Obama Refused Deal with Edwards

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/01/obama_refused_deal_with_edwards.html

Obama Refused Deal with Edwards


George Stephanopoulos got an advance copy of David Plouffe's new book, The Audacity to Win, and learns that John Edwards "is as craven as you think."

"Sometime after the South Carolina debate Plouffe got a call from a senior Edwards advisor who said Edwards was willing to announce the end of his campaign and join forces with Obama to defeat Clinton. When Plouffe asked if he could raise this with Obama the Edwards advisor said, 'Yes... Just to be clear we're going to talk to the Clinton people too. That's not where John's heart is, but he is at the point of maximum leverage now.'

Writes Plouffe: "Obama's answer was quick and firm: he would cut no deals."

Wow!

I can only thank God that I didn't give Edwards any money, nor did I vote for him as he dropped out by the time my primary came up.

He's practically a TV movie political candidate. Pure ambition and opportunity.

But in these times when I'm wondering if Obama is on our side, if he's really behind the health care reform, etc., reading something like this makes me feel a LOT better.

Seeing Obama stick to his guns and show such character and judgment - has brightened my day.

after all.

That said, I am relieved that his campaign ended, in retrospect.

Everything that's come out since the election has shown me that his winning would have been the worse thing to happen for the party and the country (outside of McCain winning, of course).

*whew*


K&R

right thing, again.

Edwards' supporters weren't going to Clinton- and the Obama campaign had nothing to gain from any sort of deal with a faltering candidate.

thing to do.

carried little weight. Look at these three endorsements of Bill Clinton, who love, him hate him or anything in between, is one of the biggest "gets", yet in Democratic primaries his choices of Lieberman, Newsome, and McAuliffe did virtually nothing. (I don't include HRC here as the relationship was not a mere endorsement).

The fact is that even in Iowa, caucus voters really did not seem to follow the direction of people like Kucinich - at least in 2004, from the conversations captured on CSPAN. Only in the beginning of a decision process can an endorsement carry any weight - and then only if the endorser could vouch for the candidate in an area of weakness - as Kerry and Kennedy did arguing that in spite of his experience, he had the wisdom to be an excellent President.

What could Edwards bring him? Obama was already the overwhelming second choice of Edwards voters per polls in Iowa, where that was polled.

...what exactly was Edwards trying to leverage?

As I recall Edwards was somewhat open about endorsing the candidate who would most take up the cause of "the poor"--Edwards' big issue. He wanted publicly to extract promises from candidates before he endorsed.

I'm no Edwards fan and supported O from day one but I wonder if the idiotic tea baggers would be amassing in such numbers if the Democrats had been better at seizing a truly populist message.

You still have Joe. Better Joe than John, right?
==================================================
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

Who came to his rescue? Sen. Barak Obama, with a ringing endorsement.

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.
==================================================
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/top_lieberman_staffer_we_begge.php
Top Lieberman Campaign Official: We Begged Obama For Help In 2006 -- And He Came Through
By Greg Sargent - June 10, 2008, 4:23PM

Now that Joe Lieberman has emerged as John McCain's lead attack dog against Barack Obama -- even going so far as to suggest that Obama's judgment could pose a danger to our safety -- there's some very interesting behind-the-scenes back-story to the Lieberman-Obama relationship that you should know about.

Specifically, a top official on Joe Lieberman's 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman's staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment -- requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont's recent entry into the contest.
===================================================
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/joe-lieberman-hints-obama_b_96754.html
Joe Lieberman Hints Obama May Be a 'Marxist'--After Hailing His Support in 2006
===================================================

Yep, that was some bullet he dodged...

At one point it would have thrown control to the GOP - but who ever considers anything at a practical level. CT elected Joe - you will have to change the constitution to prevent people from electing their state representatives. I don't think we gained much by having Joe with the Dems but I don't think we lost much either as he would have been a solid GOPer.

Absolutely fascinating.

with John Edwards and all your.. "oh look at over here at the shiny object I have to distract everyone from the President saying "NO" to John Edwards" is not going to take away from it.

President Obama won..Hillary got over it.

And now you have Joe the Albatross hanging around your necks looking for any way he can to torpedo democratic initiatives. Obama was really thinking things through on that one.

..get over it.

And you have Joe hanging around doing fun things like accusing Obama of being a Marxist, supporting the GOP every chance he gets, and doing anything and everything he can to torpedo the democratic initiatives.

