John Edwards speaks

Irony of ironies! No sooner do I speak dismissively of all the gossip about political also-ran John Edwards (you know, that guy I dismissed as a phony a year ago), but the guy steps out of the shadows and makes all that trashy, painful personal stuff a news story by talking publicly about it.

The spin cycle enthusiasts will have a field day with this, no doubt. Go ahead, y’all — yak away!

40 thoughts on “John Edwards speaks

  1. Reader

    I just saw some guy on Fox News with the most gut-wrenching challenge of the day [didn’t catch his name but he was speaking with a blonde (of course) reporter @ around 5-ish].
    He challenged the “MEDIA” to come clean with all of their closet stowaways — and THEN go after John Edwards.
    Pathetic – this public flogging.
    I would be more worried about the murderers and psychos running free and wild, with no consequences — than about what is going on in John Edwards’ marriage.

  2. Reader

    To take the Karen McLeod Lead-in:
    ***And Edwards’ dalliance is news, why?***
    WHO CARES ABOUT IT?!? At least, who cares about it enough to have it covered on every freaking cable channel simultaneously?!?

  3. slugger

    The question about John Edwards is how smart is he/or how dumb is he?
    No need to go into all the things that he did wrong in this situation.
    As it turned out, he was not presidential material. Or was he?
    Some politicians seem to play the Hollywood game. Some seem to play the game of “I am smarter than the ones that will catch me fooling around…Or we can just see it for what it is and that is sex is what drives the male ego”. Not all men want to play that game but those that do take the risk.
    Let us flip the coin to the women that play around. I have read that there is almost as many married women that play the sex games as there are men.
    Is this about the times in which all we see on TV and in the movies is about sex and violence?
    I am not trying to give a pass to John Edwards because he seems to the type that would only regret that he got caught.
    We can only hope that the pendulum will swing back to a time when people had more pride in themselves than to put their reputation and their family in jeopardy because of letting a moment of indiscretion blow away all in life that is precious to man and woman in a loving relationship and a loving family.
    Will we ever learn this lesson?

  4. Reader

    All I know is:
    Mitt Romney, as US VP or US President (!) will never be giving us this scene. He is as squeaky-clean as he looks. And that is squeaky. And that is clean. Clean is good. Boring is good. Romney is good.
    ***Mitt Romney 2008***
    ***VP or Pres.***whichever comes first***

  5. p.m.

    You know, Mr. Warthen, I think this proves John Edwards is a phony, so you can say “I told you so.”
    It worked out a lot better than the Tommy Moore endorsement, at least.

  6. Mary J

    You know P.M., if you’re going to say that John Edwards is a phony because he cheated on his wife, then you have to apply that to ALL spouses who cheat on their significant others. With that context, are they too all “phony?” He may have done an awful thing, but that doesn’t discredit his message? There are still two America’s in this country and it’s time that this nation’s leadership stand up and start doing something about it. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class will soon cease to exist.

  7. Ross

    I agree with Mary, yeah, he made a bad decision but what he said was still true about the state of this country. And I’m still not convinced that he’s “phony.” He came from poor upbringings and is living the American dream-a rags to riches story. So yeah if he wants to have a big ass house and own some big ass land making an ass amount of money, who’s to tell him no? At least when he became rich he still gave back to the community, unlike some of these rich Republicans in office. You don’t always have to be poor to know the importance of succeeding.

  8. brian

    Well, I disagree with Mr. Warthen more often than I agree, but he was spot-on with his take on Edwards. When I first forwarded that article to my sister in Raleigh who has had dealing with him, she said then that Brad must had known him well. Even if he had he not run for president/vice pres in 04, he would never be re-elected in NC. He was not even a good sleazy politician.
    Did he tell his wife/family everything 2 years ago? Oh HELL no!! I can’t believe anyone actually supported him; well, yeah I can…
    And yes Brad; you were right about Tommy Moore and Ravenel. I almost expect a politician to use drugs and/or alcohol to excess, but adultery is way too much, especially if you’re so stupid you get caught.

  9. p.m.

