Thanks, John. I really appreciate you being just another politician...

Crossposted from our new home blog,They gave us a republic...


Serves me right, I guess.

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

I really don't care if he had an affair--I still think Americans need to grow up about this shit. But it makes me much less inclined to defend the next person who is being smeared, I will admit.

Nothing after the jump, and nothing for Edwards after this. I'm thinking it's time to sink into obscurity, there, Senator.









Remember to update your blogrolls and bookmarks with our new domain name, They gave us a republic...

The Enquirer Story Crumbles

So far, still no pictures from the National Enquirer reporters who claim that John Edwards was caught visiting his supposed mistress and her child. And, oh by the way, their story keeps crumbling.

The birth certificate of a child whom a tabloid newspaper claims was fathered by former Democratic senator John Edwards of North Carolina doesn't identify the child's father.

The document, obtained through a routine records request, shows that Frances Quinn Hunter was born last Feb. 27 to Rielle Hunter, a videographer who worked on Edwards' presidential campaign last year.

But the space for the name of the father is blank, although the child was born more than two months after Hunter identified Andrew Young, Edwards' campaign finance director, as the father of her then unborn child. Young claimed paternity in a statement from his lawyer that was posted on the political blog mydd.com.

It sure would have been a gotcha moment if Edwards' name had been on that document. And while it certainly doesn't exonerate him, it doesn't do anything to bolster the claims and the smears against him, either. Like we said early on when this non-story broke, show us the documents. Show us the proof. So far, nothing. No photos. No video. No documents. Just smears and bullshit, and obsessed wingnuts coming out of the woodwork to speculate about someone's sex life because their own problems dwarf anything they can deal with.

In this day and age, politicians are always going to let you down in one way or another. John Edwards has been smeared by a third rate tabloid that has been given way to much credibility and way too much exposure. Does that mean he's innocent? No, of course not. I don't care what he did or who he did it with because Edwards doesn't go around telling people how to live their lives, he goes around telling people why we need economic justice in this country. That message is still dangerous to people who prefer the status quo and would love to see him smeared, and his message diluted and withdrawn from the public discourse. Whatever happened here is between him and his wife, and it doesn't change the fact that he's right.

Hopefully, this will end the story, and we can go back to ignoring the tabloid trash.

--WS

Wikipedia Gets it Right This Time

Many have noticed that Wikipedia has locked the page about former Senator John Edwards to prevent people from adding items about his supposed "love child." This is a darned good thing:

Even though Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source, people will still believe what they read there. And can you blame Wikipedia for not wanting to be sued? Just because Edwards isn’t suing the Enquirer doesn’t mean Wikipedia should run with it. Not to mention, Wikipedia doesn’t “run” stories.

Here’s an example I think Edwards’ critics will respect: Last year, the Enquirer reported claims that George W. Bush had resumed drinking. This story was never corroborated, and unlike this current Edwards situation, that story passed quickly into obscurity. Consequently, you will not find this mentioned on the main article about Bush. Nor should it be. Until the situation is revolved, the two Enquirer stories are more alike than not. But if it does have an impact on his career, the controversy will be duly noted. Perhaps it will even warrant its own separate page.

Ultimately, the lack of corroboration and uncertain notability of the situation is is all that’s keeping it from inclusion on the Edwards article. Patience. And remember that Wikipedia is best understood as a starting point for research, not as the final arbiter of the truth.

I completely agree with this. The smear merchants have had ample time to prove Edwards has a love child--they haven't done so. They've had ample time to trot out more than just a "security guard" who claims after the fact to corroborate what the National Enquirer said--and nothing has come of it. The Enquirer is laughably unreliable as a source, of course. The story, in itself, is a big ho-hum because Edwards isn't, umm, running for anything or holding elected office. And, oh by the way, the evidence is so thin as to not even be there. It's titillation for people who have nothing to do, basically, and plenty of wingnuts spent hours and hours obsessing over something that, umm, hasn't been proven.

Til then, grow the fuck up, wingnuts. Sometimes, the beautiful people do have sex, but, more often than not, it's with their spouse and it's behind closed doors and it's done discreetly because they have, umm, healthy sex lives. You're not having sex. Why is that such a problem for you?