Everyone's happy, right?

doesn't matter if you are or not. Obama is our President and will be for 8 years of reality and your jumping on threads with some negative crap that has nothing to do with the OP says more about you than President Obama.

And the thread is yet another in a series of thinly veiled attacks on Edwards.

I thought he did well the previous election cycle and I was impressed by John and Elizabeth Edwards.

But He Dropped Out.

I thought Barack Obama was extremely interesting but that the American people were not quite ready yet for a black POTUS, and I thought that Obama still had a lot of time to build his senatorial career.

AND THEN JOHN EDWARDS DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE.

The rest is world history. Barack Obama is going to be one of the great presidents, and John Edwards is already a fading ex-politician who squandered his own reputation.

John Edwards has done this to himself.

Hekate

to his campaign. I had to admit on seeing the debates, Obama really impressed me. Edwards was a disappointment, then he dropped out...........then he showed his colors with that damn Mistress thing. I'm so damned annoyed with him, how could he? Was he that damned horny and STUPID? He had to know every move he did would be watched. Then there is that Home they bought....who in the world ..needs a home that big, unless they are going to provide shelter?

Yes, he did it to himself...and us too.

Actually I did, in the 2004 NY Primary, but after Clark dropped out of the race. I had a lot of passionate exchanges on DU with Edwards supporters, for almost 5 years between 2003 and 2008. I remember his supporters well, those still here at DU and those who have moved on also. They really believed in their guy, mostly because of the economic issues that he championed. Edwards took some important stands. I amd sorry that, when all was said and done, he was less than a stand up guy.

in the Primary because he always seemed too conciliatory to the GOP. I voted for Obama with reservations and I still have them. I am disappointed that we will not be getting real health care reform though I didn't expect he would get it anyway.
I hope Obama becomes one of the great presidents. Time will tell.

so many of us are extremely happy with him.

You've had nothing but vitriol for PO for a long time so your "disappointment" is nothing new. Something new from you would be if you stopped attacking him with everything you "choose".

HE IS SHIT FOR BRAINS.

I'M GLAD HE AND HIS HOMOPHOBIC FUCKING PHONEY RELIGIOUS FUNDY VIEWS WERE KICKED TO THE CURB AND EXPOSED FOR ALL TO SEE!!!

FUCK EDWARDS AND THE ASSHOLE HE IS!!!

Grain of salt, you are.

He's a liar. He might have blown the Dem chances in 2008. Fuck him. No veil required.

is there something wrong with attacking Edwards?

:shrug:

Repeating something a thousand times does not force reality to make it true.

of the moment. I'm Neither happy nor unhappy about it because this is politics, you win some and you lose some. After 8 years of Bush, Traitor Joe does not mean much to me, because this too will pass. Stroking yourself over this, I'm sure is what Joe is doing now :rofl: enjoy it while it last.

and your premise makes zero sense. Joe Lieberman got re-elected because Rethugs put him into office. It was 70% Rethugs and 30% Dems. These were not liberal Dems looking at an Obama endorsement, they were the conservative kind that liked Lieberman trying to save the submarines built at Groton. Please, you know nothing about what happened in CT. My parents are conservatives who voted for Bush...and for old Holy Joe. They hate Obama and were not fond of him in 2006 either.

you're obsession with JE and how fab he is, borders on the creepy.

and then both Clintons turned around and endorsed him for his re-election in 2004.
Have they no self-respect? Guess not.

impeaching Clinton. I know he highly criticized Clinton. So I don't know how big a diss that was - to criticize but not impeach. I think that's why Gore picked Lieberman, as a way to distance himself from Clinton and please us Dems against impeachment. Don't confuse public statements with voting record.

Why don't you start your own thread about what You want to talk about, instead of biting off of another?

is the class act he's always been.

lieberman is going down in infamy like John Edwards.

Edwards has to anything going on now. Edwards is out of politics in case you hadn't noticed? Perhaps you should pose your question to the OP?

At least I chose a topic (Lieberman) that is more current.

campaign.

he had such a good message.

... what does Joe Liebershitz have to do with Obama not making any deals with Edwards?

How did this discussion get sidetracked? Am I missing something?

Obama's support of him made no difference whatsoever because Joe Lieberman had already been elected to a six year term in 2006. We're stuck with him until 2012 and he despite his little fits there's no way in the world he would switch parties because he would lose his precious chairmanship. We can't take it away from him without 60 votes either.

Your argument is pointless.

attempt a smear on President Obama is what these people are all about.

