TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | John Edwards

BARNES & NOBLE Chooses THE HILLARY EFFECT in ‘NOOK First’ Featured Authors Campaign

It’s incredibly exciting to announce that The Hillary Effect has been selected as one of two non-fiction e-books in the Barnes and Noble “NOOK First” featured authors campaign, just launched.

Being selected as part of this “NOOK First” Barnes and Noble project was an incredible honor and opportunity. Now you know why we waited until this week to publish.

This is a tremendously exciting moment for the entire team that made this happen, beginning with Thomas Ellison and Hutch Morton of Premier Digital Publishing.

What a stunning send off they’ve given my e-book.

So, Barnes and Noble is the only place you can buy The Hillary Effect until December 15th.

Pop the champagne! …just don’t spill it on your NOOK.

NOTE: Aps for your pc, MAC and iPad are available for free at Barnes and Noble.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Update on the The Hillary Effect

Today’s not going to be the day we publish, but I promise we’ll have a big send off for the publication next week! It will be worth the wait.

Some book PR to give you a little more on what it’s all about.


Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.

The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.


Read full story · Comments are closed

About the Book Cover

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Taylor Marsh Authors The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

Due out in November. Available on Amazon.com, on your Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook, and iPad.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.
The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

‘In the News’ Diary Spotlight

The feature today comes from “Cujo359,” with his entire “In the News” diary posted below.

 

Occupy Wall Street sign about student loans and medical bills of a 22 year old protester, Sept., 2011Image credit: Matt Stoller

We tried to speak between lines of oration
You could only repeat what we told you.
Your axe belongs to a dying nation,
They don’t know that we own you.
You’re watching movies trying to find the feelers,
You only see what we show you.
We’re the slaves of the phony leaders
Breathe the air we have blown you.

Lyrics to “The Punk Meets The Godfather (NOTE 1)

Back when I worked for a relatively large defense firm, I had a boss who when we were making up slides for a presentation, would insist that we only have three “bullet points”, meaning three thoughts or concepts to discuss, per slide. “What happens if there are four things to talk about?”, I’d ask. “Remove one of them”, was the response. Needless to say, most of those slides had either two or three bullet points, since almost never made sense to make a slide with only one. I suspect this sameness didn’t help hold peoples’ interest very much.

Why did my boss insist on this rule? It turns out that someone did some research into how best to hold an audience’s attention in these sorts of presentations, and that was a rule they came up with. Too many thoughts at once, or too few slides, and people lose focus. All of which, I can tell you as a member of those audiences, is largely true. The problem wasn’t the rule itself. The problem was in the application.

Rules like this are guidelines. Follow them most of the time, and you’re going to find whatever you’re doing works better. Unfortunately, there are times when the rules don’t fit very well. For instance, there’s a rule in english grammar that I try to follow, which is to not begin a sentence with a conjunction. It’s a good rule, most of the time.

But every once in a while, I feel the need to break it. Because sometimes, that’s what works.

Image credit: Rayna Daine/Occupy Together

Which brings us to the “problem” so many on the Left seem to think the Occupy Wall Street movement has. A great many pundits, that largely useless group of chowder heads whose sole purpose in life seems to be to repeat what passes for conventional wisdom among our rulers back to us, think that things are just all wrong with this movement. Where’s the platform? Where are your fancy clothes? Where’s the list of demands? Where are your objectives? Where’s the media outreach? Where are the grievances? Where are the riot police?

What got me thinking about that story about the bullet points was an article Dusty wrote a couple of days ago at Leftwing Nutjob:

As someone that spent my last employed years working in marketing, I clench my teeth when I read blogs or Corporate Media articles tearing into the occupiers about the lack of ‘a message’. I know they need one[.]

NYCLU at OccupyWallStreet, cops intimidating journalists and photographers

She wrote that on the way to pointing out that it didn’t matter here, but this encapsulates the sort of thinking a lot of folks apply to this situation.

The problem is, it’s perfectly obvious what the message is. The message is the place.

If you asked those protesters what their own particular demands were, you’d no doubt get dozens of different responses. There are so many things that are going wrong right now, from crumbling infrastructure to lawless government, that making any short list of demands, the only thing that seems to hold the attention of the chowder heads, is going to leave out so many important points as to make the list almost worthless.