    Are spouses who cheat on their wives phonies?
    Dadgummit, I hate to say it, but I think that depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
    Of course spouses who cheat on their wives are phonies. They took vows. They broke them clandestinely. They live one life openly and another life secretly. That fits the definition of “phony” about as well as anything could.
    As to Edwards’ phoniness discrediting his message, well, of course it does, because it’s altogether too easy to say there are two Americas, the one John Edwards told his wife about, and the one he didn’t.
    Besides, it was alway true that there are two USAs — the one where people try to better themselves, and the one where people don’t, and making that distinction is a far more valid viewpoint than Edwards’ trying to make political hay with his phony “two Americas” spiel about the haves and have-nots. Ironically, his own rags-to-riches story invalidates his message to a large extent.
    Really, there are as many Americas as there are Americans, because no two people, even twins, face exactly the same situation. Even in a socialist state — especially in a socialist state — there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

  10. robert

    All this means is that John Edwards is a bold face liar. He can look one in the eye, and lie. Some folks like to reduce this to sex, then excuse it. But it is about the lie.
    How this relates to politics is that the liars will lie about anything…including the facts, figures and situations that allow them to governing in a manner best suited for their purposes.
    Most problematic is that this was not a closed secret. Man y people have known for a long time now, and the major media has known it too. But they choose not to print it, even though it clearly was within the right of the public to know of this man’s hypocrisy and prevarications. It is safe to say that had John Edwards been a republican this story would have been printed long ago.
    This is not a shot at the State, but the media in this country is behind the curve, and has lost its footings. We can only hope that the 4th estate, a foundation of this country, realizes its importance to the very survival of our country, and rights itself. The public needs more unbiased information about the matters of the day, and less fluff.

  11. Robert

    I posted a few minutes ago, then I spent a some more time looking at Elizabeth Edward’s statements about this affair, and I must say it is repulsive. She is “spinning”, and apparently without shame.
    We have a class of pariah that lives and works at the top of our government, both state and local. They barter our liberty, treasury and future for personal fame, power, ego, and yes, sometimes, the creation of their personal fortune. The Edwards clan is a perfect example of people without morals, but with appealing personalities and quick wits, that seek to rule our country.
    It has long been said that we get the government we deserve. I hope this is not always true, and that we remove these shameless adventurers from our mist, and find those that seek to serve, not to master. America deserves better than this…

  12. Mike Cakora

    Edwards is fortunate that he’s got good friends that can help clean up the mess he left. Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron did his part:

    Fred Baron, the chief campaign money raiser for former Sen. John Edwards, said he provided help to those involved in Edwards’ extra-marital affair.
    “I decided independently to help two friends and former colleagues rebuild their lives when harassment by supermarket tabloids made it impossible for them to conduct a normal life,” Baron, a Dallas trial lawyer said in a statement, Rob Christensen reports.
    “John Edwards was not aware that assistance was provided to anyone involved in this matter,” Baron said. “I did it of my own voilition and without the knowledge, instruction, or suggestion of John Edwards or anyone else. The assistance was offered and accepted without condition.”
    Although Baron did not name any names, he was apparently referring to Rielle Hunter, with whom Edwards had an affair, and Andrew Young, a former Edwards aide, who has said he fathered Hunter’s child.
    Hunter and Young had been living separately first at an upscale development in Chapel Hill and later in Santa Barbara.

    And what a help he was:

    Fred Baron, a Texas lawyer who was the finance chairman of Edwards’s two presidential campaigns, in 2004 and this year, said in an interview that he has been sending unspecified sums of money to Hunter without informing Edwards. The payments helped Hunter relocate from North Carolina to a $3 million Santa Barbara home and helped Andrew Young — a former Edwards aide who claims to be the baby’s father — move into a $4 million home in the same city. Edwards said he was unaware that money was being funneled to his former aides.

    Edwards was right. there are two Americas: a public one where one projects whatever one wants others to believe, the other where reality is know to a select few.

  13. robert

    Mr. Barron’s story is just another lie from the “ruling class” of money and politics.
    A lie knows no partisan politics. Republican leaders, Democrat leaders, Libertarian leaders…you name them and they will lie to us.
    The worst lie is the one they tell themselves…the one that says ” I tell this story to the public so that I can be elected, and the public will benefit from my election”. This lie, told to oneself, is insidious and enabling, and ruinous.
    The death of “integrity” in public life was not noted in the press, nor discussed in the media or around the dinner table. There is not a date certain or a place where the event took place. But it did happen, and we suffer as a people becasue of it.

