If the stock of Fortress Investment Group(FIG) has gone down (from top) over 50 % in 2007, how could John Edwards have made a profit from FIG. Exposing $ 16 million to a risky 50 % or so drop makes $ 16 million much less than $ 16 million, making a loss, not a profit. Is the Washington Post too stupid to examine the full nature of matters, or just plain lazy as a beltway spinner org. I suppose next it will plant a slanted story that Edwards can't handle his money, and his losses in big money with a shady hedge Fund disqualify him to be President over a $2 trillion budget, run by the D. C. crowd.
Actually, Fortress is run by some ex Soros cads, and Soros got his hooks into another guy who became President, you may know him as W... recall his Harken Energy flings and stings, and stock.. How snarky does it get, when hedge fund deals are intermixed with politics, Post Style.

the worst part of it is that Edwards has lost control of his message. It's happened time and time again so far. It wouldn't happen to Clinton but it's what you get with Edwards. How many times would that happen on the campaign trail in the run up to the polls if he was the candidate?

mind you I think probably even Obama would handle it better and that's saying soemthing.

The focus on haircuts, styling etc is so pointless. Lots of people get made up when appearing on tv.It says something about how serious our political discourse is. The problem with the talking heads is that they want ratings and eyes. That is why Chris Matthews has to be outrageous. He gets away with unadulterated rubbish helped along with consenting nods by guests, peddlers of books and guests who sit there nodding their empty heads. I just wonder why this duo also made such a meal of Edwards'haircut?

yo, chris. i've noticed in your teeeeveeee appearances the changing color and texture of your hair. what's up with that?

and the next time you're on hardball, be sure you ask tweety and tim 'cheney's buttboy' russert how millionaire gasbags who own million dollar vacation homes on exclusive nantucket island can still pass themselves off as representatives of the blue-collar working man's club.

The combination of Edwards and his wife is generating more and more appeal. My first choice initially was Richardson because of his wide-ranging resume. But he certainly underwhelms in his public appearances.

So far, Edwards is the primary Democrat talking about issues--certainly not Clinton or Obama. They may not always be the issues we embrace most closely, but at least he offers programs.

Plus, I wish some would have seen the $400 haircut as just part of his program to offer aid to the poor barbers of the world--unlike Romney's make-up as a "communications" expense.

hi drindl - We would say "all hat and no cattle" to describe a cowboy wannabe. I think that is what you meant. Right?

Dan - we just saw your video of Edwards on poverty - and you asked him about his homes and haircuts.
If candidates homes and haircuts are important factors in choosing a president -why hasn't WaPo and other media conducted an analysis of the OTHER millionaire candidates' homes and haircuts?

Romney has 3 homes - one valued at $10 million - twice the value of Edwards' home. Is Romney's home preventing him from making poverty an issue?

IMO, Edwards polls as the "generic" Democrat. If he was the nominee, his positions would be a problem; there is no great demand for more spending on poverty. I don't know why he phrases it as "poverty" as opposed to support for families.

Bokonon -

Bob Graham would not hurt the ticket in Texas in terms of "talkin' right", and he would help any of the leading candidates with his experience.

I have read JimD to say Graham remains popular in FL - but perhaps he will see your post and answer authoritatively.

"A defense consultant was quoted as saying Clark "is...

A "defense consultant" Wow! There's a credible source.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WRITE ABOUT MITTY'S $300 MAKEUP JOB AT HIDDEN BEAUTY, CC?

When the Republicans sink down to the level of jokers that these Libs are.

Uh, MikeB, I don't know what polls you are looking at, but the ones I have seen have shown both Obama and Hillary beating everyone but Giuliani, and tieing with him. But then that was last week, I think... haven't seen any recently. But bsimon is right - polls at this point are only a vague indicator. Most voters who do not follow the election as closely as people here do don't really have a clear idea as to the candidates' differences on policy. They will have heard of the $400 haircut, though.
And Cassandra, you're right - if the haircut is fair game, so are facials for the Mittster.
Hey - what does everyone think of former Sen. Graham from Florida as a VP candidate? How is he thought of in state now, JimD? and JimD and Mark, how would he play in the South at large?