Besides, take a look at these protesters. They’re kids. They have acne. They’re falling in love. They have huge appetites. What they don’t have, generally speaking, is a perspective of how their society and its financial system work based on their own experiences. Heck, I’m in my fifties, and I can handle just about any math you can throw at me, and I can’t figure some of it out.

What they certainly do know is that the future looks worse every day, and it’s their future. As Kevin Gosztola put it recently:

No person participating in Occupy Wall Street will talk about some mythical American Dream that has been held over Americans to pacify them. They understand this country has owners and like comedian George Carlin said there is a club and they “ain’t in it.” They are out planting the seeds of rebellion and for many it is either annoying because they think it will divert and suck off too much energy and fail or, worse, lead to a confrontation that sparks riots.

Why Establishment Media & the Power Elite Loathe Occupy Wall Street

[I added that link to the George Carlin video and my own commentary]

Yes, for the record, some of the protesters are older, but mostly this is the young fighting for their future.

Why should we expect them to come up with a list of demands? Do you think it would make much difference, assuming they could even agree on all these points, if they had pamphlets to hand out with the official Occupy Wall Street logo that said something like this?

I could probably easily add lots of other items to that list, all of which would have a positive effect on the economy, and all of which are things we already know would do exactly that. So could lots of people, the problem is that our rulers don’t want to implement them. (see NOTE 2)

We know what needs to be done. We’ve been saying so for a long time. Click on the economy keyword at my blog. Go to the Economics Policy Institute and start reading. Read Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, or Dean Baker for crying out loud.

You don’t arrange a protest to deliver a doctoral thesis. You arrange a protest to deliver one simple demand to your rulers: Get it done.

Besides, there is a more specific message, and to anyone who is willing to listen for a moment, it’s loud and clear. It’s our first “bullet point”:

  • Stop letting this place suck the life from our country

Phrase that any way you want. Stop the greed. Stop the “I’ve got mine, the hell with you” attitude. Stop obsessing about taxes when we already pay lessthan just about any advanced country. Stop the ruthless pursuit of profit, no matter what the cost to the society you live within. Stop the endless control fraud with no one being punished except people who had a friend willing to tip them off.

Image credit: Matt Stoller, clipped by Cujo359

They’re protesting at the black heart of our nation’s financial sector – the place where people did their level best to ruin our economy, were bailed out by the government to the tune of trillions of dollars, and gave themselves bonuses while exclaiming about how it’s “class warfare” to make them pay more to clean up the mess they made.

That brings us to our second bullet point:

  • Make the people who profited from our decline pay to reverse it

Caption: Where did all the economic growth end up? Into the hands of the richest people in the country, mostly.

Image credit: Economic Policy Institute

Yes, that’s my summation of lots of signs we see in all those pictures, but how much of an idiot do you have to be not to notice this theme? All those references to “the other 99%”, “the banksters”, and “bailouts” are about the fact that a scant few percent of Americans are the only ones who have seen their standard of living increase in the last three decades. As they’ve profited, we’ve declined, in our educational systems, our health care, our industry, and our science. These things all made us stronger as a people and as a country when we were willing to support them. Now, we’re told, somehow this was all wrong. To use President Fierce Advocate’s formulation, we’ve all “gone soft”, thanks to being coddled so much by our marvelous health care system, I suppose.

Caption: A chart of who has benefited from the expanded economy from 1950 to the present. As you can see, folks in the upper one percent or so of the population have reaped most of the benefits since President Reagan changed the tax burden in America. See this article for an explanation of that chart, and some others. [Click on the chart to enlarge.]

Image credit: Critter’s Crap

I have news for him. We’re dying at a rate of 45,000 a year thanks to not having access to health care, something his piece of crap insurance industry-subsidizing health care “reform” bill has done nothing to address. Every day, we’re trying to figure out how to do with less, thanks to the government’s policy of propping up the financial sector, rather than simply letting it go bankrupt and taking it over. We die at a horrific rate relative to other advanced countries through murder and other criminal activity, yet there are far more of us in jail than in any other country we’d want to call a peer.

It’s pretty tough down here in the lower 99 percent, Mr. President, and maybe if you think otherwise you can spend a year or two being us.

Why is this so hard to understand? To avoid understanding these points, at least if you’ve been paying attention to what’s been going on in America for the last couple of decades, you have to want to not understand.

But there’s one final bullet point we need to cover. It’s a message that’s probably hidden from the view of anyone who is under 30. Still, they’re making this point, whether they know it or not. To understand what that is, those of us who were around during the 1960s need to think back for a minute.

