Oh man. Just when you though this couldn't get any more tawdry....

[DeadElephant_ORG]

According to the Huffington Post, John Edwards flat-out lied during his big mea culpa interview on ABC. He claimed that his affair started after Hunter started filming his campaign. The truth? They'd already had been fucking for months, and "...Edwards hired her as a front to continue their relationship".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/09/john-edwards-false-assert_n_117925.html

And what were her qualifications for this unique role as his personal videographer? She was a yoga instructor.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/10/2008-08-10_rielle_trashes_elizabeth_edwards_she_doe-2.html

Many here argue that the personal sex lives of candidates should not play the role that it does in our politics. I agree strongly. But for heaven's sake, you could not find a LESS auspicious test case to push that point than the tawdry comings and goings of John Edwards.

(I think this may be the first time in my life I've every even used the word "tawdry".)

[trumad]

1. This is so fucking last week.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

11. Yup. That's why John dumped the story on a Friday evening - so it would be "last week" immediately.

[calimary]

41. Good! Good to hear! If you're saying this, then a lot of other people (not just here

on this forum) are saying it, too.

This is SO fucking LAST WEEK.

That IS what we want, folks. That is EXACTLY what we want.

Yeah, John Edwards is a cad. Yeah, that woman who COULDN'T have been unaware he was married to one of America's Sweethearts is a complete skank.

But guys, speaking STRICTLY practically here, this is GOOD. This is the attitude we want. And the Olympics are only a few days old.

By the time the Olympics are over, it'll be two weeks down and nobody's gonna care. Yes, we'll be back in heavy politics-convention season by then, but there'll be so much OTHER stuff, NEW stuff, in the news - like the VP race heating up and the big Obama speech and all the rest, that the John Edwards affair will sink farther and farther down in the news lineup. We were flipping past several news updates last night on other channels during commercial breaks - on Headline News for example, the story didn't come up til NINETEEN MINUTES AFTER THE HOUR. And that was two days down from when the story broke.

All people are gonna be talking about, today, for example, is the men's swimmers who snatched the gold medal from the obnoxious French guy and his team. That's IT. And every night's gonna produce Olympics-only water-cooler talk the next day. That's all people are gonna care about - especially if you also consider the window dressing America just can't get enough of: tight young butts, sinewy young arms, long sculpted legs, beautiful young smooth skin (seen a single sag, wrinkle, belly-roll, varicose vein, stretch-mark, or age spot in the bunch?), apple-cheeked young faces, perfect posture, pristine complexions - it's a visual rhapsody! And so many of them aren't wearing much, either - except for body-hugging, figure-revealing spandex. It's HEAVEN for Joe and Jane Average. He looks at the beach volleyball bikini babes and she sighs over Michael Phelps and those adorable Chinese gymnasts. NOBODY IS GOING TO GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS. NOW, OR IN TWO WEEKS.

And that's EXACTLY what we want. He deserves to be a mere footnote because of this, and that's EXACTLY what he's going to wind up being. Especially because he's Just. Not. The. Nominee. NOR a viable prospect for VP (not after this charming episode, anyway). The freeper contingent and Pox Noise and the rest of those assholes who'll alway be looking to accentuate the negative about anything or anyone on our side will be trying to keep it alive, of course, but for what? He's no longer a factor. Won't be at the convention to remind everybody like a big zit that won't pop. He won't be a factor. He'll be an afterthought, if that, and everybody else across America will be wanting to move on. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT.

Besides, as John Edwards becomes a mere footnote and fades from relevance, so will that Rielle woman. And she deserves it more than he does, which will be a fitting end for her. She's this year's Donna Rice. She probably hoped to become famous. She'll be a pariah - except with the titillation crowd that always enjoys a cheap thrill. She'll probably get her own talk show on Pox, which will CERTAINLY burnish her image. :sarcasm:

Hey, I'm thinking strictly strategically here. We always have to think damage control in these things. Obviously John Edwards' people did. When something or someone fucks up royally, you HAVE to think strategically about damage control. At least they did that, if the asshole couldn't keep his pants zipped. OY...

It'll be SO yesterday to a LOT more people than just trumad, by the time the Olympics are over and we return to our regularly-scheduled political pig-fuck.

[TankLV]

146. Umm - NO IT'S NOT!!! It's only A COUPLE DAYS OLD!!!

And as far us we're concerned - we can't crucify that asshole HYPOCRITE edwards long or hard enough!!!

HE POSTITIVELY EXCORIATED CLINTON over his episode - but UNLIKE CLINTON - HE CLAIMED TO BE ANOTHER HOLIER THAN THOU "CHRISTIAN"

ALL THE WHILE HE WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS SCOLDING OTHERS FOR DOING!!!

FUCK EDWARDS!!!

Most of us are STILL FUMING, not making excuses for the idiot, or posting ON THE SAME DAY THE STORY BROKE to "give it a rest" crap...!!!

[calimary]

159. Yeah, well I do completely understand your point of view. As a matter of fact, I share it.

For Elizabeth's sake alone, he's a complete shithead. She doesn't deserve that and he CERTAINLY doesn't deserve her.

You're completely justified in fuming, in feeling betrayed, in fiery indignant rage over the holier-than-thou of him carrying on about Bill Clinton when he winds up living in a huge glass house.

OF COURSE, you're justified in your reaction. Nobody's taking that away from you or trying to discount it. I certainly am not. And I'm not trying to patronize you, either. The way you feel is completely understandable! I'm pissed at him also. ASSHOLE! He's a footnote. That's the best he comes away with, if he's lucky. If not, he's OUR version of "My Pet Goat." DESERVEDLY. He didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he shot himself in the dick, and the rest of us square in the heart.

I'm just thinking sheer defensive strategy here. Granted, Dan Abrams was all over it this evening but this is the Monday after the news came out on the previous Friday. It doesn't amount to that much EXPRESSLY BECAUSE he's NOT the nominee. And THANK GOD for that! I'm just grateful that if he had to fuck up like this, it comes out on a Friday afternoon as the summer Olympics are just barely starting. Yeah, there'll be media assholes trying to ride this wave all the way to the shoreline on the next continent, but I think by the time we get back to heavy frontline politics, it'll be really tiresome as a story. 'Cause by now, all I care about is the collateral damage this might or might not do to the campaign that still counts: Barack Obama's campaign. And what I care about is how deftly we as Dems can step around this so we don't come away with shit and old bubblegum all over our shoes. Because we've got a campaign to run and a White House to win and an economy to turn around and a war to get out of and a Constitution to restore and a reputation to rehabilitate and an entire country to rescue: OURS. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Afghanistan. Not Israel. Not Darfur. We can't even begin to do justice to anybody else anywhere else until we start to fix what's gone wrong with OURSELVES as a nation. And all I care about at this point is how to steer around the John Edwards pothole in the road ahead so that we can drive all the way to victory. All I care about is how we brainstorm here, and elsewhere, on how to surmount this, how to discuss it tactically to the least detriment of OUR party and OUR campaign and OUR nominee and OUR progress toward winning this frickin' election. Because we at the grassroots carry the ball a LOT for these campaigns, and as such, we are the infrastructure that major campaigns and parties are built upon, and a lot of the defensive strategy and immunization and support strength against shit like this starts with us.

I know of a lot of people here on DU and elsewhere who had their hopes and their hearts pinned on him, and look how they all feel now!!! He's made fools of all of them, just as SOME Republicans who trusted and counted on and believed george w. bush now feel, knowing what a load of shit they were sold, that they eagerly swallowed whole. And it pisses me off on behalf of all those Edwards supporters - who believed in John Edwards so much. He wasn't my first choice or even my second, but I too admired him and had high hopes of him being just the thing to rehabilitate the Justice Department in Obama's administration. What I really appreciated about him and his campaign most was how he put the issue of poverty up front as a key issue. And that's all gone to hell now, too.