--WS

Roger L. Simon's Incredible "Insight"

It looks like the scumbag smear merchants of the right have another Monica Lewinsky they can spend the days, weeks and months ahead screeching about. Aren't we close to the tenth anniversary of the Lewinsky affair? Aren't these people going through withdrawal? If so, find them some panties and a cum rag they can sniff for clues.

What of poor Elizabeth Edwards in all this? I remember meeting her at the Personal Democracy Forum a few years back and listening to her speak. She was the highlight of the Forum at that time and, with Elliot Spitzer (ironically!) its keynote speaker. Although I thought her politics naive and conventional in the extreme, I thought Elizabeth was an honest, impassioned woman with an incredible, almost worshipful devotion to her husband. (We knew she had cancer at that point and it made her all the more sympathetic). She was also a huge fan and devotee of blogs and new media, which she surfed, although I doubt she was much of a reader of, say, Powerline. In all, an estimable person. Is she the victim in all this? In the obvious sense, of course. But if she separates himself from her mega-narcisstic husband, perhaps she has done herself a favor.

UPDATE: Some cheap psychoanalysis. I would guess that Edwards, like many cheaters, wanted to be caught. After all, it is hard to conceive he would be that dumb as to conduct a tryst in this modern/post-Bill Clinton era in, of all places, the Beverly Hilton. The Hilton — where such events as the Pre-Oscar luncheon and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent victory celebration are held — would be among the last places you would choose. It’s often a virtual den of paparazzi with staff and others always standing by to tip the gossip press on the latest celeb sighting. There are thousands of places in Southern California more low key for such a meeting. If Edwards is indeed that dumb, we are certainly lucky he never became President. Among those who should be scratching their heads at this moment are his supporters.

What? No acknowledgement there of the sexual proclivities of Arnold? Was that a slip? Because trying to smear a Democrat while mentioning Arnold's name doesn't exactly make the point, does it? Nor is there any mention of how sexually deranged he was when it came to actually interacting with women, many of whom were on the receiving end of unwelcome groping. Do you want a guy who is all grabby hands--Arnold, Bush with German Chancellor Merkel--or do you want Edwards? Don't answer that--it just leads to Rush Limbaugh's sex tours of the Caribbean, and no one needs to revisit all of that.

You can almost hear the backflips and the maniacal laughter--these people are so obsessed with the idea that they can write about someone's imagined sex life that it makes you wonder what it was that made their minds snap in the first place. Anyone who can sit and speculate like that removes themselves from consideration for being well-adjusted and intelligent. Guess what? People have sex--and quite a few of them enjoy it. And it's nobody's fucking business, of course. When do we see the backlash against people who have an unhealthy obsession with this shit? When do we see these people exposed as hacks and shills?

Clinton left office a hell of a lot more popular than Bush ever will--and sex had nothing to do with why he did. The American people are smart enough to know that a guy who can't keep his pants on does a hell of a lot less harm than a daddy-hating dry drunk who parades around in a flight suit, bellows "bring 'em on" in front of reporters, and starts wars in order to prove his masculinity. Good God, yes--Edwards definitely would be a better President or Vice President, if only because he's not fucking insane.


--WS

Dissecting a Thinly Sourced Smear

I don't know--and I don't care--if former Senator John Edwards has a love child with some woman. It's none of my business and it's none of anyone else's business but his and Elizabeth Edwards. Don't look now, but the evidence on this is so thin you can see through it in the dark. John Edwards is not running around telling people what to do in their marriage so he's NOT a hypocrite, despite everything you're reading from the right wing smear merchants in this country. It's sad that I have to say all of that--it really is. In a mature country that has a healthy attitude about marriage, sex and politics, this wouldn't be an issue. If fathering a child out of wedlock disqualified someone from being President, or an influential leader, or someone who spoke truth to power, there wouldn't be anyone left worth listening to. Give me someone flawed and complicated over someone repressed and self-hating any day. Give me a break--making a baby out of wedlock is a worse crime than sending over 4,000 Americans to their death? And we have no way of knowing whether this is even true! Grow the fuck up, wingnuts.