Remember when we were their age? Remember wondering if you were going to be sent by our parents’ generation to go fight in a useless war? Remember how we weren’t supposed to trust anyone over 30, because anyone who would send their kids to some place they hadn’t heard of to kill other kids they had no beef with didn’t deserve to be trusted? Remember that?

No, I was never silly enough to believe that. I knew there were plenty of my parents’ generation who opposed that war – not only because their kids were involved, but just because it was plain wrong. They’d fought their own war to make sure things like this didn’t happen, where powerful countries would use their strength to subjugate the little ones. They loved the idea of a United Nations, where disputes could be resolved peacefully. Nor did I think that we were any smarter than they were, generally speaking. I was pretty sure we’d commit our own follies, whatever they might be. The best I could hope for was that we wouldn’t repeat theirs.

When I was the age of most of those protesters, I was able to attend college at a fairly inexpensive state school and receive a good education there, thanks to the college grants my parents’ and grandparents’ generation set up. The public schools I attended as a boy trained me adequately to attend there, thanks to generations of Americans who knew that an educated public was the basis of a strong industrial society. Those who couldn’t go to college could still hope for a high-paying job in a manufacturing company or a construction trade. Unions still had enough power to negotiate living wages, because our grandparents and their parents had fought for, and passed, a legal and economic environment where that was possible.

Image credit: Cropped from this U.K. Guardian photo by Cujo359

And what did we do when it was our turn to run the country? We didn’t bat an eye when we shipped high-paying jobs overseas, assuming that the free market fairy would bring us new ones. We dismantled the regulatory systems that our grandparents had put in place to prevent the next depression, once again calling on the free market fairy to save us from ourselves.

At the same time, we gradually closed off any opportunity for our kids to get a higher education, saddling those who still could with massive debts. We sent our kids off to fight useless wars.

It’s as though we said to our parents and grandparents “Thanks for holding the gate open for us. Now close it and don’t let anyone else in.”

When Senator “How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” voted for the Iraq War, I knew that even my own modest hopes for us were not going to be realized. We were more feckless than our parents.

So here’s a bonus bullet point, for those over 45:

  • Try to be the people you know you should be

Whatever John Edwards’ personal faults, and the man has a few (see NOTE 3), I’ll always respect him for being the first presidential candidate to dare to state the obvious, which is that we are the first generation who won’t leave our kids a better world than the one we inherited. Like Pete Townsend’s Godfather, we just tell them we used to be just like them, when it’s perfectly clear that, in many ways, we had it far better. We should be ashamed, and no doubt some of us are.

It would be a lot more useful, though, instead of feeling guilty, to actually be those people some of us thought we’d be three decades ago. Be the people who want everyone to get a fair shake in life. Be the ones who remember the pain and suffering that useless war can wreak on a society that wages it. Be the people who at least try to make things better, by opposing the people who are trying to ruin this country for their own profit, and the politicians, all of them, who allow that to happen.

There you have it, something for every chowder head – a message, three bullet points, and a list of demands. What are you pundits and other so-called progressives going to do about it, other than natter about how this demand or that one is just not “serious”?

My bet is that you’re not going to do a damn thing worth talking about. Which, quite frankly, makes those kids in their mohawks and funny clothes a hell of a lot more serious than you are.

NOTES

NOTE 1: “The Punk Meets The Godfather” is a copyrighted work of Pete Townsend and The Who, none of whom approved of or are even aware of this article.

The song is from the rock opera Quadrophenia. It’s about a young fan who is living on the streets who meets up with The Who.

NOTE 2: Actually, some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters have come up with lists of demands, as David Swanson notes.

NOTE 3: I wouldn’t even mention Edwards’ faults, but for the near certainty that some mouth-breather will feel obliged to explain how he’s under indictment and cheated on his dying wife. I know that, and it’s magnificently irrelevant. It’s possible, and in fact it seems to be normal, to have a good understanding of things and yet still screw up. He’s the first major presidential candidate to voice that uncomfortable truth, and he deserves credit for that.

Cross posted from Slobber And Spittle

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Media Incompetence, Starring Chris Matthews & Company

Rep. Weiner has failed the Jack Ryan politics 101 survival test: “Give them no place to go, nothing to report, no story.” It’s the art of political war.

“Will you help to support Arnold’s love child?”, someone yelled from the crowd of press.