I don't expect you to "give it a rest." I wouldn't even suggest that you do so. It IS a big blow. It's a blow to me as a Democrat and I didn't even vote for him. But I respected and admired him, and I don't anymore. And I can't get his wife out of my mind, either. Man, did he do HER dirty.

You are NOT being discounted or diminished. This guy DID fuck up - splatteringly. Now, the rest of us have to figure out how not to get any on ourselves or Obama's road to the Oval Office.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

171. his betrayal of his family is TRIVIAL compared to his betrayal of our party.

I honestly can't understand how this point escapes such obviously thoughtful people as yourself. If he betrayed Elizabeth, as far as I'm concerned, that is their business, and I don't dwell on that BECAUSE IT IS AN INTENTIONAL DISTRACTION from the core issue.

[calimary]

174. Elizabeth is just the most important person in his own life whom he betrayed.

Personally. But he didn't just betray his/our party, either. He betrayed the whole country.

When I think of what kind of contribution someone like him could make to the Justice Department, especially after those utter assholes ashcroft, gonzo, and mukasey, it just burns me up. Because we NEED a thorough overhaul of the Justice Department, it needs BIGTIME rehabilitation after what those criminals have done to it. And John Edwards coulda been that.

THANK GOD he didn't make it as our nominee. We'd be finished. The election would be thrown. We'd be absolutely screwed. Thank GOD he's going to be little more than a footnote to all this.

SHAME on him. And SHAME on that strumpet rielle or whatever-the-fuck she's calling herself these days.

[TexasObserver]

182. There's some things you don't do, and this is one of them.

You don't cheat on your terminally ill wife, you don't pick up a woman you met in a bar and hired, so she could hang out with you, travel with you, all under the guise of videotaping candid moments. Nice cover, John. Real fucking cute. Too clever by half.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

189. I agree - he betrayed the whole county

[kestrel91316]

2. Why do you keep beating this dead horse, lol?

Edwards is a FORMER candidate. He is NOT the nominee. He no longer holds any public office and is a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

I don't give a damn about who he is or was banging at this point. Get over it.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

10. Because Edwards still believes he'll be viable in the future - like John Kerry did.

Both men made asinine decisions to preserve themselves at cost to the electorate. Kerry wouldn't even wait to concede despite much evidence of election fraud. He did that to preserve his electability. And now Edwards is playing games with the truth for the same reason.

[kestrel91316]

33. Did he confide in you about this personally? You seem to know so much.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

36. It's not hard to read the signs here. This latest lie during the ABC interview proves the point

that he is still trying to preserve his political viability, and this continues to reflect negatively on our party.

[Th1onein]

127. You're stretching our credulity here, DeadElephant.

We're not quite as stupid as you think we are.

Anyone who is still into this Edwards fucked around on his wife thing is either (a) not into politics, but more into tabloid news or (b) attempting to sling some mud at Democrats.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

133. check the website and my history, if you doubt my progressive ideals or my seriousness

I don't think you, or very many on DU, are stupid. But I do think dismiss all those who are appalled at John Edwards continuing deceit as merely being "into this Edwards fucked around on his wife thing" is an act of denial.

[Th1onein]

220. Sometimes denial can be a good thing.

Especially in an election year.

[TankLV]

147. are you sure about that - the "stupid" part?!?!

a lot of us would disagree...

[blm]

57. Bullshit - Kerry had no LEGAL EVIDENCE to continue in court and had slowest concession in history

not that FACTS seem to concern you. Gore conceded on election night when he believed he had a 50,000 vote deficit in Florida. He unconceded later when the math changed. Kerry waited till next morning to concede when the math showed he could not make up 137.000 vote deficit, and if the math changed in his favor he WOULD have unconceded just as Gore did.

Your blame towards Kerry is absurd, since it was Terry McAuliffe's 4yr stewardship of the DNC that assured that Dem voters and ANY Dem nominee would never have a secured election process or access to the legal evidence a nominee would need to contest a vote count.

You must not really understand election fraud, or you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

69. then was Edwards (to his credit) pissed that Kerry conceeded too soon? n/t

[blm]

77. baloney - Kerry agreed with Edwards to wait till morning while votes were still being counted.

Edwards argument was with Dem party election legal team - Kerry sided with Edwards. The confusion of that night is something Edwards used to his benefit as he expected to once again have to face Kerry in a primary. Edwards needed to convince the left he wasn't the same Edwards who authored the IWR, and saw the opportunity that the netroots provided - and keeping Kerry blamed for conceding was part of it. When real journalists asked Edwards for an official statement he would always demure and would never go on record making the claims that were fostered on the internet.

Now - you want to address why you blame Kerry instead of McAuliffe's DNC stewardship that for four years assured that RNC

[DeadElephant_ORG]

79. If you're correct, it makes Edwards even more repugnant.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to fact check your statement for myself at the moment. But I'm interested in this perspective.

[blm]

106. my facts are correct...but they were always there. Lazyminded who preferred to blame Kerry wanted

the smears against him to be true, because they don't have the time to research ANY lawmaker's actual record, and certainly wouldn't want to discover that Kerry has effected this nation's actual historic record more positively than any lawmaker of the last 35 years. Ya see - knowing that would require EFFORT that many casual Dems just prefer to avoid so they let the corpmedia inform them as well as any internet myth as long as it fits their own limited narratives.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

132. If by "lazyminded", and "casual Dems" you mean me...

that's sweeping attack for which you have no basis whatsoever.

[blm]

164. It means those unengaged in the actual process who believe what the corpmedia presents.

They let the corpmedia and the strategist set who profit from misinformation determine their views instead of the facts that could be obtained easily if one wanted to take the time to click.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

169. well... I refuse to own a TV, so I don't think I'm a slave to corpmedia. Thanks for your concern.

[blm]

172. DU does have a research forum, and FEC laws and Ohio election laws could be obtained by anyone with

a computer.

That election was rigged and stolen every day during the four years of McAuliffe's stewardship of the DNC where he sat on his hands as Ohio's party infrastructure sat collapsed and atrophied. They let the GOP control every level of the process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted - and even controlled the output of the machines. Ohio's recount rules were completely drafted by the GOP in that state and yet you only chose to waste your energy blaming the nominee who has nothing to do with how the state parties establish their election law and influence on the election process.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

187. "yet you only chose to waste your energy blaming the nominee" ...??

So the candidate has no control over his fate?

If you're right - now think about this - if you're right, and no candidate could be popular enough to overcome the election fraud (which I agree with you occurred) then why bother to vote. In your world, Barack can't win no matter what. Why bother with politics at all?

[blm]

190. Big difference. Dean has rebuilt party infrastructure in those states like ohio that had been left

to collapse by previous chairs since the mid90s.

The elections are stolen in the four years before the votes are cast. Dean and various Dem Secretaries of State have been showing muscles and organization where there had been none.

If Terry McAuliffe had been left in charge of securing the election process for 2008. then there would be serious concern that massive election fraud would once again occur. At this point I believe the election fraud will still occur, but nowhere near as rampantly as 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

210. I sincerely hope you're right about that. sincerely. n/t

[karynnj]

201. Like many things Edwards said this was a lie

Edwards' comments in the evening were the campaign's position - not his personal position. Kerry spoke of voter suppression and irregularities in the Senate and tro the public, where he was ridiculed each time in 2005 and since then. Edwards said NOTHING until 2006, when he said it in the blogs only. He also never said what case he would make.