  14. Mike Cakora

    Now that you bring up lies and the ruling class, there’s some suspicion that the mainstream media (MSM) devoted few resources to the Edwards affair because he is, like they are, liberal Democrats. For the past week or two over at National Review Online Byron York has been mulling this over. He writes in one of his reports:

    Some big-time journalists seem to believe the Enquirer has nailed the story, and they are waiting for the tabloid to release the full results of its reporting. In the meantime, they are staying away from the story because it appeared in the Enquirer. In other words, they’re waiting for the Enquirer to fully report a story that they wouldn’t otherwise report… because it’s in the Enquirer.

    The LA Times banned its reporters from mentioning anything about the Edwards affair on its blogs. When the story finally broke, they assigned an intern to cover it.
    York does note that The State’s sister newspaper, the Charlotte Observer did have a reporter or two out trying to get the facts, arguing that Edwards needs to “publicly address” the “love child” matter if he is to have a prominent role in the Democratic convention.

  15. slugger

    The only good thing that came out of all the information provided to the public about his affair was that he was either shooting blanks or the gun was not loaded.
    He dodged that bullet/or did she dodge his bullet and wound up with a bullet from Andrew Young?
    I understand that the child is a girl. The mother could nickname her “Bullet” and apply for Medicaid since Edwards is not the daddy and will not support the baby. Or, will the attorney continue to support the party’s concerned?
    Somebody better hurry up and write a book about this mess because truth is stranger than fiction.

  16. Mike Cakora

    slugger –
    Have you fallen for a slick lawyer trick? Russ Vaughn’s wife, a certified legal assistant in the employ of numerous trial lawyers for thirty years, clued him in on the emptiness of the offer.

    Edwards could take all the paternity tests in the world but if there is no matching test obtained from the child in question, there would be nothing to match it to. And then I began to understand why this guy was able to get tens of millions of dollars out corporate coffers. If there is no complainant, meaning Ms. Hunter, seeking to establish legal paternity, then wherefrom will come the genetic materials to be used in the testing/matching process?
    There is no father listed on the birth certificate so that makes Ms. Hunter the sole legal representative of the baby, and the only person who can submit that child for genetic testing to obtain a possible matching sample. And is Ms. Hunter likely to do that when she considers the possibility that she may someday be Mrs. Edwards, wife of one of the wealthiest trial attorneys in America? And there are news reports that she has indeed alluded to such a future with Mr. Silky Pony when he is no longer matrimonially encumbered.

    She and the child are safely ensconced in a $3 million Santa Barbara home, the “admitted” father is nearby in a $4 million pad, so who’s going to complain as long as there’s a roof above and food on the table?
    Besides, who knows what the real sequence of events was? There’s a bit of confusion, leading Donald Sensing to write: “Edwards denies being the father of Rielle’s baby. If true (coff), then while Edwards was cheating on Elizabeth, Rielle was cheating on him. You just can’t make this stuff up.”

  17. Robert

    That Barron has shelled out 7 million dollars (plus living expenses) for people he did not know, or knew only in passing, is all you need to know that the truth has still not been told. John and Elizabeth Edwards are in this together, and there is no lie that they will not tell to stop the damage to the Edwards brand.
    I was recently in the New York with some very liberal friends…and I mean VERY liberal. These guys are truly clued in to the inside of the leftist movement in America at the highest levels. They are very concerned about the “back story” of Barak Obama. Now, I do not want to even begin to repeat the stuff I was told, but suffice it to say these people were very concerned. I came away with the impression that the Edwards things, which they all knew about and filled me in on it in detail before the Edwards confession, was a bell weather event for them, and that if it broke in the mainstream media then Obama might be toast.
    So, the importance of the Edwards saga is not what it does to Edwards, but to Obama. And never forget who benefits most if dirt on Obama comes out…Hillary. And man, would I hate to be Obama if Hillary does have the goods on him!