“Were you fully erect…?” came next.

A fitting finale for Rep. Weiner’s confessional press conference.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi is asking for an ethics investigation amidst Rep. Weiner saying he won’t resign.

Quite a few people in media have also gotten caught up in this one too. Partisanship isn’t helpful when sex is involved. Getting too far out in front of anyone involved in a possible sex scandal is always a bad way to go, especially when you start blaming people unequivocally for pushing it without proof.

Andrew Breitbart is now the most powerful man in new media, with progressives aiding his rise.

It used to be that reporting on something meant you had to have a basic knowledge of the subject, in this case sex and political scandal. But when the subject also includes new media platforms, the old timers simply think Twitter and Facebook are passing fancies and they don’t need to understand them; captive traditional journalist types believing old rules still apply.

On Twitter, someone young enough to know better, Jay Newton-Small tweeted this:

But there r 3 reasons why this won’t go away: 1) I hate 2 say it as I think it’s great she wasn’t there but we have 2 hear from his wife

I asked her via a tweet why Weiner’s wife had to say a word, but unsurprisingly she didn’t reply.

The days of a political wife having to offer cover for her louse of a spouse are over, especially when he didn’t physically cheat, though there is a case to be made for emotional infidelity on this one.

Chris Matthews had yet another embarrassing hour of over the hill TV, though anyone who has watched him over the years won’t be surprised. Matthews started by talking about Hollywood and “70 year-old people dressed like.. 8 year olds,” then segued into people talking in “idiot Twitter language.” Later he said this:

“What is [sexting] about? Why don’t people call each other and have a nice romantic conversation if they like each other? I’m sorry, is it complicated? You used to call up and ask for dates, is it weird now?” – Mediate

Weiner didn’t want a date, in fact, he wanted the exact opposite.

Matthews, Jay Newton-Small and many others reporting on this story are clueless, but that doesn’t stop them from rambling on and on.

As I wrote when Weinergate broke, this is about voyeurism, joined with the opportunity to reach out and not directly touch someone while getting your kicks flirting in a way that keeps the act of adultery at arm’s length, but still allows the obsessed to indulge his or her fantasies.

At this point, an important distinction even after Rep. Weiner’s televised confessional today, his compulsion to indulge himself has absolutely nothing to do with his wife or having a physical affair outside of his marriage, both of which he’s denied. In situations like Mr. Weiner’s there is more often than not absolutely no correlation to how he feels about his wife and marriage and the voyeurism he’s acting out. He can be madly in love with his wife, be technically faithful, though, again, some spouses would disagree with this definition, while enjoying himself in what he considered harmless fantasy, that is until he got caught.

What can begin as harmless voyeuristic adventurism can have at its root sexual compulsion, which can be dangerous in your life if not admitted, investigated and resolved.

The mistake people make when venturing into risky private interaction with people unknown to them on a public social platform is that, like with most technology, being unmasked is one click away. But then again, without that thrill the rush wouldn’t be enough to satisfy the voyeur.

Weiner’s behavior isn’t new, but the media platforms that make the world able to uncover your secret fantasies is.

Politicians still think they can hide private things behind closed doors. Arnold Schwarzenegger did a good job of it for a long time, but he never engaged online in the antics Weiner did. Sometimes it’s better to do it the old fashioned way, though John Edwards found out when you’re stupid that doesn’t work either.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Edwards Indictment

“There’s no question that I’ve done wrong. I take full responsibility for having done wrong….But I did not break the law.” – John Edwards

It’s not about the PACs, it simply all revolves around the money Mrs. Mellon gave to Mr. Edwards to hide the Reille Hunter affair and whether because it aided Edwards’ hopes to become president the “gift” should have been considered a campaign donation, which was well above federal limits. From McClatchy, with the Indictment here:

The Edwards legal team released a statement from former FEC chairman Scott E. Thomas, questioning the prosecution.

“A criminal prosecution of a candidate on these facts would be outside anything I would expect after decades of experience with the campaign finance laws,” Thomas said. “The Federal Election Commission would not support a finding that the conduct at issue constituted a civil violation much less warranted a criminal prosecution.”

The key questions of law in the case are whether payments to Hunter and Young were intended to keep Edwards’ 2008 presidential campaign alive, and whether Edwards knew about those payments.

The payments for Hunter never touched campaign accounts and weren’t reported on campaign disclosure forms.