Joe is an asshole, and we have about 90 threads discussing it. The plouffe stuff is just interesting campaign-y stuff, people shouldn't get so worked up about it.

have an intense dislike for him now and the way he is obsessed with the power he now wields because of the position he's in but I try not to dwell on that. I'm trying to look at the good things that President Obama is attempting to accomplish.

As far as Edwards goes, I am furious with him regarding the fact that he put all of us in harm's way had he been the nominee. As far as I'm concerned, it's unforgivable.

Got to love CT.
Anyway, he ran against Phil Giordano, the mayor of Waterbury. He went to jail in 2003 for sexually abusing two girls. I guess Loserman was better than a child molester. I voted against him by 2006.

I cannot stand Edward's slimy dealings either.

INFORMED ones.

He has always been a DLC shitheel.

But just like that other weasel Richardson and a few others, fate had a way of biting them in the ass.

What goes around, comes around.

:7

He had the right to endorse whoever he thought would be the better choice. As to the others, who exactly do you blame? The fact is that there were likely only 3 endorsements that really made a difference - all before Super Tuesday - Kerry and Caroline and Ted Kennedy. You might note that I don't blame Jon Corzine and nearly every Democrat in NJ, other than Codey and Cory Booker, who endorsed Clinton.

Just because the Clintons had a sense of entitlement that anyone who benefited in the 1990s owed them, that doesn't make it true. The fact is all Democrats gave the Clintons the support they needed.

A person doesn't look at a friend in the face and lie to him. Richardson is a far worse weasel in my book than Edwards because Edwards was never a friend of the Clintons. It delights me no end that the self serving jerk did not get a cabinet position. I had no problem with Kerry endorsing Obama. I think that his endorsement was sincere, not Richardson's. He was just bucking for a job.

x(

I wondered why Obama offered him nothing after the nomination.
KnR Thanks for posting.

cut any deals with anyone else!:sarcasm:

:eyes:

Good for Obama staying away from it. Jesus! We wanna be with you, don'tcha know, but we're talking to the other side, 'cause in the end we gotta do what's right for us, know what I mean? You can't get much sleazier than that.

I'm just surprised a decent guy, a man of substance like John Kerry wanted him on the ticket in 2004.

He was presented with analyses that Edwards would help the ticket more than anyone else. From Shrum's book, Kerry's gut reaction was to reject Edwards. (That he rejected his gut opinion has to be considered against the fact that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, most of the media, in love with Edwards.) I would guess he accepted Edwards because Kerry's most important concern was to replace Bush. His reported advice to Obama was to pick someone he would want to govern with.

The fact is that the Edwards of the primary might have added the needed push. Edwards was nowhere near as enthusiastic in the general election as he was in the primary election. In addition, given his experience as a trial lawyer, with good practice, he should have been much better at the debate than he was. It would have been impossible to guess that Edwards would refuse to be a team player - especially as he asked the part in their last debate. (Kerry has always said he made mistakes - and that they weren't the ones mentioned and he would not speak of them. I long ago suspected that picking Edwards was one.

The fact though is that there was far less reason to think Edwards was a sleaze in 2004.

The party establishment and its infrastructure sat on their hands in 2002 and 2004, planning for Hillary2008. Terry McAuliffe didn't lift a finger to build infrastructure in states he knew had been in collapse since before 2000.

And, Axelrod was Edwards' top guy then. Axelrod was selling the rightness of IWR and support for Bush's war decisions during the 2002 election. Axelrod was also selling Edwards as the 'sincere nice guy who didn't want to fight like Dean and Kerry during the primary' schtick.

Guess he got sick of trying to sell war and bullshit and figured he'd switch to someone he could sell easier as antiwar.

he could go he stoops even lower. :argh:

Is this any different than the "alleged " team of rivals? Gimme a break. the hypocrisy of the reaction of some is just amazing!

you win.

edit: added one word that got left out.

but I knew from the beginning edwards was a slick one. We would have been screwed had he won the nomination.

I personally am very happy we have Biden.

You and Clio, that is.

:7




:hi:

Though I would have been fine with Hillary too.

:evilgrin:

So....I think Biden was the right choice substantively.

But it would change things a bit if Bayh had been the VP choice, insofar as the healthcare vote in the Senate goes.

Do you think Obama didn't make 'deals"? Do you know how anything works? That is politics. Edwards is no more horrible than any of the rest of them.