  18. Brad Warthen

    Mike, what on Earth do you mean, “cover-up?” If you mean Edwards’ own coverup, fine. But surely you’re not repeating the nonsensical rantings of the right-wing blogosphere that there was a media coverup in this case. You’re too thoughtful a person to do that.
    Who, other than Edwards and his associates, covered what up? We’re talking about a guy I haven’t given a moment’s thought to in months. I was vaguely aware that people were throwing rumors around about him, but what did I care about that?
    Do you actually think it is the role of the MSM to report mere rumors about has-been politicians.
    Yesterday, of course, the thing became news. The man himself made the rumor fact by admitting it, and admitting to a timeline that showed he lied about it in the past.
    Of course, I’m still not interested in writing about it, because it’s none of my business now. If such rumors had been transformed to known fact when he was a contender, I might have taken interest, because things that bear on candidates’ characters are legitimate topics of commentary.
    I suppose anyone out there who took this guy seriously at any point might want to share his thoughts at this juncture, but I’m 180 degrees from that. After all the crapola I took last year for my NOT taking the guy seriously, I am more than satisfied that I’ve said what I need to say, and said it long ago. Dwelling on the guy’s continued self-destruction interests me not in the slightest.

  19. Ralph Hightower

    Why do Democratic politicians who are lawyers have problems with their zippers?
    Bill Clinton
    Elliot Spitzer (ex-NY Governor, former NY Attorney General): hired a prostitute, crossing state lines
    John Edwards (ambulance chaser, former US Senator of NC, wanna-be President)

  20. Mike Cakora

    Brad –
    You busted me. “Cover-up” was the wrong word to use for the MSM’s role. I should have used “avoidance” or “silence” or something indicating a passive role. The LA Times, however, is a special case because there’s evidence that its reporters were banned from mentioning the “rumors or salacious speculations” relating to Edwards on its blogs. And when the story broke, they assigned an intern…
    I’ve always known that Edwards was a phony, but he was still in the running for a spot in the Obama administration — Attorney General — if not on the ticket as the VP. He’s the kind of guy who doesn’t deserve that, and I do wonder if Kerry’s choice of him as a running-mate four years ago was a type of assassin insurance.
    I gotta confess that part of me is repulsed by this whole mess but deep down in what would otherwise be the darkness of my soul burns a raging fire of jealousy because I’ve never had and will never have a head of hair like his.

  21. Mike Cakora

    Brad –
    And another thing. I’m no big fan of McCain, but what the heck was the New York Times doing other than engaging in rumors or salacious speculations when it published this?

    Boiled to the essentials, this is what The Times reported Thursday: In 1999, Iseman, a lobbyist for telecommunications companies with business before a Senate committee led by McCain, started turning up at his fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a corporate jet. “Convinced the relationship had become romantic” and was putting his campaign and career at risk, some top McCain advisers gave instructions to block her access, privately warned her away and repeatedly confronted him.
    Two former McCain associates, who were quoted anonymously and described as “disillusioned” with the senator, said he “acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman.” John Weaver, a former top strategist for McCain, told The Times he had arranged a meeting at Union Station in Washington in which Iseman was asked to stay away from the senator. Weaver said the message of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was “taking on the special interests” and Iseman’s presence could undermine that.

    The paper’s public editor had this to say:

    The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.

    But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.
    “If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
    I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

    To counter the article, McCain held a press conference that lasted until every last question reporters could come up with was answered.
    The only good thing to come out of that episode was Michael Kinsley’s penetrating analysis:

    I am not accusing the New York Times of screwing up again by publishing an insufficiently sourced article then defending itself with a preposterous assertion that it wasn’t trying to imply what it obviously was trying to imply. I am merely reporting that some people worry that other people might be concerned that the New York Times has created the appearance of screwing up once again.

    Is that clear?

