During a discussion about John Edwards' affair, which Hannity insists proves that he is a liar and therefore unfit for office, Colmes brings up the rather valid point of whether or not John McCain's affair renders him unfit for office.
Oh the hilarity which ensues as Hannity attempts to argue that being a prisoner of war excuses everything that you subsequently do! The double standards of these morons is breathtaking.
Can you imagine what a state we'd all be in this morning if Edwards was the Democratic nominee?
It sort of puts the worries that Obama isn't further ahead in the polls into some kind of perspective.Putting an end at last to months of rumour, John Edwards, the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Presidential contender, admitted yesterday he had had an affair with a campaign worker while he was running for the White House and while his wife was suffering from incurable cancer.
Mr Edwards however denied he was the father of her child, as alleged by The National Enquirer, the supermarket tabloid that first broke the story 10 months ago. But he admitted in an interview with ABC News that he had lied repeatedly about his relationship with Rielle Hunter, a 42-year-old filmmaker who was taken on in 2006 to produce documentaries about the campaign. The former candidate insisted he did not love Ms Hunter, and the affair had taken place while his wife Elizabeth's cancer was in remission.
If a Democrat has an affair then it speaks volumes about his character. If a Republican has an affair - and lies about in his own memoir - then it's really not that big a deal and not worth bothering about.Clearly, this is the kind of salacious story reporters just love. A presidential candidate, running on his personal background, is found to have a messy past. The story has sex, drama, and fairly obvious lies — everything a news outlet needs for wall-to-wall coverage. What does this tell us about McCain’s character? Will voters care about a conservative Republican’s adultery? What will the “family-values” crowd say? How do we reconcile McCain’s untruths with his alleged proclivity for “straight talk”? Will the revelations hurt McCain in the polls? It’s the kind of story the media can obsess over for months.
So, let’s take a moment to step back, and analyze the media frenzy we’ve seen over the last 24 hours, as the political world comes to grips with McCain’s controversial personal life and his willingness to be less than truthful about it:
Nada.(picture tumble weeds rolling by)
I don't know how many final nails have to be driven into Hillary's coffin for her finally to admit that the game is up, but the endorsement of Obama by John Edwards has surely got to make even Nosferatu Clinton pause for thought.
Barack Obama received a huge boost on his way to the Democratic nomination yesterday when he beat off Hillary Clinton to secure the endorsement of their former rival John Edwards. The announcement helped to offset Obama's defeat at the hands of Clinton in the West Virginia primary, one of his worst election results since the Democratic nomination contest began on January 3.
Edwards, who was the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2004, pulled out off the race in January and has been energetically courted by both Clinton and Obama since. His strength is his appeal to blue-collar, white voters, the demographic group that Obama has been struggling to win over. Edwards fought his campaign on an anti-poverty platform.
The timing of his endorsement is also very important, coming just after Obama's defeat in West Virginia. It is a deliberate attempt by Edwards to signal that the race is actually over and that Hillary should stand down.
Edwards potentially brings with him a further 12 delegates won in the early stages of the primary, who may now follow his lead by throwing their Democratic convention votes behind Obama.
There is every indication that Hillary will stand for the last three weeks of this contest, although I must be honest and say that I really don't understand what her game plan is anymore. If it's a plan to convince the super delegates that she is the candidate to beat McCain then it must surely be obvious, even to her, that this plan is never going to work.Obama announced support from another handful of superdelegates yesterday, who took him to within 133 delegates of the 2,026 target. He has 1,893 to Clinton's 1,718.
But Clinton insisted she would stay in the race until the final primaries - South Dakota and Montana - on June 3, bringing to an end an epic 56 contests that began in Iowa on January 3. But Obama may meet the magic number before then.
That is a very fair point, but it is as I say, incredibly telling that Edwards has chosen this moment to make his endorsement. This was a moment when Hillary would have wanted to play on the doubts of the super delegates and to emphasise what Hillary perceives to a fatal weakness in the Obama candidacy, that certain groups of whites will not vote for him. Edwards is making clear that he is not having any of that. He is stepping in and changing the storyline before Hillary goes down that road.David Saunders, a former Edwards campaign adviser, said the timing of the endorsement could not have been better, given Obama's loss in West Virginia.
"For Barack Obama, I think he ought to kiss Johnny Edwards on the lips to kill this 41-point loss," he added. "The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It's going to be Edwards's endorsement."
I thought the pastor asked an excellent question. Edwards' answer that he is on "a journey" is simply not sufficient. He says he won't stop gay marriage, but it's a very strange Democratic Presidential candidate who does not believe that all citizens are equal under the law. Obama gives a better answer I thought by moving the subject away from titles - "gay marriage" - and moving it towards entitlement.
It's stories like this that scare the shit out of me when it comes to possible attacks on Iran and what the Democrats would do to prevent Bush carrying out such a lunatic action.
In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.Now I know that all US politicians go slightly loopy when the subject of Israel comes up, and I am bearing in mind that Edwards made these remarks inside Israel itself. However, what's worrying is that he seems to be falling over himself to stress that war is still an option.
Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."
"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."
Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."
"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.
Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
"There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," Pelosi said as she rallied AIPAC loyalists. "This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."When it comes to the subject of Israel, the Democrats are every bit as deluded as the Republicans are, and they certainly - with the notable and much derided exception of Carter - insist on viewing this conflict through an Israeli prism.
New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."Click title for full article.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