Fox News gets on board, and does one of the thinnest and most ridiculous pieces yet to be featured on this subject.

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

I'd sure like to see pictures of this--not that that would be proof. How about a birth certificate with Edwards listed as the father? Or would that have to be checked for kerning as well? All we have are anecdotes and statements. The reporters from the National Enquirer claim they were threatened by hotel security guards and that their cameras were in danger of being seized. Every time I check the Enquirer website, I see the same stock photos and nothing from this supposed encounter. [Nah, not gonna link to it.]

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

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

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

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

Sounds pretty guilty to me! Except for the fact that we haven't seen those photos, nor can we believe anything this guard says. There were other guards present, by the way. What's their story? Are we supposed to believe tabloid trash writers to be credible about anything? Have any of those reporters paid a person for information? That's what I'd like to know.

Here's the best part of the whole Fox News story:

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

That's the SIXTH paragraph in the story--and I don't know about you, but that's why I think the story is complete and utter bullshit. An after-the-fact identification based on the tabloid media attention given to this story smacks of a payoff or an attempt to buy a corroborating witness. Tabloids pay for sources and stories all of the time--did someone offer this guard a wad of cash to say what he now says?

Even if the security guard didn't recognize Edwards, the fact that he "recognized" him after the fact and "concluded" it was him speaks volumes--does he have any training to identify people, does he have a reason why he didn't ask for Edwards ID at the time of the incident, does he have a criminal history, does he have a history of filing false reports, and so on. When you scrutinize how these people source their information, their house of cards comes tumbling down every time. It certainly would help if Fox News had any--any--trained, working journalists on staff. Apparently, they don't.

Sounds pretty suspect to me. Someone is trying to milk this for all it's worth, and while I hate to take the time to even blog about it, I do so because of the involvement of Fox News in perpetrating this smear.

And that's about all the time and effort this story deserves.

Crass and Tasteless--Kathleen Parker at the Washington Post

There is simply no way--no way--an article like this about John McCain and Joe Lieberman would ever get published anywhere in this country:

Well, at least they didn't kiss.

I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

Don't look at me. David "Mudcat" Saunders, Edwards's former rural adviser, came up with the idea, saying Obama should kiss Edwards on the lips "to kill this 41-point loss," referring to Hillary Clinton's landslide victory in the West Virginia primary.

Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama's front porch.

As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject -- John Edwards -- Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won't be their presidential nominee.

[SNIP]

Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour united against old men (and women) who worship the status quo. Obama -- the man who makes Chris Matthews feel a thrill up his leg -- wants to "do the Lord's work," lately pictured in front of a cross illuminated with vanity lights on a flier aimed at Kentucky voters, while Edwards wants to roll out the catapults and nuke the Coliseum.

[SNIP]

While we're waiting to find out, Edwards's tortured Southern shtick is supposed to help Obama with the demographic of white, rural, working-class (non-college) Americans he's been having trouble with. Green room translation: poor, ignorant racists.

Presumably, Edwards knows how to relate to these folks, given his heritage and his years as a trial lawyer representing the little people against corporate America. Notwithstanding his 28,000-square-foot house and $400 haircuts. And ignoring the fact that one reason health insurance rates are so high -- and that so many poor rural folks lack high-quality medical care -- is the success Edwards and other trial lawyers have in convincing jurors that doctors owe the world always-perfect results.

His medical malpractice specialty often focused on OB-GYNs, and his multimillion-dollar awards resulted more from emotion than science. Edwards's underappreciated acting skills, including an uncanny ability to channel the voice of a dead child, helped raise malpractice premiums so high that many OB-GYNs have fled the profession.

[SNIP]

Which puts new thoughts in motion as voters project down the road. Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.

It is impossible to adequately respond to a column which juxtaposes homophobia, bile, and obvious denigration with snark and vitriol. This column has no redeeming quality, nothing that informs and nothing that even hints of originality. It is hate disguised as frivolous fun and it has no place in any newspaper. The only place where such sentiment could come from is within Washington D.C., within a cloistered, shuttered village full of people who do not understand that there are Americans who are hurting, that there are people looking for change and for real discussion of where the country needs to go, and who simply do not care whether or not Kathleen Parker gets any "juice" out of writing such a thinly disguised diatribe against people who really do "get" it and who really are trying to take the country forward.