  22. slugger

    Edwards should have taken the DNA test to disqualify himself as the father of the baby before appearing at the “I am guilty and please forgive me because I am a rich SOB and I will eventually pay my way out of this situation” and presented the fact that he was not the father before confessing to the relationship.
    I would never hire him for a lawyer if he was not smart enough to present proof that he was not the daddy at the confession of the relationship.
    What the people want to know is he the daddy. Since he did not come out of the gate with this information maybe he thinks that we are dumb enough to believe that Andrew Young is the guilty party.
    John Edwards wanted to close the door to any further inquiry by admitting the affair when he should have presented the proof that he was not the daddy.
    Stranger yet is the fact that he made his millions defending women against doctors that he said caused harm to their infant at delivery

  23. Mike Cakora

    Nothing to see here, move along now, the party’s over, let’s just call it a day. From tomorrow’s WaPo comes this:

    Rielle Hunter, the former presidential campaign aide who had an affair with John Edwards, said yesterday that she will not pursue DNA testing to establish the paternity of her 5-month-old daughter, despite the former senator’s offer to participate in such a test.
    In a statement provided to The Washington Post, Hunter said through her attorney that she will not be party to such a test “now or in the future.”
    The attorney, Robert Gordon, called Hunter a “private” person who is “not running for public office” and would not comment further.
    “She wishes to maintain her privacy and her daughter’s privacy,” he said in the statement. “Furthermore, Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter’s privacy now or in the future.”

    The guy with the big heart who apparently spent something north of $7M to relocated Ms. Hunter and the admitted dad to Santa Barbara was featured in a 2004 article in National Review. He has certainly done well during hard times.
    Case closed.

  24. Red Bank Bar

    How is John Edwards’ affair any different from John McCain’s(Other than being twenty(?) years apart)?

  25. Mike Cakora

    Red Bank Bar –
    Both involve infidelity, have their sordid details, and hurt a loving and by all accounts loyal spouse. The main difference is that Edwards’ is quite recent and he was running for our nation’s highest office, showing a poor regard for timing and propriety. Donald Sensng puts it this way:

    But wait, you say. Other politicos – a lot of them, in fact – have treated their wives like yesterday’s news and gone on to thrive politically. Let’s see, the name of “John McCain” comes to mind. But there is one difference between McCain and, I would guess, all the others. McCain et. al. also had a lot of prior experience in the political world, with significant records of accomplishments, that Edwards entirely lacks.
    McCain, it should also be noted, ditched his first wife well before he entered politics. Generally, the American people have been pretty forgiving of men’s sins before they entered politics, unless the sins were very severe. Remember, Bill Clinton even admitted he had smoked dope in college and no one really cared. But John Edwards ditched his wife while he was actually running for president. And that fact will matter in a determinative fashion for his political future.

  26. Brad Warthen

    Mike, you bring up that bunch of pooge that the NYT did on McCain, which leads me to make this point: The MSM ignoring the Edwards rumors was appropriate. That absurd non-expose of McCain by the NYT was inappropriate — in fact, it was just plain lame. I see no parallel between the two. One was the press NOT doing something it shouldn’t; the other involved DOING something it shouldn’t.

    By the way, here’s what I wrote about that at the time.

    I thought I had said something about Clark Hoyt’s piece on that — but I must have been thinking about what I said about Clark’s piece on that execrable ad.

  27. Mike Cakora

    Brad – Fair enough, my complaint was not about you, but about the MSM in general, and was the MSM correct in ignoring Edwards?
    Okay, a tabloid had some stories, but was there a fire that caused its smoke? Where’s the aggressive reporting that made some newspaper’s great? Tim Rutten wrote about the dethroned MSM today (emphasis added):

    The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence. The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton. As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer’s stories had been “confirmed.”
    Well, there’s confirming and then there’s confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, “Find somebody and have them make a few calls.” Then there’s the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada’s and says, “Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion.”

    Your sister paper in Charlotte did press a bit, but the rest of the MSM was missing in action. I agree that until it had something other than hearsay to report, no MSM outlet should have said much of anything, but there’s not much indication that any of them tried.
    Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that many media outlets are in trouble — they don’t seem to try as hard as they used to. Another big reason is that they’re perceived as being biased in one way or another.

  28. David

    John Edwards is a no-good, lying, slimy snake. His infidelity to a wife with cancer and to whom he’d been married for decades proves it. His utter lack of morality and honor has really been reflected all along in his professional life and in his political posings, this episode simply crystallizes them.
    The exposure of his dark soul and lack of character with this groupie effectively ends his political career (such as it was).
    That is a good thing.