[Two Americas]

207. self delete

...

[eridani]

143. If the Rethugs woun't let you look at the raw data, of COURSE there's no evidence n/t

[Inuca]

176. What the HELL has Kerry to do with all this?!?!?!

What kind of logic can see any equivalence between what Edwards did and that abundant "evidence of election fraud" you refer to? Abundant I tell you after a few hours, non-withstanding the fact that almost 4 years later there is still no legally acceptable evidence. Come ON! :mad:

[karynnj]

200. John Kerry made the only decision he could

There was absolutely no definitive proof that there was election fraud - that case has still no been made. You can't count votes not cast - yet at least half of the "lost votes" in RFKjr's analysis were votes lost because people couldn't vote because of things like 4 hour plus lines.

Did anyone in 2000 make the case that Gore easily won the exit poll in FL? NO, they recounted votes looking for some missed before. The difference was he was 527 short - Kerry was about 118,000 short.

Kerry has a record of integrity that is better or equal to anyone in politics - Shame on you for lumping him with Edwards.

[Dr.Phool]

12. Bad Horse!! Baad Horsey!!!!

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

Somebody call the ASPCA.

[eleny]

3. I'm hiding your threads

There are more important things in the world and for this election to read about and learn than your peculiar obsession with John Edwards' sex life.

Buh-bye.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

6. Buh-bye.

[Bob Dobbs]

4. I had sex with seven different women in one week in 1986.

I am coming clean now, before the media gets hold of it.

Let's start 50 threads on that.

[isentropic]

5. Odds are, one of 'em wasn't a woman.

:D :rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. ...

:spray:

[Mabus]

70. That was you?

:wow:

Good times. Good times.

How have you been?

[CatWoman]

74. damn you Bob

you promised you wouldn't tell!!!!! :)

[Bucky]

85. Ha! She fooled ya!

You did not have sex with seven different women in one week in 1986. It was really just one women who kept switching Halloween masks every time you left the room. That's right, the chick who looked like Groucho was the same person as Smurfette, the Voltron Girl, and every other Cyndi Lauper wannabe you thought you shagged that week.

Sucker.

[truebrit71]

95. ...I must have missed your name on the Presidential Primary Ballot paper...

...sorry about that...:sarcasm:

[callous taoboy]

101. Hob-nobbing with Bob Hobbs? Sorry...n/t

[vssmith]

104. And here I thought Wilt Chamberlain was dead

[AlCzervik]

7. i just had special k with strawberries, it was delicious.

[originalpckelly]

9. You ated my kitteh?

We call her special K, because she's, well, special and a kitty.

[TexasObserver]

8. Thanks for posting. It goes to the issue of trust and accountability.

Ignore the naysayers.

Literally. Put them on ignore if they become too bothersome.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

13. everybody needs their gonads serviced

it's none of our business.

lying, though, is a legitimate problem.

[TankLV]

148. as is HYPOCRICY...

and passing moral judgements on others when you're doing the fucking same thing or WORSE!!!

and Edwards is still "uncomfortable around gay people" and "gay marriage will ruin (his) straight marriage"!!!

[DS1]

14. Where's the sex tape?

You know there has to be one, role-playing and all that

[DeadElephant_ORG]

18. How many copies will he sell during his "kiss-and-tell" book tour? Wanna bet?

[Radical Activist]

15. I wonder if any other Dem candidate ever put a girl friend on the payroll.

Maybe a single one. huh

[DeadElephant_ORG]

16. 1. Denial. 2. Anger. 3. Bargaining. 4.... woops! back to DENIAL.

[Radical Activist]

21. huh?

Wha?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

24. Your arguing that "everybody does it". That's bullshit. You would know it - but you're in denial.

[Radical Activist]

28. That's not really what I'm arguing.

I don't think everybody does it but there is someone widely worshiped at DU who did do it. And how is that denial? I'm not denying what Edwards did. You don't make sense.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

32. you're denying that this event is important. It is. n/t

[Radical Activist]

35. Oh. Well I don't really care. I don't have to deny it.

That's a fact. It happened. I don't deny that it happened. And I still don't really care.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

37. oh come on. NOBODY denies that it HAPPENED. They, like you, try to trivialize it. n/t

[Radical Activist]

38. Then why are you writing about denial?

You can't tell me how much I care about it. You're trying to hard. Why do you so badly need this to matter so much? Go relax and let it go.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

42. Because you're denying the importance of this. n/t

[Radical Activist]

50. It ended the political career of someone whose political career was already over.

Oh yeah. Monumental! :eyes:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

53. John Edwards absolutely does NOT think his career is over. He could make more trouble for us yet.

Particularly if he gets the impression from folks like yourself that what he did was no big deal.

[rucky]

113. He'll get the message on the way home.

RA is right. He's officially a B-lister.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

139. I hope you're right. But I predict... A BOOK TOUR. n/t

[karynnj]

203. If he thinks otherwise, he is not in touch with reality

The fact is that he did less well in 2008 than in 2004. He found it harder to raise money and he did less well in his best states. The fact is that the media loved Edwards in 2004 and pushed him - yet he came nowhere near winning. They pushed him again in 2005 and 2006 giving enormous positive coverage to EE's and his books.

There is simply no way that he could be a serious candidate again - given his resume it is amazing he could run twice.

[Ganja Ninja]

17. We need to understand something.

We don't know the state of the Edwards marriage and how they see their futures. Elizabeth is sick and has been sick. We don't know the state of their sex life. We don't know what their marriage is like. People that have been life long sweethearts and are dealing with the possibility of one of them dying might have been thinking about what's best for their loved one's future. She might very well have encouraged or at least approved his infidelity if she thought her time was short in the hope that he would eventually re-marry.

Just something to think about before we condemn either or both of them.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. While he was getting ready for a presidential run?

That's completely nuts. Also, she was apparently in remission at the time, so her iminent death would not have been a consideration.

[TankLV]

150. but we DO KNOW that he was eager to CONDEMN Clinton for the SAME THING HE WAS DOING...

all the while having to be "uncomfortable" around all those gay people who DARE suggest that we have EQUAL RIGHTS to MARRY!!!

yeah, nothing "important"...

[sinkingfeeling]

19. "Tawdry"?? Well, I couldn't care less who he had sex with nor when nor why. It's

nobody's business except his and Elizabeth's and whatever-her-name-is. Affairs are so common, it's unreal. I was hired by a very large corporation 35 years ago and worked in a 'branch' with about 125 men and 3 women. The number of married men seeking affairs was close to 80% and the number having one or more was about 75%! Granted it was in more liberal times, but flings happen in 'work environments' constantly. Get over it. Who cares? Sex doesn't nullify John Edwards and the things he has worked for and brought to our attention.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

20. Nor do I . BUT you cannot get elected President that way. John Edwards was literally delusional.

And his delusions put us ALL at risk - NOT just his family.

[sinkingfeeling]

54. We elected JFK and Clinton, knowing about their affairs.

[Joe Fields]

55. The general public did not know about JFK and his affairs.

Some members of the press did, but the story of Camelot was far more compelling.

I guarantee you that if Kennedy had suffered a leak, like Edwards, then he wouldn't have come close to being elected, given the morality of that time period.

[sinkingfeeling]

94. I disagree having been around during that time period. People looked at the president

differently back then...judged men (as they all were)for their arguments, not a 10 second TV ad. There were rumors about Kennedy back then, but people respected each other's privacy then. You did not have complete strangers coming up to you and asking if you've 'been saved' or 'do you know Jesus?', nor did they tell you not to smoke or make comments about your kids or pets. Politics and religion were more private. The press had some class and didn't make a big deal about politicians' private lives.