Kathleen Parker is simply a low rent version of Maureen Dowd, who is as low rent as one can get.

Edwards Drops Out

BREAKING NEWS: John Edwards dropping out of presidential race, Associated Press reports

Obama Wins South Carolina

It wasn't even close...

COLUMBIA, S.C. - NBC News declared Sen. Barack Obama as the projected winner in South Carolina's Democratic primary.

Obama won South Carolina by a substantial margin, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in second and John Edwards third, NBC reported.

Obama was projected to rout Clinton in the racially charged primary, regaining campaign momentum in the prelude to a Feb. 5 coast-to-coast competition for more than 1,600 Democratic National Convention delegates.

A third-place finish for Edwards would come as a sharp setback in the state where he was born and scored a primary victory in his first presidential campaign four years ago.

Landslide margins among black voters fueled Obama's lead, allowing him to overcome the edge that Clinton and Edwards had among whites in the state. Black women turned out in particularly large numbers. Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, got a quarter of the white vote while Clinton and Edwards split the rest.

The victory was Obama's first since he won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, scored an upset in the New Hampshire primary a few days later. They split the Nevada caucuses, she winning the turnout race, he gaining a one-delegate margin. In an historic race, she hopes to become the first woman to occupy the White House, and Obama is the strongest black contender in history.

The South Carolina primary marked the end of the first phase of the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a series of single-state contests that winnowed the field, conferred co-front-runner status on Clinton and Obama but had relatively few delegates at stake.

THIS Democratic Primary Voter would now like to see less talk about personal issues, and more talk about substantive issues. The media be damned--if this doesn't send a wakeup call to all camps that they better leave the mudslinging behind and start talking about issues that matter to voters, the end result is going to be a further fracturing of the Democratic Party.

One thing I do not want to see is the 50 state strategy thrown under the bus. Today showed that a whole lot of voters in a red state are willing to come out and vote for a Democrat. Is anyone paying attention?

They'd better be.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Tonight, Obama got almost 300,000 votes. In a "red" state.

Last week, McCain and Huckabee combined got less than that.

Wow.

Will 2008 be the Year of the Populist?

Perhaps.

How else to explain the insurgent popularity of Mike Huckabee?

There is always a populist somewhere in the Democratic field, at least early on. John Edwards has tapped into a vein of traditional Democratic working-class and man-of-the-people appeals; and as the message seems to be catching on this election cycle, other Democratic candidates are scurrying to don the populist cloth. Even Hillary. "The wealthy and the well-connected have had a president for seven years," she told a crowd in Ottumwa last night. "Meanwhile, most Americans have seen their incomes stall."

But I honestly don't think I can place a single Republican populist in the Republican field, ever. I have certainly never seen one with the support Huckabee is currently enjoying.

The Huckabee campaign presents a real opportunity for head-scratching on the part of the bought-and-paid-for corporatists of the Republican Party, which has traditionally been business friendly at the expense of all other interests.

None of the other Republicans candidates have taken up the charge. In fact, Frederick of Hollywood stuck to the script (there's a writer's strike on, you know) and continued to insist that "[N]ot enough has been done to tell what some call the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now."

It doesn't hurt the populist message any that oil hit a hundred bucks a barrel the day before Iowans caucus. John Edwards immediately seized on the price of oil and incorporated it into his campaign message the day before the first votes are cast. "Today's report that the price of oil has reached $100 a barrel is just another example of how corporate greed is squeezing the middle class," said Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, in a statement. At a packed coffeehouse in downtown Iowa City yesterday, he asked the crowd, "Are you going to let corporate greed steal your children's future?"

That message can't help but hit home in a state where towns are far-flung, and farms dot the landscape. And every one of those farms has at least a couple of 250-gallon tanks (one for gas, one for diesel) that have to be filled up regularly, and there is no buy-in-bulk discount. (Those Massey-Fergusson and John Deere tractors and combines that plant and harvest a lot of the food you buy at Albertson's and Safeway get fueled up at home, not in town at the gas station.)