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WRITE ABOUT MITTY'S $300 MAKEUP JOB AT HIDDEN BEAUTY, CC?

with ignoRANt coward gone, this blog actually has some life left in it.

bsimon - And what do Richarson, Obama and Clinton all have in common? Hum? They all represent the crporate crowd that has been shipping off Amercian jobs and technology to India and China for short term profits, they are the very people who shamelessly advocate issing millions of guest worker visas to aliens who will take Amercian's jobs. Please excuse me, but if that is leadership, then you can have it! John Edwards actually understand poverty and injustice and has spent his entire life working on behalf of people who have been harmed by the rich and corporations. The blue-blood crowd you refer to are so cut off from ordinary people, they haven't got an inkling of what it means to not have enough mony to buy food for your children, to go without health insurance becasue you lost your job, to loose you home becasue your employer made off with your life's savings. EXCUSE ME! Your named candidates are as crooked as Bush and Cheney and are a darn sight worse than McCain, who, for all of his goofy ideology, at least is honest about those beliefs.

The haircut only continues to be an issue because you make it so.

Stop Gary Harting him! Move on. The story is stale!

MikeB writes
"If we cut to the chase, there are plenty of polls out right now about how the various candidates would perform in a general election."

Given that the vast majority of potential voters barely realize there's an election in 16 months, presenting them with a list of hypothetical candidates about which they know little more than their names (if even that) produces little more than a measure of name recognition first & the respondant's party affiliation second. Forgive me for not stating my preference for the candidates based on those polls.

Kid Johnny Edwards doesn't have the leadership abilities that it takes to win the Dem nomination or the general election. While he is making an effort to present a vision for the party and the country, he has thus far demonstrated an inability to actually sell his ideas - i.e. to be a leader & convince others to follow. Without that skill, he's effectively dead in the water as a Presidential candidate.

If you look at the McCain candidacy, you'll see the same problem, except that McCain has one advantage over Edwards - the people McCain is running against aren't doing a great job selling themselves either. Within his own party, Edwards is apparently giving up ground to Richardson, falling further behind Senators Clinton and Obama. With a couple stumbles from the front-runners, perhaps he could reverse this trend. That makes him a long-shot, not a shoo-in.

The haircut only continues to be an issue because you make it so.

Stop Gary Harting him! Move on. The story is stale!

The haircut only continues to be an issue because you make it so.

Stop Gary Harting him! Move on. The story is stale!

THE REAL WES CLARK - A VAIN, POMPOUS, BROWN-NOSER.

Why would Wes Clark want to be on the ticket with the Clintons when the Clinton I administration cut short his stint as NATO commander? After repeated conflicts with the Army and General Jackson, his British counterpart, Clark was fired, or as Gen. Hugh Shelton put it, Clark was canned for "integrity and character issues".

A defense consultant was quoted as saying Clark "is able, though not nearly as able as he thinks, and has tended to put his career ahead of his men to the point of excess. He is opportunistic, lacks integrity and will be an absolute menace if he gets into a position where he can exert influence on the Army because he lacks true vision and is prone to be vindictive."

That comment was made prior to Clark's forced retirement and his running for President.

bsimon - If we cut to the chase, there are plenty of polls out right now about how the various candidates would perform in a general election. Clinton would loose in at least half of the red states carried by Bush and Obama would take none of them. Edwards wins every one of them. The candidate who would win the gerneral election, the only election that really counts, is John Edwards. Obama is a clear looser. Clinton has no better than an even chance of winning against any of the GOP candidates and looses to Fred Thompson and Guliani outright (she does do better against Brownback and Romney, but you CANNOT count on the Republican's being so stupid as to nominate them). Obama looses against any of them in a blowout. I don't know if that is racism or not, but calling the heartheart red state residents "raists" isn't going to help Obama win, eiher. Only Edwards is a clear cut victor. Now, as luberals, we can either choose to win this upcoming critical election or we can choose to gamble, maybe win it or not with Hillary, or simply throw it away with Obama. Edwards is our ONLY clear cut choice and, note well, the Republican posters here full well know that and are doing everything in their power to deny the nomination of Edwards.