[Joe Fields]

116. That's funny, because I was around back then, too.

It was the worst kept secret in Washington that the general public had no real clue of. I've read stories by reporters from that period that would talk about how they kept silent on the issue. The media did not report it. Instead, just like I said, the media built up the myth of Camelot. It was a much more compelling story.

Another reason was that the press actually liked the Kennedy's, especially Jack, and he and his family played well to them.

[question everything]

177. "knowing" is the key word

And this is why the McCain history is not relevant.

Had he come clean before declaring his candidacy, then we would have digested the info and then decided whether this, indeed, was personal between him and Elizabeth. As we did with Clinton and as, apparently, the McCain voters have.

But to think that in these days anything like that could remain secret shows a poor judgment by both of them, even selfishness. Here the cancer had returned and we hear from Elizabeth that fighting for their ideas was more important than her health. And all of this is now down the drain, together with our donations and the hope that he, too, injected into the campaign.

Had he been the nominee, not only would our chances to win the White House would have been gone, but also many local races.

[Mimosa]

135. Um, what has John Edwards ever DONE besides get rich?

Sinking Feeling, John Edwards talks big, lives karge, but what has he ever done to help 'regular people.' He's said the right words. But has he ever set up a foundation? He yammered about Katrina victims but he himself did NOTHING to help them.

I'm tired of his type. Words are cheap and he is sleazy as Trent Lott or any Republican. The D after his name never helped anybody I've known.

[sinkingfeeling]

165. So ideas and discussion of our national problems have no value to you?Try googling the

Wade Edwards Foundation.

[TankLV]

151. like his dehumanizing gay people and our seekingof EQUALITY?

yeah - really "noble" person...

He's another HYPOCRITICAL MORALIZING FUCKING RELIGIOUS ASSHOLE TELLING OTHERS HOW WE SHOULD BEHAVE!!!

[sinkingfeeling]

166. When did John Edwards dehumanize gays?

"LGBT Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. Discrimination is morally wrong. All Americans should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities." -- John Edwards

He supports civil unions, adoption by same-sex couples, the repeal of DMA, the end of 'Don't Ask, don't tell' and full participation in the military, co-sponsored Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Hate Crime bill, and for increased HIV/AIDS funding.

[Cheap_Trick]

22. jumpin jeezus on a pogo stick

can you say

[helderheid]

27. Everybody knows that a BURROW OWL lives in a HOLE in the GROUND.

WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY CALL IT A BURROW OWL ANYWAY?!?!?

[Marrah_G]

30. .

:rofl:

[taterguy]

43. What does that have to do with anything?

Color me perplexed

[helderheid]

45. here ya go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFr6DgrF0w

[taterguy]

47. That song rocks, rots and rules

Get it?

[helderheid]

48. Now color me perplexed!

:rofl:

[taterguy]

56. The Wurster kid that just wanted a burrow owl later made the classic recording Rock Rot and Rule

It should be in everyone's collection

[helderheid]

61. Link?

:hi:

[taterguy]

64. How much trouble is it to type rock rot and rule into Google?

:eyes:

http://stereolaffs.com/rockrot.php

[helderheid]

66. Oh you and your eyes. I did google it but wan't coming up with any songs.

[taterguy]

67. I said it was a recording not a song

:freak:

[helderheid]

98. Alright you.

Wanna take this outside??

:P

[taterguy]

103. I hate laptops

And I don't want to fill a cooler full of beer just so I can type messages to a total stranger.

So I think I'll stay inside thank you very much

You can post from wherever the hell you want, as if I would have any way of knowing

[helderheid]

107. You consider me a total stranger?

:cry:

[taterguy]

161. We've never met. That makes you a stranger

Maybe I hit on you once upon a time at a bar when I was drunk but I really can't be held responsible for that.

[helderheid]

175. Damn, and here I thought you liked me.

You really liked me!

[taterguy]

180. I like you a lot but here's what I can't figure out

Out of all the threads on this site, why are we jacking this one?

[helderheid]

181. Well, duh.

It's tawdry.

[taterguy]

183. Tawdry's all well and good but you really didn't have to PM those photos

BTW, you look stunning

:9

[helderheid]

212. Of course I had to PM you the photos. I take my tawdry seriously.

Thanks, man. :hi:

[taterguy]

214. Was the Grand Canyon pic photoshopped?

Those rocks looked awfully hot and uncomfortable.

Lovely view though

[helderheid]

217. ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY HONESTY???

Yes, totally photoshopped.

[taterguy]

218. Why did you go all the way to Arizona for that pic?

I've heard the best canyons are in Utah

[helderheid]

219. Arizona isn't far.

Best canyons are in Utah though. Just ask... people who have been to Utah. :hide:

[taterguy]

221. I went to Arizona once when someone else was paying for it

I was genuinely impressed and awed by the Grand Canyon

But the canyon snobs that I know all say that Utah has the best canyons.

[Cheap_Trick]

59. OMG

Stuart, I like you. You're not like all the other people here in the trailer park.



Dead Milkmen RULE!!!

[helderheid]

62. Bringing back LOTS of memories!

Bitchin' Camero, Big Lizard in my Backyard, Punkrock Girl, oh man... :hi:

[Cheap_Trick]

123. I recently listened to pretty much all of their works

over the course of a few days while at work. The final 2 albums I wasn't really as familiar with.

It was sounding as if they took an almost spiritual turn on the last one.

[helderheid]

130. I've only heard beelzebubba

I'll have to check out the other stuff :)

[Cheap_Trick]

173. Here ya go

http://www.deadmilkmen.com/discography/

"Death Rides a Pale Cow" would be an excellent choice as it's a "best of" CD.

I'd also recommend the "You'll Dance to Anything" and "Smokin' Banana Peels" EP's for all the various mixes of those songs (like the "Bill Cullen Trail Mix").

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. I'd say judging by the continuing threads on this particular

that NO would be the answer to your question.

[Ghost in the Machine]

92. jumpin jeezus on a pogo stick doesn't work without a picture..

There ya go.... allllll better now....

[helderheid]

131. OMFG!!!

:rofl:

[Marrah_G]

25. Why are you so interested with John's Penis?

[Canuckistanian]

29. And this is important... how?

What right have you to keep going on about this when Elizabeth has forgiven him?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

34. Do you really think the only person who John betrayed was Elizabeth?

I couldn't care less about their marriage, or Edwards sexual morality. I care that Edwards put our party and our future at risk by choosing to run with this devastating skeleton in his closet waiting to be revealed.

This is about POLITICAL MORALITY, not sex.

[Dreamer Tatum]

39. It doesn't matter...Edwards is toast forever, so anything else is overkill

Anyone who thinks John Edwards has a future in politics any higher than organizing a block party is delusional.

Any other details that emerge are just that - details.

[knitter4democracy]

49. My question is why only Dems are hurt by affairs?

Look at the loooooong lists of GOP guys who've cheated on their wives, and they're still in office, doing just fine. Why is it Gary Hart can never run again and now Dems here are saying that Edwards is toast for the rest of his life? Why does the GOP get to move on, remarry, whatever, while our people suffer from one mistake for the rest of their lives?

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. The difference is that this is happening in real time

And there is evidence that Edwards lied IN HIS TELEVISED MEA CULPA.

There is also suspicion the Edwards misappropriated campaign funds to hide his malfeasance. Maybe McCain did that too, but I've not heard any stories to that effect.

[knitter4democracy]

110. So did Newt, so did a lot of Republican politicians. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

111. Then I guess Edwards gets a pass

Honestly, the last time "BUT HE DID IT TOO!" was a legitimate-sounding excuse was when we were in elementary school.