Huckabee frequently cites escalating fuel prices as a major concern for voters, and even goes so far as to contrast CEO pay with stagnating wages. On New Years Day he told an audience that "A president needs to understand that what's good for the American economy needs to be good for all Americans."

He also contrasts his own humble roots with the privileged life of his chief rival here in Iowa, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "If politics is going to end up being nothing more than about who has the most money, then we've not had a presidency, we've had a plutocracy, and we might as well put it on eBay and sell it to the highest bidder," he said yesterday in Mason City.

Huckabee might be getting grief from that embarrassing gasbag Limbaugh and his slavering minions of the so-called "right" - but his message is resonating with people who are more concerned about paying for their next tank of $3 per gallon gasoline than whether they ditched their illegal viagra before they attempted to clear customs after their latest Dominican fleshpot cruise.

One of the pillars of Huckabee's economic plan is a "fair tax" - a national sales tax that would replace the income tax (this is anathema to business interests, which guard their favorite loopholes in the tax code as jealously as a Texas high-school cheerleaders mother). Conservatives and liberals alike denounce the notion as dangerous, because it would have to be much higher than what Mr. Huckabee has proposed in order to raise enough revenue to keep the country running. Critics also charge that the "fair tax" Huckabee proposes would hit the very working-class people he aims to help the hardest.

But that doesn't stop it from resonating. It hit home with 22-year-old Jason Downs, a University of Iowa student who recently went to a Huckabee rally. "Right now the middle class is paying more taxes, the upper class has abilities to get accountants and move funds around and all that. Where if you have a consumption tax, it's going to be a fair amount," said Mr. Downs.

John Edwards, who never left Iowa after the 2004 election, has been priming the populist pump in Iowa ever since. And with energy prices so high, and healthcare so tenuous (farmers are self employed and have to buy their own health coverage, unless a spouse works "in town" and likely only took the job in the first place in order to get insurance. And still the premiums and copays keep going up.)

Whatever happens tonight in Iowa, and next week in New Hampshire, the economic message of populism is going to influence the rest of the campaign.

And while I am not a populist (insert joke about city dwellers and public transportation here) I welcome the message. For too long corporate interests have run roughshod over the interests of ordinary people, to the point that it now represents a serious threat to our liberty. So I welcome anything that might reverse that trend.

Live-Blogging the Edwards conference call...

Saturday, May 12, 2007, 11:24 a.m. Okay – so yesterday I was invited to take part in a conference call with John Edwards. I rsvp’s immediately and got my access code to participate. The call is to start at 11:30 central, so I called in a few minutes early. I’m listening to the muzak and wondering what’s in store. I have no idea what to expect or how many people will be participating.

And the call just started – The Senator is at a commencement and running a few minutes late. We are part of the next phase roll out – and the purpose of this conference call is to launch a new website: www.supportthetroopsendthewar.com – George Bush does not own patriotism.

The Senator was introduced by a Marine Corporal who just returned from Iraq and spoke openly and honestly about the situation our troops face.

This Memorial Day we are going to reclaim patriotism. The Senator is asking us – that’s you and me, Bub – to speak up now. We aren’t going to wait for anyone else and we are not waiting for an election. Where ever you are, speak up and make your voice heard. Support the troops. Bring them home.

The purpose of the call was the introduce the new website which is just rolled out. It will serve as a nexus for local activities and events for Memorial Weekend.

This looks like a grass-roots thing, which is just fine by me. Let's visit the website and see what's happening in our areas. And if nothing is happening...make something happen!

The Senator's people should email edger10@gmail.com and get the new site on the Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus blogroll. (Yes, I emailed the site administrators with that suggestion. I'm not banking on them being regular readers of my rantings.)

Freezing Out Faux News

For the second time in less than a month, John Edwards has taken a firm stand and said he would refuse to participate in a debate sponsored by Pravda Faux News.

The Edwards campaign said Friday that it would not attend the Sept. 23 debate sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute. Officials said Mr. Edwards would participate in a debate sponsored by the institute and CNN.

“We believe there’s just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they’re objective,” said Jonathan Prince, the Edwards deputy campaign manager.

