Too Comical

Today's most famous tabloid, the NE, posted "spy pics" of John Edwards holding a baby allegedly in the Beverly Hills Hilton on July 21st. The picture posted on their website was so blurry and bad, considering it was taken in close proximity.

Today, TheBlaz at the Daily Kos posted a similar photo that looks a lot like the one by the NE.



That's better than the one the NE posted actually. Now let's see where the NE got their images, since they are being aided and abetted by the Huffington Post. I'm not posting links because anyone can find them via ask.com.

Here's one:


Notice the T-shirt color and the length of the sleeve.

Also look at the top layer of Edwards' hair. It's not been long for years. He's kept that shorter upper layer for the past 4 years. Note: JRE has 2 cowlicks which is why he requires a very skilled stylist to cut his hair.

Now for some other noticeable characteristics, absent from the NE pics:

JRE has always worn his wedding ring. It is absent in both pics.

Why he is sweating equally in both photographs when some claim it is baby drool. Babies don't drool in inverse V-necks. Go figure.

Why is it he wears half sleeves almost to the elbow in one pic (in which he is running on a treadmill), then tight ones of big muscles in the other when he is holding the baby? He's not a big muscled guy...more of a long distance runner, which means the muscles are leaner, not bulky.

Why is the NE's bad look-alike's chin so receding and weak, when JRE has a strong chin with a slight chisel in it and more refined jaw line?

Why are the furniture colors that different from what the hotel site posts? The NE's are "rose" whereas the Hotel's are sand dollar, browns, etc, to match the curtains.

If this is a spy photo, then how in the hades did the NE get it, considering they claim to have cornered JRE in a floor men's bathroom and didn't submit a single photo from that encounter? And they claimed they saw him initially with rolled up Oxford shirt sleeves?

Why is it the Beverly Hills police do not list JRE's name on any report, especially when the NE filed a report against them for a criminal suit that was thrown out. A political figure is part of a civil suit. We don't know whom it is.

And most of all, what does Arianna Hoffington and her staff have against John Edwards. Why HuffPo only published a few comments today and when innodated, backed off in publishing all of the comments? Smear campaign against JRE in being VP for Obama, which the site supports? No, I think it is more than that, but I have to think further what it wants other than ad revenues which it may need to break a profit this year.

David Mizner Nails It about the Daily Kos

Not Worth the Paper it's Not Printed On

Last year, Markos Moulitsas remained defiantly neutral in the presidential primary. It was a mistake, I felt -- a blown chance for the most influential progressive blogger to help shape the race. I thought John Edwards was the best choice for progressives but realized that strong cases could be made for other candidates. Kos, however, coudn't pick a favorite and, to his credit, articulated his reasoning. He alternately bashed and praised the candidates, reserving the harshest and most persistent criticism for Barack Obama. After Edwards had opted to publicly finance his campaign, Kos said he planned to vote for Obama but retracted his support once he'd determined that Obama was "running to the right of his opponents."

Now, though, Kos is relentlessly pro-Obama and anti-Hillary, to the point where he offers no criticism of him and make serious, unsupported charges against her.

What happened?

Read the rest here...

It appears the DU has turned into the same thing, but at least the admins have been staying mum about whom they support.

Where Were You, John Sweeney, When John Edwards Needed Your Endorsement?

Today I was surfing the net and found this article at HuffPo written on behalf of John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO. The article is entitled, "Winning the Edwards Vote". Here are a few key paragraphs:

John Edwards' exit from the presidential race puts his supporters up for grabs. Both Senators Clinton and Obama want those votes. Here's how to win them.

The central plank of the Edwards' campaign was restoring a prosperous and secure middle class, which requires ending wage stagnation and having wages again grow with productivity. This must be the central economic policy goal of any candidate wanting the Edwards vote.

snip

John Edwards' campaign recognized the imminent challenge of recession and advocated fiscal stimulus. Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have done likewise. However, it is not enough to just change the economic policy dial settings. The Edwards campaign also spoke to the need to change the long-term direction of the economy by restoring full employment, leveling the playing field between workers and corporations, and fixing unfair competition unleashed by globalization. That's the message that will win the Edwards vote.

The analysis is correct, but here's the problem. The AFL-CIO wouldn't endorse Edwards during the campaign. Neither did the Teamsters or Change to Win. They all knew that Edwards was the union man and was the only one who had a plan for the working man, but they let him twist in the wind.