Even if that argument were given full quarter, what Edwards has done is disturbing.

We are better people than to dumb down our expectations of our leaders.

[knitter4democracy]

119. Honestly, it doesn't really bother me what happened.

Shit happens, and good people make really dumbass decisions that later look terrible in the light of day. His wife forgave him and moved on, and I don't think I have the right to question that. I doubt he used campaign funds in any really nefarious way (considering his own personal wealth), and while I'm saddened that he was that stupid, I don't think any less of him. Maybe I just plain expect our politicians to screw up and be normal human beings.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

120. Elizabeth can't grant forgiveness for what John did to the party. In fact she joined in the fraud.

[Dreamer Tatum]

121. Let's just give it up.

It's just sex. It's none of our business. He can do whatever he wants with our money.
His wife forgave him, why can't we? It's a non-story. Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone.


Until, of course, a Republican does it.

[knitter4democracy]

122. I see no fraud.

Go after Elizabeth if you want, but you won't get me on your side.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

134. Didn't they present themselves as the family candidate's family? Didn't she know about his affair?

Didn't she fund-raise and lead rallies in support of a candidate whom she knew, if the truth came out, could bring down the Democratic Party?

I like what the both have accomplished politically until now. Hell, I backed Edwards. But now I cannot find sympathy in me for either of them.

[knitter4democracy]

162. I think they still are about family values.

Staying together through thick or thin is a family value. Forgiving after one of them makes a massive mistake is a family value. I don't blame her for continuing to work with him to get him elected. I really don't. As for bringing down the Democratic Party, that's taking it too far.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

185. "bringing down the Democratic Party, that's taking it too far"... You would be sh#tting bricks if..

Edwards were our nominee now.

[knitter4democracy]

188. Nope. I'd be sad that he'd be going through this, but not mad.

I wasn't mad that Clinton had the affair or got caught. I was angry that he lied under oath about it, but I wasn't angry about the affair.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

191. pardon: "sh#tting bricks" doesn't mean angry. It means afraid. The Dems would be toast

if Edwards were our nominee today.

[knitter4democracy]

193. And I happen to disagree.

Look at Clinton--he would've won re-election even with the Lewinsky scandal. Edwards is so much better than McCain that only election theft would've made him lose, and frankly, that's a bigger problem than any personal issues any candidate has.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

198. and that's the beautiful thing about democracy - we are free to talk, and free to disagree

[EFerrari]

46. I wonder how many politicians would have to start seling Amway immediately

if having an affair was a "devastating skeleton"?

I'm betting, most of them.

[Canuckistanian]

72. Political morality? Is that some kind of joke?

Why do you hold politicians to such a high standard of personal morality?

Do you hold your lawyer, your doctor or your financial advisor to the same standards? And yet, you depend on their "judgement" even MORE in your everyday life.

Do you think that because Edwards fooled around, he's going to start lying in his professional decisions?

If you insist on holding ALL politicians to such a code of conduct, I'm afraid you're doomed to a life of disappointment.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

75. Here's my "code of conduct": If you can't win - DON'T F#CKING RUN n/t

[Fuzz]

40. It isn't OLD news, sheesh people. It is tawdry, and he did screw up BIG TIME

Had he won the nomination the Democratic Party would be up shit's creek. He screwed her and could have screwed us big time. That's the reality.

Key word is 'could' though.

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped.

And yes the key word is 'could' and apparently 'if' with many here.

[Bulletin Justin]

51. What about Muschany-R sex indictment in Missouri????

According to CBS news a grand jury handed down an indictment 8/6/08 for "deviant sexual behavior" to State Rep. Muschany. Muschaney who is married with children is charged because he allegedly had sex with the 14-year-old daughter of his MISTRESS!!!!! He decided not to run for re-election this November so he could spend more time with his family.

But let's keep talking about the Edwards affair.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

52. well... ok... that's a guy who you'd rather DIDN'T "spend more time with his family"

But the fact that there are bigger creeps in the world doesn't excuse John for betraying the Democratic Party.

[Bulletin Justin]

58. No excuses for what Edwards did but----

just more proof that the MSM is controlled by the right-------how many truly disgusting republican sex stories just seem to go away quietly while every sex-ploit of the dems gets scrutinized down to the last loose pubic hair; and Bill Clinton's sex-capades are revisited again and again and again?????

And it is always okay for the Republicans because they are the "family values" crowd and all they have to do is ask Jesus to forgive them, the Evangelicals give them a pass (like David Vitter, e.g.) and they go on about their merry way.

And the hypocritical beat goes on........

[Th1onein]

129. Welcome to DU, Bulletin Justin!

Nice to see you here!

[Ghost in the Machine]

142. Don't forget about Wilton Frederick Bland, Peter Hong and many others on the list

http://www.republicansexoffenders.com

Republican sex offender & Missouri State Rep. Scott Muschany, (R)-Frontenac, was indicted today, Aug 6, 2008, in connection with a reported sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl on May 17, the day after this year’s Legislative session ended. The alleged victim is the daughter of a state employee. The girl’s mother and Muschany, a married father of 2 children, were romantically involved, the woman said. (Aren't "Family Values" a wonderful thing?) In a morbid twist of irony, Muschany was a co-sponsor of legislation that toughened sex offender laws in 2006. According to his legislative biography, Muschany and his wife were licensed as foster parents with the Division of Family Services.

Republican sex offender & longtime stalwart Republican operative Peter Hong was arrested July 23, 2008 for solicitation of prostitution. Police spokesman Peter Panos said that the arrest came during the first day of a two-day sting operation during which "johns" and prostitutes responded to ads placed on the Internet and in print. Thirty-five people were arrested Wednesday and Thursday, Panos said today.

Republican sex offender & candidate for Mineral County (W.Va.) Commission Wilton Frederick Bland, 30, of Bayberry Place, was arrested March 23, 2007, after police received a complaint concerning a juvenile boy who said Bland had wanted him to appear nude on the Internet. Bland charged last year with 136 counts related to sexually based crimes against children has been sentenced to a possible total of 85 years after pleading guilty in both Grant and Mineral counties. was charged at the time with 73 counts of possession of child pornography, 45 counts of sexual assault in the first degree for allegedly having sex with a child under age 11, nine counts of use of obscene matter with intent to seduce a minor, seven counts of display of obscene matter to a minor and two counts of employing a minor to do sexually explicit conduct, according to the West Virginia State Police.
http://www.republicansexoffenders.com

Welcome to DU, Justin

Peace,

Ghost

[Beaverhausen]

60. have you started any threads about McCain's affairs?

and by the way, nothing in that post of HuffPo confirms what is being alledged here. But I guess that wouldn't matter to you.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

71. McCain's affairs threaten the Republican party. Edwards' threatened my party. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

91. McCain is the one actually running for president. In case you didn't notice

Edwards is not our nominee.

What is your obsession with him anyway? Just get over it already, will ya?

[Truth2Tell]

63. John who?

[Liberal Dose]

65. What the hell do you want? Should Edwards be merely shunned, or perhaps dragging him to the

marketplace and stoning him to death would make you happy. Just fucking stop already!! :mad:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

68. I want him to get out of Democratic politics FOREVER. No "confessions", no tell-all books...

and no campaigns ever again.

[CatWoman]

73. you know what "I" want?

you to bury this fucking horse!!!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

76. The horse will be dead when folks like you stop trying to pretend this was unimportant.

[CatWoman]

78. one word: "Whinny"

[DeadElephant_ORG]

81. one word back: "Whiny"

[CatWoman]

86. yes

you appear to be very much so.