JimD makes good points in his 3:13 comment.

Webb would be a very daring choice. The question would be in whether his positives outweigh the risks. He's a loose cannon, he's not a reliable 'liberal'. However, for some of the Dem frontrunners, picking an ex-military, ex-Republican for a VP could be exactly the right move to convince swing voters in traditionally red states. A Wes Clark would be a safer pick, in terms of risks, but might not bring the same positives.

A prominent Republican was caught on tape the other day speaking with a colleague about Romney's $300 makeup bills and wondering out loud if Romney was in fact a gay man.

Why does the possibility of Romney being a gay man have anything to do with his qualifications to be the Republican candidate for president in 2008?

Susan, I don't know what you're smoking, but if you think for one second that Edwards' constant harping on his Two Americas theme, his constant championing (if that's a real word) of this country's most impoverished peoples, didn't have a role to play in him getting pilloried for his expensive haircut, you're crazy.

... yeah judge, and a lot of them have not just guns, but freakng personal arsenals.

I agree that Webb would bring an imposing presence to the ticket. However, he may be too independent minded for a secondary role. The nominee might see him as a potential loose cannon. Webb might not be willing to do it either.

I think Clark is the best choice for either Clinton or Obama. Clark has actually gotten much better on the stump. He campaigned extensively for Democrats in 2006.

I think Edwards would most likely pick Richardson. I do not see Obama risking a double minority ticket. I do not see Clinton going for a double "first" ticket.

"WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Wednesday that the economy has emerged from its anemic spell, but overall growth for the year will be lower than expected. Inflation remains the chief concern, he said.

The panel's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said that finding "troubles me." In Frank's view, the biggest problem is the growing gap between low-wage and high-wage workers. Democrats have accused the Bush administration of not doing enough to narrow this gap.

Another risk is that the housing slump could turn out worse than expected, sapping consumer spending and possibly causing overall economic growth to be weaker, Bernanke said

Drindl, I thought your comment "Obama would be fine too, although I would worry about his personal safety. I think there is enough of [a fairly substaintial] fringe element in this country that would just go nuts" was right on the mark as well. There are just too many Scary Republicans out there who have had their delusions emboldened by a constant stream of hatred from Faux News. McVeigh, Bundy and the Ruby Ridge yahoos were just the tip of the iceberg.

>>>F&B, can you imagine a Chris Matthews + Mitt Romney / Chris Cillizza + John Edwards doublr date?

Actually, I think either Cilliza or Romney with a cross-dressing Giuliani would make a pretty smashing couple.

Thank you Judge-- you're one of my fave posters so I really appreciate that.

And Mark, I like Wesley Clark a great deal--I always thought he'd make a good president or VP. Only thing is, he somehow seems to lack charisma. But I guess that's not really relevant to a general, but people didn't seem to warm to him. He appeals intellectually, but doesn't seem to connect emotionally.

Webb, on the other hand, is mart, has got great gut appeal and authenticity. In a debate he can whack the socks off any effete R he's up against.

Put me in his fan club. I think he's be a great VP.

'So why did he have to go get a $400 haircut and charge it to his campaign? '

I read he paid for it himself out of personal funds--unlike Mitty, who charged his $300 makeup to his campaign under 'communication expenses'. I guess he hair does his talking for him. Come to think of it, I've seen The Hair as an occasional poster here.

And all of them get expensive haircuts -- but Drudge doesn't link to it so the DC press corp won't print it.

Re: the Edwards' hair nonsense - JFK was criticized for his hair - it was considered a bit too long by 1960 standards. Ted Sorenson wrote in his biography of JFK that they actually polled on its impact on female voters. Once their polls said that he had solidified his appeal to female voters, he got his hair trimmed.

I will join the Jim Webb crowd - he is a strong presence.

My friends at State say that Wes Clark was a quick study as to the diplomatic aspects of the Yugoslavian breakup. He offers strong credentials on foreign policy that are real and tested.

But the Jim Webb I have seen in debate is tenacious and damn well organized.

Mark,

Obama was elected in 2004 and Clinton was re-elected in 2006, so neither would be in danger of losing their Senate seat.

Bokonon,

Chris Dodd was re-elected in 2004, so his seat is safe.

Now, Biden was last re-elected in 2002, so he will have to decide what to do about his Senate seat.

Yes, Cassandra, I know that. But that doesn't mean that Edwards should make it so easy for the media to attack him. There have been jokes about his hair for years. So why did he have to go get a $400 haircut and charge it to his campaign? Or the even more expensive haircuts since then? He should be more careful.

The thing that I notice about all of this is that John Edwards PAID for his haircut using his own money. Bush, on the other hand, bought the Texas Rangers using taxpayer money and Cheney, to this very day, still receives over two milllion dollars a year from Halliburton (also taxpayer money, if you read the news about their overcharging, relocating offshore to avoid taxes, etc.). And, please, contrast this with Romney's campaign donations from Marriot, the Mormon chruch, and various pornography peddlers. I don't see ONE criticism from a right wing partisan here, talking about Romney's receiving money from Adelphi. This all classic Rove politics - crticise *anything*, just fid something, about your opponent, to draw attention away from your own complete lack of morals.

Drindl, send me an e-mail before you post so that I don't spend time typing pretty much exactly the same thing.

Hmmm, Obama-Webb or Obama-Warner both sound good. I'd especially enjoy seeing Webb debate whatever shmuck the R's nominate for the VP slot. Webb would take no prisoners.

"These bills do not have to be each dealt with as if each exists in its own vacuum sealed container."

You're right Mark and I haven't looked at Webb-Hagel in detail. As Myerson's article makes clear, however, expecting a GOP senator (aside from Snowe, etc.) to make principled stance against whatever Bush wants is akin to expecting the Tooth Fairy to vote for Santa Claus.

'Judge, and someone else, I think - I will read the column, but I think that voting for the Warner-Lugar Amendment as part of a package to get Webb-Hagel passed, good ole' tit-for-tat bargaining, is possible and worth the effort. '

Well you do make a good point, Mark, I have to say. Webb-Hagel is really important for the welfare of the troops, so it's a really high priority for me. One tour of duty on top of another in a killing zone, [especially for the Guard] if it doesn't kill you, it will surely ruin your life, your job back home, and your marriage.

Only problem is Warner-Lugar then allows cover for republicans to pretend they are doing something, when it's all cattle, no hat. There's really no substance to it.

Still agree thaat it would be worth it for Webb-Hagel, however.

'And he keeps making stupid mistakes that make it easy for the right-wing media to attack him; he doesn't run his campaign very well.'

Well blarg, you know it doesn't matter what you do if you're a democrat, the media will find a way to slime you. If they can't they'll distort or just make something up, like that 'Gore invented the Internet' -- which was repeated, endlessly and never coreected, even though Gore never said it.

They're a cynical and sleazy bunch--but that's the R's for you.

Judge, and someone else, I think - I will read the column, but I think that voting for the Warner-Lugar Amendment as part of a package to get Webb-Hagel passed, good ole' tit-for-tat bargaining, is possible and worth the effort. These bills do not have to be each dealt with as if each exists in its own vacuum sealed container.

Making lemon-aid from lemons is better than having dry run votes that serve partisan purposes, only. The Ds seem to have learned parliamentary manuevers from the DeLay school - not a pretty picture. And I do understand that last night was the Rs responsibility. My point is that real leaders lead, in a deliberative divided body, by fashioning compromises. Sam Rayburn and LBJ must be spinning in their graves.

the GOPers on this board mock the self-made Edwards because they prefer rich Republicans who make no bones about not giving a s**t about the poor. Out of sight, out of mind, and all that rot.

the GOPers on this board mock the self-made Edwards because prefer rich Republicans who make no bones about not giving a s**t about the poor. Out of sight, out of mind, and all that rot.

'You know, a person can talk all they want about how much they are wanting to help poverty. But when you are an attorney who specializies in lawsuits that not only makes a company pay but punish them too, then prices rise for everyone.These frivolous lawsuits need to stop.'

It's lucky for global corporations that rightwingers are so incredibly stupid and masochistic. A company can KNOWINGLY sell products that maim or kill people, so the answer is to keep citizens from getting redress for their injuries so that 'prices won't rise?'

Rightwingers have a completely servile mentality. Kiss the boots of your oppressors and beg them not to hit you anymore. Never think of trying to fight back.

The more I hear from John Edwards, the more I like him. If I were given each candidate's platform without the name attached, I'm pretty sure I'd pick Edwards' as my favorite.

But just because I like his ideas doesn't mean I like him as a candidate. He has too many negatives. I don't mean the stupid right-wing slurs about haircuts and evil trial lawyers. I don't like the fact that he's been running for president continuously since 2003. He really doesn't have enough experience to be president. He doesn't have a real job, so he can campaign full-time and criticize the votes of the candidates who are still in the Senate. And he keeps making stupid mistakes that make it easy for the right-wing media to attack him; he doesn't run his campaign very well.

If Edwards is the nominee, I'll gladly support him. And if it's down to Edwards/Clinton for the nomination, I'll support him then too. But I don't see that happening. Edwards is old news; Obama has most of his advantages and more. I like him, but I don't think he has a chance.

Shocking! It turns out that half-finishing the war in Afghanistan and then shunting our resources to invade an irrelevant country, and then losing that war, was not the genius strategy for beating terrorism that the White House seems to think it was. If you judge winning the terror war in terms of weakening the group who attacked us, we're not.... Yeesh. 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Giuliani has some deep thoughts on SCOTUS nominees for Pajamas Media.

'First, you'll be surprised to know that he feels that the best judges are "interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench," hence distinguishing him for all of the candidates from the other parties, who are always talking about how judges should just ignore the law entirely and just make stuff up. But if that's not enough, he says that he will appoint "strict constructionist judges" and will oppose "frivolous lawsuits" (note: guarantee void in the case of Robert Bork). I think I'd have to consider the Republican race virtually over; nobody else has a chance against a candidate with such strikingly fresh ideas.'

Did any of you that are railing Edwards actually watch the video? I thought that he sounded articulate, intelligent, and sincere. What he said about the Lugar bill is completely true, it has no teeth and is the same bill the Dems tried to pass 3 months ago when it was the Warner-Levin bill.
The Hair-cut thing and Romney's 300 for make-up is a non-story. These guys are on TV all the time. They have to look the part. However, if the folks in the media are going to harp on one then they need to harp on all of them.

Also Edwards won't be a VP for Obama or Clinton. They need someone with more experience (executive or military). IMO Clinton has already agreed to a deal with Evan Bayh. If you remember he bowed out of the race right after he got back from a trip with HRC to the mid-east. That will allow Hillary to write off the south and focus on the middle of america for the win.
Obama will go with someone like Clark, or Warner (if he isn't running for senate). Hopefully putting some of the south in play with a LARGE turnout in the black vote.

'In my opinion, the Dems would be far better off with him out of politics, or as a Republican. '

absolutely. Leiberman is one of the worst. Farther right and almost as loony as Cheney.

But bsimon, Bush didn't choose Cheney. Chney chose Cheney. remember? He was supposed to 'advise' bush on the best VP--and he just looked inthe mirror!

bokonon notes
"And bsimon, I do NOT think that Lieberman's hedging his bet was a "good call" - he has been of absolutely NO benefit to the Democratic party."

I meant it was a good call for him, personally. In my opinion, the Dems would be far better off with him out of politics, or as a Republican. Not to get too far off track, but I think Gore's selection of Lieberman was a key factor in their loss. Though, perhaps there were many keys... I didn't know then what I know now, but I thought W's selection of Cheney was brilliant, while Gore's selection was idiotic. I was half right.