I thank the Carpenters Union, SEIU's in Massachusetts, Iowa, the Midwest, and California, and Postal Workers in Iowa who were more than proud to back the union candidate. A special thank you to the Steelworkers and some transport folks too who went to Iowa on their vacations and knocked on doors in the different states to help GOTV for John Edwards.

John Sweeney, you can go back now to the corner and sit it out. I'm strong for unions, but really, this is disengenuous to give this advice to the two remaining candidates when you didn't even help John Edwards with an endorsement.

Jayne Lyn Stahl: Edwards: Too Soon for Political Obituary

"So, maybe the media has timed out on John Edwards. Maybe the pay for view press has decided to shrink the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination to two candidates, but this would be premature evacuation."

This opening paragraph came from HuffPo. It is a clear argument about how the media should not decide our elections and why Edwards is still very much in this race. He is the only one at this point that will get all of our combat forces out of Iraq or redeployed. Thus, Stahl adds the hint of lessons not learned from the Vietnam era to her argument about the media:

If we, in this country, weren't so insistent upon novelty, and looked instead to competency, John Edwards would be, by far, the clear leader as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Yet, in keeping with their time-honored tradition, the Democrats will instead show their uncanny ability to foul it up all just when a victory is most needed, and instead of delivering an end to a war which has lasted longer than Vietnam, we will, yet again, deliver a nominee who is guaranteed to pull an LBJ and keep fanning the flames of war in the name of bringing the boys home. The lies are the same; the only thing that's changed is the calendar.The danger of not having real change.

Read the rest.

read more | digg story

Jane Smiley Seems to Channel Benny

In her pretend interview with Madame Clinton. I think I would awake feeling the same way.

Good post by Smiley at HuffPo.

RJ Eskow Speaks For Benny

As many of BW readers know by now, my gender is female. Last night, I was in a tumble for awhile at Taylor Marsh's place, which was a mistake, since Taylor defends Clinton almost no matter what and constantly uses sexism as her defense rattle. I get offended when Taylor does this as I see it as the general Clinton doubletalk, and to me, Clinton got a dose of reality at Tuesday night's debate. She has been cooed by the MSM (and yes, she's gotten a lot of negative press compared to Obama) for months, and I think she just assumed she could operate in general election mode, and get by with the usual refrain "We cannot elect a woman unless we try."

Apparently, I am not alone in this view. RJ Eskow wrote an excellent rebuttal on HuffPo to an opinion Taylor typed yesterday. The name of the blog piece is "Defending Hillary at Feminism's Expense." Eskow nailed it when he wrote his reaction to Clinton when answering the driver's licenses for undocumented workers question at the debate:

At best, Clinton was uncharacteristically ineffective in communicating about this issue -- so much so that Mark Penn had to spin heavily about it right after the debate. But things are simpler for Taylor Marsh, and probably for others in the "boys vs. girls" crowd. It's about sexism and nothing more.

I think Taylor is getting a dose of reality on this one, but because a man wrote it, he will be deemed sexist too. I'll be glad when the primaries are over, especially if Edwards or anyone but Hillary wins. Taylor will have to deal with the reality that people don't object to Clinton because she's a woman. It's because she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, a person who is driven by selfish ambition and will take dirty money to do get what she and her spouse want, not what the American people want. And Clinton and her spouse cannot be trusted.

If you want transparency with a clear moral compass from the next occupant of the White House, I suggest voting for John Edwards.

Update: Clinton is considered a drag on the ticket in California. One doesn't have to wonder why.

Colbert Classic

Good video from the Correspondent's Dinner last year.

Very different from the one Arianna Huffington attended on Saturday.

HuffPost Invites 08 Candidates to Online Debate

CNET claims that Reuters reports (a few snippets):

" that one of the most widely read U.S. political blogs is inviting candidates for the 2008 presidential election to hold an online debate, a first that would confirm the Internet's reach and influence. "

"2008 is going to be critical, in terms of the coverage of the election," Huffington said. "We are working to put together the first primary online debate among candidates and working out the logistics of how this is going to happen."

"The Huffington Post has sent debate invitations to declared candidates for the 2008 race, including Democrats John Edwards and Sen. Chris Dodd, and has held informal talks with the campaigns of likely candidates, Huffington said."


Read the rest here. Intriguing idea.

I have a hunch JRE might accept such an invitation.