And it is just facinating the broad brush statements scandal mongers love to make. There are many things about other candidates that aren't public knowledge. Some of them aren't pretty and would have caused just as much a ruckus if known. I couldn't even answer the hypothetical you pose because , unlike you, I do not pretend to know the answer.There aspects to most politicians, some of which I have witnessed ,that would make it difficult for an honest person to answer your query about any of them. And as for JRE, what he did was despicable ,but unless you are in possession of other information other than supposition, I don't think anyone knows the answer to his situation either.

And none of this has anything to do with the OP. Political horsetrading is part of the game and all the candidates did it. It isn't "sleazy". It is just politics.

And I for one will NEVER let us forget that FACT!!!

FUCK the phoney moralizing hypocritical homphobic ASSHOLE!!!

Don't forget that fact when you are ranting. Tha is why issues are more important than the hypocritical politicians who often pretend to support them. We have to hold their feet to the fire regarding issues, and not be obsessed with their personal lives.

As to Richardson, what was the deal? I haven't seen him get anything.

The question here, in rereading things, is it is unclear when Obama did this. This was at the point where realistically Edwards had NO CHANCE. His entire strategy needed a huge Iowa win, followed by everything else falling into place. Even this was not that likely, as, with an Edwards' win in Iowa, HRC would have been a big winner in NH, where Edwards had littel support. This call was after SC, the only primary Edwards won in 2004. It was also when he was making BIG fundraising requests that were seen here.

It looks like he was "selling" his support for a place on the team - either team. The fact though is that he had little to sell as his base had shrunk and it was not clear they would follow his lead.

What this really represents is that Edwards knew:

- he wasn't going to win
- he had no real alternative path back into government. He could not win a statewide NC election after moving so far to the left
- Edwards was for Edwards

The fact is Obama was smart enough to reject Edwards' deal. (Maybe there were enough 2004 general election people on Obama's team, that they were aware that he was not a team player once on the team.)

the investigation against him. Behind the scenes,, they all made or attempted to make deals.That is how Biden became VP. I like Biden, but this is simply the art of politics. It isn't called the art of the deal for nothing. Obama eventually promised Edwards that he would make poverty a pivitol issue and has done nothing.Obama also made "deals" with Janet Napolitano and Rahm Emmanuel. Obama chased Emmanuel, who didn't want to be COS by promising they could get a "placeholder"for his congressional seat so Rahm could only serve one term and then go back and become Speaker of the House, which is the job he really wants aftwer Nancy steps down. My understanding is that they didn't get the placeholder so things will be more difficult.

As for Edwards being for Edwards, they are ALL for themselves. Obama is for Obama.They are politicians.

The CW was that the hispanic part of the Democratic party lobbied for an important role for him.

As to Biden, what did he give Obama? He did NOT endorse him until HRC was out. He sat with HRC during the 2008 inaugural address. You say "it" is why he became VP - define what "it" was. The CW is that foreign policy credentials and a middle class background where people would see him as a "regular Joe" were two things that were desirable in a VP with Obama.

What did Ted Kennedy or John Kerry ask for their endorsements? Those were the pivotal endorsements. With Emmanuel, that was after he had won the Presidency and as you said Obama could not and did not guarantee that.

The fact is that on poverty, the difference with Edwards was mostly words. Give me one example of anything Edwards even tried to pass while in the Senate that addresses poverty. (I know he was a freshman - but Kerry became the Senate sponsor for Youthbuild in his freshman term. ) As to nothing, many things in the stimulus bill are designed to fight poverty - not to mention, healthcare is on the agenda. (The fact is you are comparing Edwards' words with Obama's accomplishments. Remember words are cheap - especially with someone like Edwards.)

you do not "know" that any of these folks weren't offered anything. None of these people have squeaky clean intentions. I can admire some of them without expecting them to always be idealists. Richardson was offered a cabinet position before the nomination. That is the way things are done.How do you know Ted and Kerry didn't ask for anything? Were you there? Or is that just your assumption? Ted worked a lot of angles and usually he did it well. Kerry had several irons in the fire as well. These weren't stupid pols, and they never give away influence for nothing.Nor did Biden for that matter.As for Emmanuel, do you really believe the deal making took place after the election? LOL! It is very well known when that deal took place and it was before the nomination. As for your last statement,I am not going to bother qualifying it except to agree that "words are cheap" but not for the reasons you offer.

I don't hold it against any of them for making a deal. It is what they are and how they survive. Folks run into real problems when they start actually beleiving the real modus operendi of politicians is representing the people. it is not. Only when the interests of the people collide with that of the political quest for power do we sometimes get considered.