Think about it - Why the hell should the Democratic candidates all get together in one place, and then hand the mendacious agenda-whores at Faux a loaded gun? If Faux was a real news network, and not the officious mouthpiece of the Republican party, it would be one thing. But they are not. They are nothing more than shills for the right-wing agenda.

Good for edwards for standing up and showing leadership on this issue.

It's downright Presidential.

On the Edwards House Dust-up...

Apparently some people care about the new house John Edwards just had build - 28,000 square feet on 102 acres. I kinda missed it, myself, focusing on real issues and all, but here's the Cliffs Notes version:

John Edwards had a big house built. Since he's a Democrat, ostentatious is supposed to be off limits.

Of course, if he was a Republican, he would have called it a church and wouldn't pay taxes on it.

Round One: EDWARDS

If you haven't been keeping tabs on the kerfuffle about FAUX News and the Democratic primary debate in Nevada, well...there was one. But it's pretty much over, and Edwards won it.


Here's the deal - the Democratic Party in Nevada originally - inexplicably - booked FAUX News to host the Democratic primary debate in that state. That got the lefty-blogs up in mother-fuckin' arms. John Edwards (already in trouble with the blogosphere because of going wobbly in the face of the Wonkette/Shakes Sister criticism) pulled out of the debate. Pressure began mounting on other candidates to do the same, but FAUX - probably scared shitless of getting caught with their pants down and losing half the slate and being exposed for the partisan hacks they are - pulled out.

The purpose of a debate is to present the candidates. There is no reason to believe that FAUX
would present the candidates in an unbiased journalistic manner. As evidence I offer the following exchange between Fred Barnes and Mort Kondrake when FAUX hosted a presidential debate in 2004: (Hattip Digby for digging up the transcript)

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Not really. Maybe Al Sharpton. It makes a difference when Sharpton's there. It was much livelier debate, as a result. That's for sure. He wasn't there in New Mexico last week, although Lieberman was livelier tonight than he's been before and so on.

So, it was a zippier debate but, I think, uneventful in the outcome of the Democratic presidential fight.

I think Democrats have one problem in these debates and that is they talk about an America, they criticize what's going on and they create a picture of an America that I think most people don't recognize, you know. It's an America where the Patriot Act is creating a police state and where, as Al Sharpton said, soldiers come home and they can't get an education, they can't get a house, you know. They can't get a job or anything like that.

You know, there's this health care crisis that is ruining the country and we're involved in another Vietnam. And people in Florida are denied the right to vote. I don't think most Americans recognize that as the real America.

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "ROLL CALL": Obviously, they are not appealing to the whole of America. What they are trying to do is to appeal to the Democratic primary voter. And the way that you appeal most to Democratic primary voters is to beat up on George Bush.

I mean, practically anytime anybody asked a substantive question they had a little bit of an answer about what they would do, you know, on the subject, but the rest of it was an attack on what George Bush has not done or failed to do or lied about or et cetera, et cetera.

And it's because the Democratic primary core voters are so enraged at George Bush that they have to -- you know, they have to feed that beast.

And the most -- the best example of this is Joe Lieberman, who's probably the most moderate of them all and constantly is waving the bloody shirt of Florida, you know, that black voters were disenfranchised, were prevented from going to the polls in Florida, et cetera, et cetera. It's replaying the sore of the 2000 election.

So, you know, that's what this is all about. This was not an attempt to appeal to the average voter.

Roger Ailes threw a hissy fit. "Who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "runs a real risk of losing the voters." I shrugged. So FAUX has been called out, and now they commence with the bluster.

Fuck off, Fox. It ain't playin' in Peoria any longer.

They aren't balanced, they are biased. They aren't news, they are propaganda. Their newscasts stay as close to the party line as ITAR/TASS did in the old Soviet Union.

They are openly hostile to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates; and the person who had that brilliant notion to book them to host the debate should clean out their desk.

But god-damnit, riddle me this Batman...

Why the fuck would anyone in the state Democratic Party even consider letting FAUX have a chance to tear down all of our candidates en masse?

If I knew the identity of that genius, I'd have a Wanker of the Week.

Instead, in Edwards, we have a strong contender for Mensch of the Month.