Speaking of potential VP selections, if the Dem nominee is Obama, Clinton or Richardson, Edwards is a bad idea. 1) he's already a one-time loser. 2) He's more Dan Quayle than Al Gore / GHW Bush / Dick Cheney / Walter Mondale. If we take as truth that any of the three presumed nominees needs a white man as running mate, that still doesn't mean you can plug in any old white man and win the race. Someone with foreign policy creds would be a good choice, like Biden or Webb. Biden might be a few miles too northern, and too old-school Dem. Webb, as a former GOPper, could be a formidable addition to the ticket. Wes Clark could be a good idea, though is largely untested, politically.

F&B, can you imagine a Chris Matthews + Mitt Romney / Chris Cillizza + John Edwards doublr date?

Hello

I think this Interview reveals AlOT about him! he just said he was involved in a Urban faith based program why didn't the reporters jump on that? I mean does this mean it's gonna be more of the same from him as in he will keep pumping the u.s. tax dollars into the current "faith based program" GW started which most of the money goes to rightists who BUY radio stations etc? is this his bribe to the hard right or southern right leaning churches and leaders?, or his short quick comment about him helping people help themselves versus govt doing it for them? this is the same exact one liners republicans use and frankly what's wrong with govt running things? I mean is Edwards saying social security needs to be privatized? or medicare medicade? these programs for the most part are govt supported and doing very well is Edwards against this? if govt is doing well supporting and running these programs why not healthcare? I also feel gee 400. haircuts gee it is a corny thing to bring up but frankly he doesn't want to be around the Joe averages the regular 9 to 5'er people I mean what place in the u.s. charges 400. along with 8 to 14 bucks in the same place? so this means he likes to hang around money people not the little people, case in point if he went to a 14 dollar haircut place he'd get a same as hair cut and HEAR what people are really going through or talking about these days will you hear about real problems or real issues of the day in a moxy high end hair cutting place? I don't think so.

Mark in Austin, I agree - if Obama, Richardson, or Bill's wife is the nominee, the VP will be a white male. Maybe Wes Clark, but maybe also Mark Warner. And what about one of the other candidates, like Biden or Dodd? or do you think Biden's past presidential run makes him a no go? I actually think Biden would be more of an asset as a VP candidate than Edwards.
and as bsimon said, neither Obama nor Hillary would HAVE to give up his/her seat in order to run, but I think it might be a good idea. If you remember, Lieberman's simultaneously running for VP and Senate was seen as his being insufficiently committed to the Gore campaign, and I think that was a problem (one of many) image-wise for Gore.

And bsimon, I do NOT think that Lieberman's hedging his bet was a "good call" - he has been of absolutely NO benefit to the Democratic party. he's a more consistent social and military conservative than many of his Republican colleagues. I would give slightly better than even odds that if Joe L. is elected again, it will be as a Republican.

Hey - does anyone know if Dodd (you know, the senator from CT who actually IS a Democrat) was re-elected last year or in '04?

I really can't understand why a self-made wealthy guy shouldn't be a voice for the poor? Who else is going to do it? Nobody listens to poor people -- they have no voice in this country.

And the fact that pundits can't seem to get it either just shows the shallowness and republican tilt of their thinking.

'No.... it's because support for the poor people is Edwards' signature issue. It's hypocracy again, like the Repub congressman who railed against Clinton's adultery, then getting caught with a hooker.'

Umm, no. What Vitter did was do exactly what he moralizes against. Edwards having worked his way and becoming wealthy, and yet still caring about what happens to poor people is exactly the opposite.

'...because he does not believe terrorists want to do harm to America but rather because the phrase is a creation of the Bush Administration designed to justify all of the actions taken since Sept. 11, 2001'

This is a straw man creation of the rightwingers. What Edwards said is that Bush justified the invasion of Iraq as a 'war on terror' when in reality it is a war for oil.