I do not make the assertion that I "know" anything, I am countering you saying things wheer in many cases there is nothing at all to back your up. I do not have to prove you wrong - you have to prove you are right.

The fact is that there was nothing Obama could promise Ted Kennedy, other than that he would work on healthcare - which ANY Democrat would do. I don't think Kerry asked for, or for that matter, got anything other than the President he wanted. Of course I am not saying they are stupid, and I assume that one thing they got was that Obama is likely to return their calls.

As to Biden, he did not endorse Obama - so precisely what did he give Obama. I also think that most politicians go into politics to change the world, to at least some degree. It is clearly what motivated Kennedy and Kerry - now, both wanted to be President, but that was to some degree for what they could do. The fact that both continued and worked hard kind of challenges your ideas.

The fact is that it was Edwards, who is most guilty of what you are speaking of - it is startling finding 2004 primary video cuts and seeing the same wide eyed "sincerity" arguing for very conservative Democratic positions that he used for left wing ones in 2008.

by what I said. To believe that "most politicians go into politics to change the world" is a bit naive.Kerry and Kennedy certainly did have things to gain and did so. Kennedy unfortunately passed away before seeing some of his favors returned.Politics is the art of quid pro quo. and nothing is for nothing.

Following the same argument you use I could point out that Edwards has been continuing his work on poverty overseas to very little fanfare and with little publicity and nothing to gain. But it doesn't really matter.He is no longer a politician.

Our major difference here is I don't care whether they make deals or not and I do not particularly have to cloak any of the politicians with an idealism that they don't possess. I can admire them for skill or accomplishments while recognizing that they are doing it for their own power.

As I said, we are lucky when their interests and our intersect because it doesn't happen often.. You surely don't think Ambassador Kennedy was interested in politics, or his son being president because he cared about the people do you?

he needed. As to Kerry, his position in the Senate is due to having 24 years seniority and the work he has done. That position was given to him by the people of MA, not Obama. The fact is that John and Teresa Kerry have both done FAR more in public life (Kerry) and through her foundation (Teresa) than Edwards even thought of doing.

It is not naive to thing people go into politics hoping to change the world, it is naive to thing they don't.

The power is the reason what appears to be work or benevolence associated with politics is done .Think as you wish. I have no reason to view any of these folks through rose colored glasses. The only world figure in my time, or maybe in any other as well, that didn't do anything for self gain was Mother Theresa.

You don't have to defnd John and Teresa to me.I don't have to make folks better than they are in order to admire them. I particularly admire Teresa, and have always done so.

because everyone is racist at some level. Not that I think you are a hypocrite, I'm just surprised at your comment.

of them, make similar deals like this every campaign season. Some insist that isn't so and want to single Edwards out for something that is accepted behavior from all politicians.Some folks even run for office knowing they won't win but to deal themselves a cabinet position. This is American politics .

Edwards is really the worst. Craven and unbelievably narcisstic. No sense of class or diplomacy. How he behaved in his personal life was not that far apart on how he conducted politics.

Turning on his running mate (who CHOSE him to be VP for god's sake) within seconds of the concession was how a lot us got to understand what his character was about.

Although cheating on his ailing wife did shock me.

And P.S.: don't throw this on Richardson. This thread is not about him.

Fuck him. probably has sociopathic tendencies.

But it is all the perception. Obama wheeled and dealed with the best of them. So what?

Family Values HYPOCRITE!!!

other pols? Ya seem to be having trouble separating the message from the messenger, and obsessing over a person you likely don't know who has nothing to do with you. That is a little odd, don't think? :eyes:

Smarter than I am. Back at that time, I liked Edwards and was supporting him, but I didn't know quite how much of a narcissistic asshole that he was. Glad that Obama kept him at arm's reach. If he ended up being Obama's running mate, it would have been a complete disaster.

...but it's nothing any other pol wouldn't do. If Edwards hadn't fucked up with his wife no one would really care much about this, but as he's already proven to be sleazy some people think this is just more evidence of it. But it's what politicians do. There should be more than enough people here who have worked on campaigns large and small to know this. :shrug:

But I think many folks lately don't know anything about politics. I get they don't like Edwards but this is just old fashioned horsetrading.
Where the heck to people think the cabinet comes from? And some of Obama's "deals" didn't make it through because their reps woudn't stand close inspection. And some of these were people I liked. Others were just not caught. It is just the way the cookie crumbles.