Prosecutors are alleging that the money qualified as campaign donations — intended to save the campaign by keeping Edwards’ affair with Hunter secret — and thus illegal because it exceeded limits and went unreported on required disclosure forms. (emphasis added)

Edwards’ lawyers, on the other hand, say that the money was intended merely to conceal the affair from Edwards’ late wife, Elizabeth, and was not connected to the campaign. As such, they argue, the payments were not illegal.

In his statement today, Thomas, who served as an FEC commissioner for 20 years, said he based his opinion on facts as presented most favorably to the government, including “that the payments were motivated in part by a desire to elect Senator Edwards to (the presidency).”

Thomas said he met with prosecutors in late April.

“These payments would not be considered to be either campaign contributions or campaign expenditures within the meaning of the campaign finance laws,” he said.

Edwards has also been indicted on false statements which have to do with FEC statements surrounding John Edwards for President Committee.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Talk of Edwards Indictment Continues to Swirl

BREAKING… JOHN EDWARDS INDICTED

Facing a six-count indictment that includes the charge of making false statements.

___________original post below____________

Unless a last-minute deal comes through, John Edwards will be indicted today on criminal charges after a two-year investigation seeking to connect the former senator to an allegedly illegal scheme to cover-up his extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned. – John Edwards to Face Indictment Today

It’s always the cover-up that gets you. From the Washington Post:

“Any kind of a plea is based on how much you can accept and how far you can go,’’ said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plea talks — and the likelihood of criminal charges — are not public. “Clearly, what was on the table was not something that both sides could agree on.’’

Lawyers for Edwards have indicated that they will vigorously fight any charges. Craig, a former White House counsel for President Obama, issued a statement last week strongly denying any illegal activity by Edwards and accusing prosecutors of exaggerating the strength of the allegations.

“John Edwards has done wrong in his life — and he knows it better than anyone — but he did not break the law,” Craig wrote. “The Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court.”

The notion that John Edwards is going to be indicted because of what Andrew Young has said seems absolutely preposterous to me.

Jeralyn, a lawyer, over at TalkLeft has done some interesting unwinding of what’s likely at the bottom:

I think the Government is intending to go after Edwards for the PACs. Particularly, Alliance for a New America (check out the contributions and disbursements here — Oak Farms, aka Bunny Mellon, gave $3.4 million in 2008.) It’s been reported that Edwards also set up an entity called Alliance for a New America, LLC (AFNA, LLC) (not a PAC) and the funds went from the PAC to the LLC. The LLC is not under reporting requirements. What’s up in the air is whether this is allowable through a legal loophole, or illegal.

The machinations and manipulations of the the funds inside these PACs and the lengths to which John Edwards worked to keep his double love life from his supporters and the public are a more serious a vein to mine. An indictment would be unlikely to come down based on the flimsy story that’s been circulating in the news, which sounds a lot more like another episode of the Edwards saga instead of nefarious cash handling.

There’s a lot still in the wind on this one from all reports, none of it good, though quite a few people are stunned Justice is going for an indictment.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Calling Hugh Hefner

“There are photographs of me in the world. Yes,” he said. “We dont know where the photograph came from. We don’t know for sure what’s on it, we don’t know for sure if its been manipulated, if it was taken out of one place and dropped in something else. And I’m going to let this firm try to get to the bottom of all that.” He said he for sure did not SEND the photo. – Weiner ‘can’t say with certitude’ that lewd photo isn’t of him

This is not a Brett Favre situation or a John Ensign, David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Edwards, William Jefferson Clinton moment.

Rep. Anthony Weiner has retained a private security firm to investigate what he’s calling a “prank.” Weiner gets points for originality when he points to not wanting to use taxpayer dollars it would cost to involve the Capitol Police.

So, we have a “lewd” picture passed over technology that is allegedly Anthony Weiner rising, pun intended, which he adamantly says he did not send.

We know the college student who received the lewd shot, Gennette Cordova, says she is not having an affair with Rep. Weiner. We also know there are other female Twitter followers of Weiner who raised people’s curiosity, including “Miss Ginger Lee,” an adult actress. Pictures of these women are now plastered across the world.

In the background is Huma Abedin, who is married to Weiner and also happens to be an aide for Hillary Clinton.