No one denies there are terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to kill us, but of course they are operating perfectly freely while Bush does absolutely nothing to stop them.

Try using real arguments, rather than made up ones. Unless tha'ts all you got...

Mark in Austin: you should read Myerson's column today. Edwards is right when he called for D's to not support "a bill sponsored by Republican Sens. John Warner(Va.) and Dick Lugar (Ind.) that would call on Bush to develop a new Iraq strategy." Not only is this bill not enough it doesn't have any teeth. Do I need to ask whether something so watered down will lead to a change in Bush's 'resolute' behavior? Will R's now make admiring comments about Bill Clinton's 'resolute' behavior at not resigning over a BJ from an intern?

Obama's candidacy rubs off on you the more you listen to him speak. He's going to borrow a little bit of history/strategy from Ronald Reagan. The Obama campaign will blanket the airwaves with well-crafted ads and he'll be neck-and-neck with HRC just before the primaries begin.

...because he does not believe terrorists want to do harm to America but rather because the phrase is a creation of the Bush Administration designed to justify all of the actions taken since Sept. 11, 2001

Do we really want a president who doesn't think that terrorists WANT to attack Americans? Attacks have been happening since before Bush was president, so even if his policies have made us more of a target, the threat is still real. What does Edwards want us to do? Ignore them?

Edwards is rich, yes. But he has done quite a bit for poor people and put his money where his mouth is. He worked hard and is enjoying a comfortable life as well. Where is the contradiction?

C'mon, it's obvious why CC loves to talk about Edwards. Cilliza is as gay as they come. Not that being gay is bad. But being a gay neocon shill, THAT is bad.

Cassandra said, "I guess it's because all the DC reporters hang out at too many cocktail partiies with Karl Rove..."

No.... it's because support for the poor people is Edwards' signature issue. It's hypocracy again, like the Repub congressman who railed against Clinton's adultery, then getting caught with a hooker.

Romney is an empty suit, but at least he doesn't go around crying about there being "Two Americas". So Edwards gets hoisted on his own petard.

The sanctimonious family-values politician caught with his hypocrisy showing. Vitter -- the man who called for President Bill Clinton to resign because he was "morally unfit to govern" -- was back at work yesterday, a week after he was linked to a D.C. escort service.

I have to say I too find it astonishing that CC and every
other DC insider 'journalist' can't mention Edwards without the frame Karl Rove has invented for him 'haircut and big house' -- and yet still not mention the Romney $300 makeup.

But the Rmney frame is 'handsome and manly' so that's all they can EVER say about him. To mention the $300 makeup job at 'Hidden Beauty' would certainly undermine Mitt's manliness, so they won't talk about it.

I guess it's because all the DC reporters hang out at too many cocktail partiies with Karl Rove...

But if you pay attention, you will notice that in every news source, there is always a two-word frame for every polictician -- bush is always 'firm' and 'resolute' even when he's simply being childishly stubborn and delusional. Hillary is 'cold' and 'insincere' -- rudy is 'strong' and a 'leader', McCain is a 'naverick' and a 'hero'. These labels seldom have anything to do with reality, but that doesn't stop the press, determined as they are to keep R's in power.

The haircut meme is simply a way for the corporate media to imply that Edwards is phony and feminine--and so they will continue to push it endlessly, just like they did with Howard Dean and the phony, non-story scream, and Gore and the lie that he said he 'invented' the internet. He never said it, but they continued to push it anyway.

It's truly sickening.

I think Edwards makes a perfect VP candidate: Flowery speeches, youth and exuberance, etc. As a president, he hasn't done it for me. But then it's really, really early and none of them have done it for me (Obama coming the closest), so, we'll see. I do believe that if it's Hillary or Obama, Mark, you're right, somebody like Edwards or Clark gets the veep nod.

Does Edwards have what it takes to lead first the Democratic Party and next the American people? From where I sit, the answer is no. Try as he might, he can't even change the dialogue about his house and haircut. Edwards used the same talking points that Chris quotes above in an NPR interview I heard three weeks ago, yet he's still dogged by the same two stories.