ASSHOLE!!!

He was criticizing OTHERS while HE was DOING WORSE!!!

I recognized Edwards as a particularly slimy pol. His record in the Senate, his slimy work for Fortress, etc. were of far greater import to me than his cheating on his wife.

Just another chance for people to get their hate on about Edwards, only this time for doing what every politician does in a race.

BIG difference!!!

Edwards did have leverage that might have tipped such a close primary.

No help needed from the craven.

She is SOS today for a reason.

Clinton won a couple of states by over 70% and she had the momentum (although she was behind)

Then Edwards endorsed Obama because she said a racially insensitive remark. Then Obama won out. It may not have had an effect on the votes, but it certainly had an effect on how the party treated Clinton after that. She might have been able to argue for FL and Michigan a little more with an Edwards endorsement. His endorsement completely took the wind out of her sails.

Hillary won most primaries from March through June, and won them all by 10% or more (except IN). Furthermore, more registered Democrats voted for her than for Obama. Unfortunately, she couldn't surpass by that point his pledged delegate advantage, mainly gained through the caucasus.

As for Edwards, once a weasel always a weasel.

x(

So there's no need to be so smug. Besides, many people helped Obama win the nomination and the GE.

:eyes:

There's plenty of reason to be smug: the Obama campaign and their supporters pulled off the biggest upset in modern political history against the biggest insider machine in the Democratic Party and then went on to win by the biggest margin of victory in decades in the general election.

I know some folks will be forever heartbroken over the primaries, but that sure doesn't make them entitled to make up their own "facts".

what drugs are you on?

Rielle Hunter long before Elizabeth did. I only wish Obama was as tough with the Republicans.

I think people are assuming that "joining forces" means he was demanding the VP slot or some other powerful post. The article doesn't specifically state what Edwards' demands were. As one of our top-rated posts states, don't be so quick to throw Edwards under the bus.

reports at the time said he and Elizabeth were impressed enough by Clinton to withhold an endorsement for Obama

that is until Clinton said some racially insensitive remarks, then Edwards endorsed Obama


and you are right about the quote, people are reading into it what they want to read into it

no where do they say they wanted to make a deal, although there is a suggestion when they mention that they will meet with Clinton too that they were using the endorsement for political gain, but what politician wouldn't even if they were all about their cause?

it is Obama that said "no deal"

I have always thought Edwards was fake..

about timing. Edwards was no more "craven" than any other politico.

would come out, I'd say he had a very craven view of his own importance..

It isn't possible to have a "craven view of your own importance."
And many, many pols have exactly the same bigol secret lives that they are hiding. no one is exempt. Big whup. Edwards was caught.That is the difference.And he was likely "caught" because it suited some interest that he be caught.

# noun: an abject coward
# adjective: lacking even the rudiments of courage; abjectly fearful

Lying to himself as he tried to parlay his "worth" into something for himself, while knowing (and if we are to believe reports, his family knew then too)

and yes cowardly, because he had not courage enough to just withdraw and try to mend fences with his family.

fake, phony, lying cheater..that's what he was.. but he sure "looked the part"..

you are using it as an adjective to describe the verb "view"

:rofl:

Fucking Edwards was PUBLICLY rebuking OTHERS for what he was doing WORSE!!!

He is hardly "like the others"...!!!

hypocrisy. They are ALL hypocrites about something and it is usually money or sex. Big Whup.

he's a hypocrite about BOTH money and sex.

Maybe someday someone will get elected with that message and actually mean it. But it won't be in my lifetime ,I think. And maybe it will be never.

interesting that it takes so little to reignite old primary arguments. Gotta love DU.

:hi:

of politicians making deals with one another.

Such melodrama! Such outrage!

Kids, every candidate who drops out tries to make a deal. It's how the game is played. And all the pearl-clutchers here know it.

And I'd bet "some" are being made between Dems & Repukes in little corners!! Given the caliber of our current BUNCH, finger pointing is pretty laughable!!

To be a fly on the wall of any Senator or Representative, AND THE WH, might have some here run away in SHOCK!!

Seems I recall a long time ago, and I was pretty young, BUT the story has held true from all those years... LBJ & KENNEDY couldn't STAND each other!

My, does anything ever change??

the reminder of what John Edwards was really about.

So he wanted to make a deal but when you add his knowledge that he had cheated on Elizabeth and it could come out at any time then it's whole different ball game.

what they are feeling.

elections that some of this board refer to as "meaningless".:hi: