same situation will obtain if, as seems likely, Hillary is the nominee. But I had to chortle when I got over to the Jerome Armstrong post, because it is thoroughly deluded: In Obama latest, he sent me an email titled, "What a movement looks like?" His campaign probably didn't notice the slip, but it's an obvious truth--that adding that "?" in the title. Maybe, he thinks, he's in one... maybe not... who can tell? He wouldn't have a clue, I'm beginning to think-- that the campaign really doesn't know what a movement is made up of and are fumbling in the dark amidst their media-created momentum (which is getting primed to turn on its creation). And who's got Obama's back when the media does turns on its creation? The netroots doesn't; he's never aligned with the existing movement that began with Dean in '02, swelled for Wesley Clark in '03, led Dean to the DNC Chair and propelled the Hackett and Lamont candidacies, leading to the surge of activists voting for Democrats in '06. Yeah, they did a lot for Howard Dean in '02, and Weasely Clark in '03, so much that these two combined for 2 primary wins in 2004. And they propelled the Hackett and Lamont candidacies to defeat, not victory, remember? It's ludicrous that some point toward the outreach and early partnership that Edwards has done with the blogging community and the netroots in the same manner that a candidate reaches out to an issue base group, and and argue from there that Obama doesn't kowtow to such groups. First of all, that's bs, he does plenty of pandering and is very ordinary in that regard; but more fundamentally, this is the base of the Democratic party's rapid response team. The issue is combating the rightwing machine in unison with Democratic candidates, but you can't partner with a candidate that not inclined to join the partisan progressive movement. In all those emails, Obama has never once even associated with the word Democrat or Democratic, not mentioning either word even once. Edwards and Clinton do. Whose nomination is Obama running for? Translation: He panders to us, just not enough to make us feel important. Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Netroots Kooks
Monday, April 23, 2007
Trouble In LeftopiaThis is pretty amusing. Apparently Maureen Dowd took a break from her routine of bashing Bush to give John Edwards a helping of criticism for his $400 pompadour. And the Lefty blogs are tearing into each other and her and him: Ezra Klein: What I don't understand is John Edwards. A presidential campaign demands so many sacrifices. It rips you from your family, forces a ceaseless travel schedule, demands constant kowtowing to parochial primary voters, demands endless humiliating fundraising calls, and imposes a thousand indignities and inconveniences, some major, some minor. So why, in all that he is giving up, did he not eschew the big house or the costly cut? Skippy the Bush Kangaroo: ezra klein's an idiot
about maureen dowd at least. and we say that with deep regret since we read him regularly and normally we find him thoughtful and informative. plus he writes well. but about l'affair du haircut, he's an idiot. and worse, he's a battered democrat, hoping the abusive press won't hit our candidates if they behave well. Garance: I know several female on-air television personalities who spend considerably less than this on haircuts, though Japanese straightening treatments can take them into the over $500 range. I can’t imagine Edwards spent $400 for just a haircut. That seems excessive, even for a top salon, given how short his hair is, how basic his style is, and given that men’s cuts generally run less than women’s. Obsidian Wings: We are currently suffering through the last two years of a President who is manifestly unqualified for the job, and has no discernible interest in most of the issues that affect ordinary Americans. Thank heavens, then, that Maureen Dowd has decided to use her column not to score cheap points, but to focus our attention on an issue of immense national significance: John Edwards' haircut. But of course if La Dowd had written a column on Bush's haircut, they would not be talking about how this was a distraction from issues that affect ordinary Americans. Labels: John Edwards, Leftie Blogs, Maureen Dowd
Friday, April 20, 2007
Silky Pony Update I had heard about the John Edwards $400 haircut (jeez, Clinton's $200 cut looks like a bargain), but I didn't realize that he had the gall to have his campaign pay! His campaign spending reports, required by the Federal Election Commission, revealed that he has been paying $400 for haircuts by a Beverly Hills cutter named Joseph Torrenueva. The guy must be good, because Edwards' hair sure looks good. So does the rest of him, helped along by a $250 shaping at the Designworks Salon in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 at the Pink Sapphire spa in Manchester, N.H. The Pink Sapphire? Labels: John Edwards
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Sad NewsJohn Edwards' wife's cancer has returned. We may not agree with his politics, but we pray for Elizabeth. Labels: Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards
Monday, March 05, 2007
Does Coulter Think Every Democrat is Secretly Gay?I thought I'd check around the liberal blogosphere for some "Man Coulter" posts to show the liberals' hypocrisy on her most recent outburst. They're certainly out there, but what I found more interesting was that one of the posts about "Man Coulter" notes that Ann had previously asserted that Bill Clinton was secretly gay. Ann Coulter repeated on Hardball her insinuation that Bill Clinton is gay, then went on to joke that "may not be gay, but Al Gore: total fag". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but jeez, Bill Clinton is pretty transparently not gay. And Al Gore? Hey, he did have that unfortunate lisp after getting some dental work done before the convention in 2000, but I'm confident that's what happened--the dental work confused his tongue (which, by the way, spent an ungodly amount of time down his wife's throat when the speech was over). So now we've got Ann calling men who were on the last four tickets the Democratic party came up with "fags" or "faggots" or "gay". Very curious, to say the least, and I am sure that Hillary will not be spared if her turn comes. What will she do if Barney Franks gets nominated? Insinuate that he must be a straight? Labels: Al Gore, Ann Coulter, Bill Clinton, John Edwards
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Down Goes Marcotte! Down Goes Marcotte!John Edwards rethinks keeping his foul-mouthed liberal blogger. Word of Marcotte's resignation came as Fox News Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly was leading his program with a full-throated attack on the two bloggers.
A conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin, wrote recently: "Seems that everyone but the Edwards campaign has tracked Marcotte's foul-mouthed nutroots diatribes. Or perhaps the Edwards team is well aware of her lunatic blogging and can't wait for her to unleash her unbridled anger on their spiffy website to give him a gritty, 'progressive' edge."
But a liberal blogger, Chris Bowers of MyDD.com, wrote that "Republican attempts to make Democrats look bad though guilt by association with us crazy bloggers were a miserable failure." Hmmm, maybe we could start another Google Bomb? Miserable failure? Labels: Amanda Marcotte, John Edwards
|
|