The Right wants to humiliate Anthony Weiner any way they can, but there was no affair that we know of and no woman is claiming so. The questions remaining start with whether these Twitter associations and flirtations are cheating, then who passed the “lewd” photo to Miss Cordova and how it was obtained in the first place.

Weiner’s credibility hangs in that balance, as does his reputation, but neither means he can’t do his job, which is what the amateur blog sleuths are working to prove, while destroying his career.

Voyeurism and non-physical connection is powerful. It goes back a long way, but technology blasted it wide in the ’90s with personal ads. That’s when I was at the LA Weekly as “relationship consultant,” my whole job in the classified ad department revolving around teaching women and men how to connect through words and voicemail messages to attract the right person for what they desired, which was usually marriage; there were those times when arrangements were sought, which I also helped people navigate. It’s where I learned about the politics of sex through talking to many people over several years, including in the adult industry. If I had a dime for the number of men wanting to be a pen pal with a famous stripper I’d have retired in ’98.

Now Rep. Anthony Weiner’s dating past is also being chummed. There’s nothing wrong with being a “playboy” when you’re single, though the definition in this MSNBC article is laugh out loud hilarious. He’s also being called a “womanizer,” but enjoying the ladies doesn’t make that label stick. Why wouldn’t a man enjoy us? We’re fabulous. Weiner’s married not dead.

Right now Anthony Weiner is alleging he’s the “victim” of a “prank.” Perhaps it’s even a malicious political dirty trick akin to ratf–cking made famous by Republicans back in the days of Richard Nixon. But if Mr. Weiner is a “victim” of anything it’s his own ego.

That’s certainly not a crime. It’s not even political malpractice, but it’s proving very embarrassing.

Ask anyone who’s been caught reaching out over technology to flirt with someone. The thrill is the secret and the distance, not consummation. Your worst nightmare is someone finding out, let alone having it blasted across the new media world we live in and being asked if that engorged package in the picture is you.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

My $0.02 — This Saturday in Sisterhood: Elizabeth Edwards and TEDWomen

Wonk the Vote here. Hello everyone. Today is the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, and I wanted to share a youtube I made in her memory (expand to full screen if you can):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axEqjgaF51s]

The youtube above appears to work in firefox and internet explorer but not in chrome, so here is the original slideshow I put up earlier this week, just in case.

Elizabeth is a personal shero of mine. A smart, populist, liberal woman and tireless advocate for the least of these, with kind eyes and a warm smile that would light up the entire room wherever she went.

Connie Schultz, via slate’s Double X blog, on Wednesday wrote a moving piece paying homage to Elizabeth:

After Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth did the most to champion a new role for political wives. The year John Edwards ran for president in 2004, I was a 46-year-old newspaper columnist who had just married a congressman. I was stunned to find that some expected a political union to suck the brain out of a woman and render her incapable of independent thought.

When I took a leave of absence in 2006, during Sherrod’s successful race for the U.S. Senate, I used the templates set by Hillary and Elizabeth to figure out how I would campaign for him. They were their husbands’ partners, and they didn’t hide it. I’d been writing about policy throughout my career, and I had no interest in going suddenly blank during Q&A’s and saying, “Geez, I dunno, you’ll have to ask my husband about that.” Thanks to Hillary and Elizabeth, I had a road to follow. It wasn’t well-traveled, but it ran much closer to home than any other possible route.

I, like many, knew Elizabeth as: a fighter for human rights and for economic justice… a political wife who would not be relegated to second fiddle status or have her voice or the causes she believed in subsumed… and as a strong, resilient woman who weathered the loss of her firstborn, a terminal illness, and public betrayal. Others have had harsher words and judgments than I have had for the choices Elizabeth made during the course of John’s 2008 campaign. I have only ever had compassion for her. She faced the consequences of her choices, and she carried herself forward with far more dignity, grace, and candidness than I could imagine being capable of in her shoes.

Elizabeth was always too strong, too smart, and too substantive to let anyone or anything write her off and have the last word.

Even in death, she had the final say:

You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces – my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.

With love,
Elizabeth ‬

Elizabeth will continue to be a role model for millions of women like myself. My heart goes out to all who loved and knew her personally and to all she loved, especially her children.

When Elizabeth released her goodbye message on facebook this past Monday, I noticed that under her “Likes” toward the top was a link to the following page: Can this poodle wearing a tinfoil hat get more fans than Glenn Beck?

Seeing that link made me smile as I wiped away the tears. Even until the end, she was fighting the good fight.