What this country needs in a President is somebody with actual leadership skills. The people that their respective parties nominate need to demonstrate enough charisma and leadership that they're driving the party platform - that they're actually winning people over with their ideas. Its not yet clear who is doing that, or who's doing it most effectively. However, it is clear that Edwards is not.

'And if you think my arithmetic is not unlikely, and accept Judge's view that the Ds MUST have a caucasian male on the ticket, what happens next?'

I am really unsure right now, Mark. I don't love Hillary, frankly, although having Bill as a foreign policy advisor I consider a big plus... I think he has a much better grasp of how to deal with world leaders than just about anyone, and though she has far less charisma, she's not bad. She IS tough and she can fight back against what will be relentless attacks.

However, I feel she's a little too close [as was Bill] to corporate interests and Israel. But it may be true today that someone who ISN"T close to corporate interests can't win.

Having said that, I still think she would make a fine president, better than any on the R side -- but I will never support her the way I could Gore, my personal favorite.

Obama would be fine too, although I would worry about his personal safety. I think there is enough of [a fairly substaintial] fringe element in this country that would just go nuts.

Edwards too is fine, although I like his wife better. I wish he was more hard-hitting. Richardson I like, but he's kind of a lackluster performer.

The Caucasian male question is interesting. I wish it weren't so, but I don't know... certainly I think is the candidate is obama or Hillary or Richardson, there should be a white male to balance. Change too fast scares people.

IN any case, all of the D's again, I would support over any R -- especially the phony Mitt and the loony Guiliani. If you ever saw the footage of him viciously attacking his own wife on TV, I think you'd be amazed. He's absolutely savage and vile.

McCain, I could have supported at one time, before he started pandering to people who slimed his family. He's just a sad case, really. the rest of the R's- lunatics.

I am sick of John Edwards. He has no shot at winning and is just wasting everyone's time and money. If he really wants to help the poor, why not fund programs in his hometown, using his own money. I don't care for Jimmy Carter's politics but at least he walks the walk when it comes to helping the least of these. All Edwards does is use them as a political backdrop.

AGAIN WITH FLOGGING THE HAIRCUT, CC. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BRING UP MITTY'S $300 MAKEUP JOB AT HIDDEN BEAUTY?

DETERMINED TO IGNORE IT, AREN'T YOU? REPUBLICAN WH*RE.

If HRC doesn't get it on first ballot look for Draft Gore

On your latter question, as I recall, not only did Lieberman not give up his seat in 2000, he was on the ballot in CT both for the Senate and as VP on the Gore-Lieberman ticket. Obviously, hedging his bet was the right call in that case.

I think its possible that both parties will each reach consensus before their conventions. The nature of the process is such that both parties want to have maximum time to promote their candidate, and will find a way to winnow the field early enough that later primaries will be irrelevant - and the conventions nothing more than campaign events for already-determined nominees.

I don't find Edwards persuasive. And, I wince when his sympathy-generating wife Elizabeth uses her formidable persona as the cutting edge for his campaign.

Just seems off key....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Do the Ds on this blog see anyone winning BEFORE the Convention?

My best guess, right now, is that HRC will go into the Convention with 33% of the delegates and a lead, but because of PR rules for the Ds, Obama will be close, and Edwards and Richardson will have enough votes to trade with.

Colin, Judge, Cassandra, spartan, drindl, lylepink, all Ds: what do you think?

And if you think my arithmetic is not unlikely, and accept Judge's view that the Ds MUST have a caucasian male on the ticket, what happens next?

I think that Wes Clark is a fitting VP for every single one of these candidates.

Does Obama have to give up his Senate seat in Illinois if he is the nominee? Does HRC have to give up her seat in NY if she is the nominee? I think BR does NOT have to give up his governorship if he is the nominee, but I stand to be corrected.

I think that his rejection, out-of-hand, of Warner-Lugar, is politics above statesmanship.