  29. David

    And besides, who really cares?
    Do NOT cry for John Edwards. He based his entire political arc upon convincing dopey voters that there are “two Americas”…meaning the haves and the have-nots. He was tireless in his attempts to demonize the “haves” and to incite the “nots” to revolt. His whole thing was that the “nots” could never become “haves” without government help and wealth redistribution.
    Nope, don’t shed a tear for Edwards. He resides very comfortably in the “haves” group.
    He got his. He deserves no sympathy.

  30. Reader

    Re: “…never forget who benefits most if dirt on Obama comes out…Hillary. And man, would I hate to be Obama if Hillary does have the goods on him!”
    I HOPE THAT’S WHAT SHE’S BEEN WORKING ON ALL THIS TIME since she was cheated out of her rightful place in this election. And I hope she’s got a staff of seventy-gazillion Hillacrats getting all those little duckies in a row. And that somebody can come up with a way to SLAM BAMY. I am sick of him!!! He can’t take a joke. He can’t make a joke. He has to be coddled. He can’t be real. He CAN’T BE OUR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. Mike Cakora

    Reader –
    Chill! You need to relax, take a deep breath, and accept what everybody else has. Hillary had her chance, put on the good fight, and lost. Heck, she’s the one that ran the 3:00 AM phone call ad, and that didn’t help her. Unfortunately for her, the timing was off.
    Now that Georgia’s blowed up real good, we know that Obama’s response to the 3:00 AM phone call would be: breakfast, and make it waffles. Too bad that McCain’s going to be the one to take advantage of Obama’s lack of sense and experience; it’s too late for Hillary.

  32. bud

    Mike, not so fast. The Russians believe they have a legitimate grievance with the Georgian’s in connection with 2 break-away republics that border Georgia. The Russians also believe their security is threatened by steps to admit Georgia to NATO. Apparently U.S. meddling has played some role in this conflict. It’s time to disband NATO. It’s a relic of the cold war that serves no useful purpose now.

  33. bud

    Apparently the U.S. is allied with the Georgians because they have an oil pipeline running through the country. Seems like oil is at the root of everything that goes on in that region of the world. This underscores yet again how foolish it is to continue pushing for a continuation of the oil-based economy. The only way we can reduce our dependence on FOREIGN oil is to reduce our dependence on OIL. Drilling for more in the U.S. will lead us nowhere. It’s time for more wind, solar and biofuel sources of energy. But first we need to use less. Inflating our tires sounds like a good start. Despite the ridiculing by the GOP Obama is right-on with that suggestion.

  34. bud

    On taxes, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has concluded that:
    “The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income.
    “In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.”
    This issue is pretty one-sided. McCain wants to give very wealthy people tax cuts and really doesn’t give working class folks anything. Given the likely increase in the federal deficit that will impact prices by reducing the value of the dollar, the working class is likely to suffer a net income cut as a result of the McCain plan. I suggest it is McCain who is fiscally irresponsible when it comes to taxes.

  35. Ralph Hightower

    More piling on…
    Maureen Dowd of the NY Times is not everybody’s favorite Op-Ed columnist, nor is the NY Times, everybody’s favorite newspaper.
    Dowd in her August 9th column in the NY Times, “Keeping It Rielle”, states that John Edwards is a narcissist.
    An excerpt from the article:
    In the Hunter video titled “Plane Truths,” Edwards is relaxing on his plane, telling the out-of-frame director: “I’ve come to the personal conclusion that I actually want the country to see who I am, who I really am, but I don’t know what the result of that will be. But for me personally, I’d rather be successful or unsuccessful based on who I really am, not based on some plastic Ken doll that you put up in front of audiences.” Ken couldn’t have said it better.
    Back in 2002, Edwards sent me a Ken doll dressed in bathing trunks, Rio de Janeiro Ken, with a teasing note, because he didn’t like my reference to him as a Ken doll in a column.
    In retrospect, the comparison was not fair — to Ken.

    I have been unimpressed with John Edwards since March 28, 2003, but for other reasons.

  36. Joash
    Viral this. Now!
    Post this address everywhere!
    Make Obama human to independants. A great and humanizing introduction to Obama.
    This is needed to help inoculate him from the coming onslaught of October swiftboaters. So make it viral, and post it everywhere.

Comments are closed.