"hush little baby, don't you cry........."

[trumad]

84. Wow---just wow....

I so totally don't think this is important because it has nothing and I mean nothing to do with me. Apparently is has a lot to do with you?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

88. If Democrats with skeletons like John's don't get off the stage - it will have everything to do with

you

[trumad]

97. Oh please---

the country could care less a week later about John Edwards.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

99. wanna bet? Wait 'til he writes a book about all this and goes on tour. Just wait.

he's not finished with politics

and he's not finished harming our party

until, and unless Democrats like you stop protecting him, and making excuses for him.

[TankLV]

154. umm - story broke on FRIDAY - it's now MONDAY - only a couple DAYS...

nice try...

[TankLV]

153. It cetainly has a lot to do with ME!!!

but go haead - bury your head in your ass...

[Marrah_G]

83. Instead of the Clenis, you seem to be enthralled by the Jock......

Either way, I suggest getting a hobby that doesn't require the death of horses.

[CatWoman]

87. LOL

Now it's all clear -- the dead elephant wants some live donkey dick

:rofl:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

89. yes, keep focusing on the sex. Ignore that he betrayed our party. nt

[Marrah_G]

90. OMGZ TEH JOCK @!@!!!!!!!@

[chatnoir]

167. Love your Dead Elephant! n/t

[DeadElephant_ORG]

170. thanks! n/t

[TankLV]

152. any of those would work for me...

especially consideredin the how he held HIMSELF out to be some paragon of virtue and excoriated OTHERS for their moral failings!!!

THAT'S what we find INEXCUSEABLE!!!

HE FUCKING SCOLDED CLINTON FOR THE SAME THINGS HE WAS DOING!!!

and yet he's "uncomfortable around us icky gay people" and somehow our demands for EQUALITY for the right to marry the person we love would somehow demean his marriage - that's rich, isn't it?!?!

[question everything]

80. To add to this, I've read someplace - don't remember where

that her "friend" Bob McGovern who arranged for the meeting at the hotel, was also the one who tipped the National Enquirer (and probably was paid handsomely).

[Name removed]

82. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unblock]

93. ahem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6617997&mesg_id=6617997

[DeadElephant_ORG]

102. I understand your point, and disagree

Edwards's not finished with politics

and he's not finished harming our party

until, and unless Democrats stop protecting him, and making excuses for him.

Just wait 'til he writes a book about all this and goes on tour. Just wait.

[unblock]

105. yes, infighting is best done a few short month before a critically important election....

:eyes:

you can't make fighting republicans the priority?

we can purge the party in mid-november.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

115. If we can't discuss this here, among ourselves, where and how can we discuss this?

The reality is, many Democrats don't want to discuss this ever. Not now. And not in mid-November.

So they trivialize what Edwards did - pretend that only a prude would be offended or affected - and attack those who dare to acknowledge just how severe the damage to our party and our cause could have been. As I say, if he gets the idea that Democrats accept his antics at all, he'll do more harm. We have not seen the end of this.

[MiniMe]

178. What makes you think we are discussing it among ourselves

Freepers and trolls are on DU all the time. And you are acting like one of them

[DeadElephant_ORG]

184. god-damn-it. Anybody you disagree with is a "freeper". If you doubt my progressive ideals and actio

actions, look at the site I led the creation of. Look at my posting history. Read my arguments on DU more carefully. I don't know what else you've done for the progressive cause than to bully, insult, and attempt to isolate people like me, but I've fought my whole LIFE for the causes that I assume you believe in. YOUR VERY WELCOME.

[ecstatic]

96. Not tawdry.. just cruel

I wonder if he thought about his wife one time during his escapades.

[earth mom]

100. Oh jeez here we go again with more bullshit!

:puke:

[SammyWinstonJack]

117. Don't you just love it?

:eyes: Americans for the most part were very unhappy that Clinton was being impeached. He left office with a very high approval rating. His lying about sex didn't damage the Democratic Party and yet the Edwards haters here think that this admission from him will damage Obama's chances. They must not have much faith Obama's chances. :shrug:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

118. I haven't read one word on this board about Obama being hurt by Edwards

Maybe those worries about Obama are out there, but I don't share them.

The point is that Edwards has hurt our PARTY. He betrayed our party by running under these circumstances. Do you honestly believe that Clinton's "lying about sex didn't damage the Democratic Party"?! Really?! Where the hell have you BEEN the last 8 years?!

See... there was this guy... his name was Al Gore, and he would have been a really great President, except... well... somebody had sex and lied about it.

[earth mom]

124. FYI: The 2000 election was STOLEN from Gore. AND the Media covered up the results that Gore won.

YOU NEED TO EDUCATE YOURSELF:


New York Times, Washington Post suppress media recount of Florida vote

By Barry Grey
25 September 2001

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

A consortium of major American news organizations, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, has decided to withhold the results of its recount of ballots cast in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The consortium had planned to publish its report this week, and although its decision to suppress its own findings has received virtually no media attention, the reason is made clear in a September 23 column by New York Times Washington bureau chief Richard L. Berke.

In a column that enthusiastically welcomes the dissolution of all political opposition in Washington in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, Berke writes: “Until September 11, the capital was riding a historically partisan period, with leading Democrats still portraying their president as ‘appointed’ by the Supreme Court. In a move that might have stoked the partisan tensions—but now seems utterly irrelevant—a consortium of new organizations, including The New York Times, had been scheduled this week to release the results of its ambitious undertaking to recount the Florida presidential ballots. (That has been put on hold indefinitely).”

In other words, the Times and its counterparts in the consortium have decided to conceal from the American people facts damaging to the Bush administration’s claims to political legitimacy. They are doing so for the express purpose of suppressing dissent and bolstering the president as he prepares to take the American people into war and makes sweeping attacks on their civil liberties.

This act of self-censorship is entirely in keeping with the overall response of the media to the events of the past two weeks—a response that in coming years will be widely seen as among the most shameful episodes in the history of American journalism. Neither in the broadcast nor the print media is there any attempt whatsoever to examine the claims of the Bush administration. All statements emanating from the White House and the Pentagon, even those known to be lies, are presented to the public as good coin.

<snip>

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/nyt-s25.shtml



THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
PART ONE: RELIABLE SOURCE REVEALS THE COVER-UP

By David Podvin


The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory. Even after casting aside the controversial butterfly ballots and discarding ballots that were “iffy”, Gore decisively won the recount. While the precise numbers are still unavailable, a New York Times journalist who was involved in the project told one of his former companions that Gore won by a sufficient margin to create “major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out”.

Gore’s victory was large enough that it became apparent he would win prior to the Consortium recount being fully completed. And contrary to a recent claim by the New York Times, the terrorism of September 11 was not the crucial factor that determined whether to release the results to the American people. Prior to that time, the de facto majority shareholders in the publicly traded New York Times Company reportedly intervened on the side of quashing the recount results and convinced the other participants to shelve the story. The executive claims that the most important decisions at the Times are made by the influential money center banks that exercise actual voting control of a majority of stock. These banks are extremely pro-Bush. In addition to their control of the Times, they have substantial financial clout with the Washington Post Company, Dow Jones and Company, and the Tribune Company. As a result, the banks exert tremendous influence on a majority of the Consortium.

<snip>


http://makethemaccountable.com/coverup/Part_01.htm

[DeadElephant_ORG]

137. Right. And Clinton's Lewinski scandal, and the impeachment, had nothing to do with Gore's loss.

I don't need any educating from you.

[TankLV]

156. and edwards was LEADING THE CONDEMNATION OF CLINTON!!!

how easy it is to try to not remember what that asshole did then...

[earth mom]

126. Yep, Obama must be on shaky ground if people think this is going to ruin his candidacy.

Impeaching Clinton was ridiculous and this Edwards witch hunt is just as absurd. I question the motives and political leanings of those pushing such smear campaigns. :eyes:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

141. It is not a "smear" to point out that he lied 2 days ago on national television.

If you "question" my "motives and political leanings", then check out the web site and my prior posts.

[earth mom]

192. You mean the web site that has rethuglican bumper stickers like this one:

"the common good ought to be privitized"

"corporations have feelings too"

"human rights for the right human"

:wtf:

And you call that a dem website? I don't buy it and you just proved my point about you. You must think people around here are as dumb as rocks.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

197. you apparently are suffering a sarcsm deficit... - but hundreds of thousands who visit site get it

other slogans include:

"A good war lasts forever"

"let's just lynch liberals"

"Jesus loves 'nucular' weapons"


So, if you REALLY think I REALLY think that "corporations have feelings" or any of the rest of it - then, I'm sorry to say it, you ARE dumb as a brick.

[earth mom]

216. Sorry, but the last thing a TRUE liberal would put on their car is a "let's just lynch liberals"

bumper sticker. I doubt that message would fly around DU, but feel free to put it and the rest of your offensive bullshit bumper stickers in your sig line and see how people react around here.

:puke:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

222. the campaign gets compliments here on DU all the time. It's this thing called "parody". Heard of it?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

224. OK... OK... You deserve a sincere reply.

First of all, let me say that you are NOT the first person ever to have missed the sarcasm of the DeadElephant.ORG campaign. I get an outraged email or post like yours about once per month. That's more than a trickle, if you think about all those who never bothered to write.

On the other hand, I've been gratified - and surprised - at how infrequently the slogans, and the campaign as a whole, are mis-understood. I say "surprised" because the campaign intentionally walks a very fine line. That's what is meant when it is described as "edgy". Interestingly I've never yet heard from a CONSERVATIVE who missed the point. Conservatives immediately recognize that they're being lampooned, and the comments from them are invariably extremely hostile - which I take to mean we're doing something right. You can read real quotes from outraged conservatives on our home page.

So, why push that edge? Because it works. The campaign was created by a small horde of volunteers: creative writers, and professionals in social media and viral marketing. Our purpose is to expose the actual "Rethuglican" ideology to independent voters who aren't paying close attention to the full implications of what conservative pundits and politicians are seriously advocating. Our budget is essentially zero. That means we depend entirely on viral distribution to get that message out. Specifically, it is the ambiguity of the slogans - the "is that guy REALLY advocating THAT" factor - that makes them so arresting, and so much more likely to be forwarded on to others.

I've had DeadElephant stickers on my car, and frequently worn the shirts in public, since the campaign began two years ago (a couple months prior to the last mid-term elections.) I've also, in my life, displayed many other political bumper-stickers and shirts. I live in ultra-liberal Berkeley, California, and I can tell you that I have never received so many compliments as the DeadElephant slogans draw. People walk up to my car in parking lots to laugh and compliment the slogans. And the shirts draw a positive remark nearly every single day that I have one on!

Now, you specifically called out the slogan "Let's just lynch liberals". Of the roughly 100 slogans in the campaign, that one is both the scariest, and most important, in my opinion. I personally monitor ultra-conservative talk radio daily, and I can tell you that the number of conservative callers and hosts who call liberals "traitors" who are out to "destroy America" and who should be "kicked out of the country" is growing rapidly. This hateful, hyper-entitled, and profoundly anti-democratic attitude represents the major threat to freedom in our century. If you take their attitude to the logical extreme, what they conservatives advocate today is LYNCHING anybody who disagrees with them.

Having read all this, you are of course entitled not to change your mind about the campaign, or about me. But I thought this information might interest you.

[TankLV]

157. umm - edwards was among those who hunted Clinton...

WE remember what that asshole did back then...

[TankLV]

155. umm - that ASSHOLE EDWARDS was among the FIRST to criticize Clinton!!!!

fucking hypocritical religious ASSHOLE!!!

[yowzayowzayowza]

108. The only thing I hate more that conservative crotch nannies are...

liberal crotch nannies. Ug.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

112. nobody is "nannying" John's crotch. We're saying if you can't keep your dick in, don't run. n/t

[Name removed]

114. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Th1onein]

125. Can't you spend your "investigative" skills on something more substantive?

I mean, really. This is so fucking boring. "Oh! THAT'S when they started fucking!" Who the fuck cares, huh?

I know you're new here, DeadElephant_ORG, but really, do you think this serves our cause? He's not the nominee; never really had a chance of BECOMING the nominee. So it's pointless and counterproductive to post this shit on a DEMOCRATIC forum.

You'd get better traction talking about when Britney started fucking whoever.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

138. You didn't read the OP. Edwards is CONTINUING to lie, on national TV. THAT hurts our party...

far more than any discussion on DU EVER WILL.

Since when is quoting an article in HuffPo inappropriate for this board?

And since when is a person with 866 posts "new here".

I'm could care less about Edwards' sex life or sexual morality. I care very much about his public lying, and the fraud he perpetrated on the Democratic Party. I also care greatly that my fellow progressive partisans are so firmly in denial, so fixated on trivializing Edwards' public deceit, that they would ruthlessly and personally attack anybody who stands up to say "this is important."

That is what is "so fucking boring" - YOUR DENIAL.

[dkf]

160. Just the fact that you have to defend this post is sad.

Some in our party are so concerned about defending bad behavior it is simply incredible.

[Th1onein]

163. YOU are hurting the Democratic Party, not Edwards

By ragging on this issue. Edwards is not even in public office anymore. Why not talk about Britney or Paris?

I'm not trivializing anything but your inane harping on a non-issue. My question is this: DOES IT BENEFIT DEMOCRATS TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THIS SHIT? NO.

So why are you still going on and on about it?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

168. You are hurting DU by trying to shut down free discussion of an important issue

NOTHING SAID ON DU WILL HARM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. LYING ON NATIONAL TELEVISION DID HARM THE PARTY.

So how about YOU quit "harping" on ME.

[Two Americas]

196. oh for God's sake

Let's talk about WHY scandals hurt the Democrats so much.

If the party wasn't so weak and reactive to the right wing to begin with, we wouldn't be vulnerable to this crap.

I can understand why some Edwards' supporters, myself included, feel let down and misled, and are saddened because this is being used - not by Republicans, but rather by the conservatives within our own party - to damage and destroy the left wing of the party.

But the real battle is within the party between different factions trying to gain control over the party, not with the right wingers as it should be.

People who want to eliminate the left from the party should be celebrating. People who supported Edwards should be talking about the damage this does to the left.

Your posts sound like your goal is to bury the left, not protect the party from anything. Your point, as near as I can tell, is that Edwards destroyed the Democratic party and should be what - tarred and feathered? Executed? Where are you going with this obsession of yours?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

202. your right - the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is most hurt by Edwards' fall...

I hadn't thought about that. Thank you.

If I sound to you like my "goal is to bury the left", you have mis-heard me profoundly. I'm as far to the left as it is possible to be and still (sometimes grudgingly) vote Democratic. And I have a life of activism to show for it. This Edwards conversation aside, I'm certain you and I would agree about most issues.

So I'll ask you to think about this differently: Assume, for a moment, that I'm not lying and ask yourself "why WOULD I guy like that want to talk about this Edwards thing, and get so frustrated when others tried to shut him down?"

It's because I feel that if I could have worked all my life for these causes, if I could spend hours every day (literally) trying to find ways to make people understand what the Republicans have done to our country, and what they threaten to do, why... WHY couldn't John Edwards just keep his dick in his pants, or be honest about it if he couldn't? Is that really too much to ask? If I ever had the opportunity to do good that he had, I hope to God I wouldn't fuck up something so important for something so trivial.

[Two Americas]

204. hey no problem

Let's discuss it then, rather than relentlessly, and I have to say a little obsessively, burying Edwards.

You say - "Why WOULD a guy like that want to talk about this Edwards thing, and get so frustrated when others tried to shut him down."

Same reason I would. First, it is a betrayal of the left - no argument there. Secondly, it is frustrating to be told that you are talking about sex when you aren't. Thirdly, it pisses you off to be told to STFU. I am right there with you on that.

But what I draw from this, and what I want to talk about, is the weakness and vulnerability of the Democratic party. You think dissing Edwards gets you shut down and harassed? That is nothing compared to trying to talk about the real threat to us, and it ain't Edwards. It is our completely complicit,compromised, weak, and ineffective response to the extreme right wing, and that permeates the party. Were it not for that, the Edwards scandal would not hurt us.

There is something very wrong with the party - that is why the Edwards mistake hurt us. You say Edwards hurt the party. The party doesn't need anyone to hurt them, we do it to ourselves all the time, and the right wing propagandists will always find some excuse for attacking us and we will always roll over and cringe and cower. What Edwards did was hurt a chance to strengthen the party and move it to the left so that it becomes some sort of credible and effective opposition to the extreme right wing. Purging him, and piling on - and make no mistake about this: many are using this to dismiss and invalidate Edwards' message and his supporters - may have the reverse effect you are hoping for.

I understand that you are pissed, though. I am, too.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

205. ok, so, that reply was worth this whole encounter

And I get that you get it. And that you get me.

To be precise, I have never in any of my posts to date cast aspersions on the causes for which Edwards fought, and sometime won, for the Left. Others who have piled on to the threads have done so, and sometimes in over-harsh terms. Admittedly, I did nothing to tamp those responders down -- but this was while I was struggling to respond to the onslaught of attacks on me. It was never my intent to "to dismiss and invalidate Edwards' message and his supporters".

If anyone should be given space to talk about what happened here, it is Edwards' supporters - like myself, and perhaps you. We are in an inner circle of those most affected. We're not the closest circle, obviously, which is his family, but we are of a minority faction within the party, and a smaller fraction of the American public. And, just as is sometimes the case in a family, those with the most at stake in a conversation may be the ones for whom it is most taboo to discuss.

It appears you've read these threads carefully. Thank you.

[Two Americas]

206. Edwards supporters

I have a lot of loyalty to, and affection for hundreds of Edwards supporters - much more so than I would ever have for any politician. I think it is a big problem, and a symptom of what is wrong with the Left (I like it that you capitalize it; I think I will go back to doing that) - we are more loyal, much more loyal, to personalities and celebrities than we are to each other. We use loyalty to a candidate or politician to bash the crap out of each other. That is why I am not happy with the way that the Edwards supporters have, and are being burned.

What really fries my oysters about the whole thing is the New Age self-actualization philosophy of that alleged paramour of his. Come on, John - "we are better than that."

[DeadElephant_ORG]

208. burned indeed.

It's an out-an-out bonfire of hopes and aspirations all around. As to "that alleged paramour", a phrase that brought me a laugh, she's... well... she's

pretty embarrassing.

And yet his choice adds up for me, in an almost Romantic Comedy, "Harold and Maude", sort of way. The highly-ambitious, good-looking man, with a silk suit and a silver tung, who's exercised extraordinary discipline throughout his adulthood, meets ditsy, whimsical New Age yoga waif and suddenly finds he can no longer tolerate his imprisoning life. Hyjinks follow. Eventually disaster ensues. In the movies, they get back together just at the end, and nobody undeserving is any the worse for their follies.

As I say, that's in the movies...

[Swamp Rat]

136. David Vitter slept with prostitutes... he is still IN THE SENATE... What will you do about it?

[JVS]

140. he planned well, 2010 is his reelection campaign.

[Two Americas]

215. good question

How about we destroy Edwards? That will fix those Republicans.

[patrick t. cakes]

144. who didnt see this coming

edwards is greaser than my bike chain.

not a big deal. :hippie:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

145. well, I'm glad you saw, but I didn't. After I accepted that Gore wouldn't run, I supported Edwards.

[patrick t. cakes]

149. nice to hear. i supported kucinich

and would have voted edwards had he won the nomination.
just not suprised by this. at all.


hell, id still vote for him.

[Orsino]

194. There are a lot of crystal gazers/haters who say they saw this coming.

They may be very right about Edwards, though, even if they were a bit to eager to believe.

[dkf]

158. A guy who will hire his yoga instructor/lover as his videographer so she can be with him

would have hired his lover as his Presidential Travel Agent or his personal White House yoga instructor.

This goes to the integrity of the man we could just as easily have nominated as Barack Obama.

We had a close call yet no one cares.

We are just as bad as Republicans.

[cwydro]

179. I think this is still news.

Despite those who would like to sweep it under the rug.

The man held himself up as a moral example.

The man could not support gay marriage because of his moral beliefs.

The man trashed Bill Clinton after his affair.

The man wanted us to know him "as he is".

So now we do.

And I would really like to know if campaign contributions were used to support this horrid woman's lifestyle. That part is news, any way you look at it.

[tammywammy]

186. Yep

[JuniperLea]

195. Hiding thread #...

I've lost count.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

199. you can hide, but you can't run. Neither could John Edwards. n/t

[taterguy]

211. 378

[MonteLukast]

209. *puke*

:puke:

[Moochy]

213. Good riddance

to a worthless poster.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

223. I'm sorry, but, who's leaving? I'm not. Are you? n/t

[Moochy]

225. By putting you on ignore

Thats how I make you go away.. and to be clear I am putting you back on ignore. Problem sovled. bye bye!

[Miss Chybil]

226. Just a little nudge with a wink

and without regard to the content of your Ignoree's post... BUT, putting someone on Ignore and then taking them off Ignore to see what they have said so you can respond to the response and then putting the person back on Ignore kind of defeats the purpose. It's your Ignore button and you can play with it however you like. I'm just saying...

[Moochy]

227. mmm bright shiny red ignore button

When someone cares enough to reply to my obtuse "good riddance" message I feel obliged to clear up any confusion.

Besides, as Barabara Bush said..

"So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

[DeadElephant_ORG]

231. giggle

[DeadElephant_ORG]

228. ahh... so "good riddence" is what you say when YOU'RE leaving. OK But why bother informing me at all

I do appreciate your coming back in to clarify that for me.

If anyone doesn't like the content of a post, or of the thread that follows from it, they are always welcome - in fact encouraged - to leave. If you don't like a person, put them on ignore. But why do you ENTER a conversation that you don't like, with a person that you don't like, solely to sneer at everybody and then leave? It should not surprise you that your opinion of the conversation is unimportant to those who are participating in the conversation. Someone in these threads referred to those who try to shush topics that they don't want others to discuss as "the conversation police".

Anyway, next time why not take the drama out of it, and simply leave.

[Moochy]

229. For a Concern Douchebag, you sure are helpful!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

230. I'm sorry, but you completely lost me. I don't know what you just tried to say. n/t

[Moochy]

232. A douche bag

For easy reference consult your nearest mirror.

You are concerned about John Edwards, who is not running for president.

Put the two together Genius.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

233. Ah. You're simply pissed. Inarticulate........ but pissed. thanks. n/t