Knowing Elizabeth, she would wear the whacko-boro protests of her funeral as a badge of honor.

I am so sorry when anyone’s loved ones have to go through that nightmare in their time of mourning, though. I am reminded of a quote from Hillary:

“When people attack you, you always have to remember that a lot of what others say about you has a lot more to do about them than you.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton

Elizabeth Edwards was a woman who fought for the welfare and humanity of others. That her life’s dedication to doing so is cause for any group to spew their hate really speaks volumes about the absence of any humanity on their parts.

It also underscores the very quality that drew so many of us to her: Elizabeth was so much about the issues and what really mattered.

I will remember this April 2008 op-ed from her most of all, because her sheer brilliance was on display in it and when I read it at the time, I remember thinking to myself, as I often did when thinking of Elizabeth… “Damn, I wish she were president.”

From Elizabeth’s op-ed, lines which I thought were pure genius the very first time I read them:

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Elizabeth Edwards’ Life Battle Ends

There is nothing harder than watching someone you love die at Christmastime.

When the news came Elizabeth Edwards was “gravely ill” yesterday, it threw me back in time to when I lost my mother who lived heroically with cancer for fifteen years so I could thrive, learn and live with her by my side. She made it through Christmas, but it was a morbidly wrenching time.

Knowing a little bit about people who survive cancer even for a while, Elizabeth Edwards would have hated this headline: “Cancer Claims Elizabeth Edwards.” Cancer didn’t “claim” my mother either. You never give a disease the last word.

Elizabeth Edwards lived a heroic, complicated and deeply troubled life. She was beloved by her husband John Edward’s supporters, but the truth is she should have been the candidate. As a fierce advocate for her husband, Elizabeth Edwards was part of a serious fraud perpetrated against people who trusted them both deeply. That John Edwards dealt her a horrific hand at the end of her fiery life is undeniable. No one will ever forget the story from “Game Change” that changed their storybook image forever.

As for John Edwards, their partnership is one of the monstrous betrayals in political history, which he will pay for the rest of his life and so will his children emotionally.

Prayers go out to the Edwards family.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Your Sunday News Round-Up

Good morning, I hope everyone is having a good weekend.

On this day in history, October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty, prohibiting the placing of weapons of mass destruction on the moon or elsewhere in space, went into effect.

Some links to go with your morning coffee:

~Iran admits espionage
at its nuclear facilities which probably means it’s much worse than they are letting on. And I guess that Stuxnet computer virus/worm did some real damage to their infrastructure including possibly their nuclear sites.

~Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife started a new right wing organization that keeps the source of its donations secret and some have said this could create the perception of impropriety with respect to Justice Thomas, as he likely knows who the large contributors are. The concern is more about businesses and organization contributions than individual ones with respect to conflicts of interest that might arise if one of the companies had a case before the Court. Given how Thomas has made his political views very apparent in various speeches, I am going to go out on a limb and assume he could care less about any perception of impropriety. Kind of like Scalia duck hunting with Cheney.

~Violent homophobia on the rise? This story of the torture of two gay gang members is horrific.

~~ China is very, very angry. The best part is China’s massive censorship crack-down immediately following the announcement that Liu Xiaobo deservedly won the Nobel Prize, simply proves the point the Nobel committee was trying to make- China is an oppressive, freedom-hating, rights-violating communist regime. I understand that China is our banker, but if we don’t speak out against human rights abuses with more consistency, then we will lose all credibility- we can’t just speak out against countries like Iran, Cuba and Venezuela because it’s politically expedient, and popular, to do so. A better test of our commitment to human rights is our willingness (or not) to speak out when countries with whom have strong diplomatic ties, violate international norms.

~ Could somebody please explain to me why top Obama officials, including Cabinet members, were so willing to talk crap about each other to Bob Woodward, knowing that he was going to write a controversial tell-all book, like he always does? For the life of me, I can’t understand it. Did they think he was their therapist? Or their confessor? What did they think would happen when the book was published and all the embarrassing stories come out. Not to mention the fact that many of them come across as a ship of fools with all the infighting and backstabbing. I just started reading the book, but I am pretty amazed at the information I am seeing, assuming it’s true. Over at Salon, they have an idea how Woodward does it.

~Remember John Edwards? The Feds do.

~Tea Party favorite in Ohio, Rich Iott, has a thing for dressing up in Nazi SS uniforms and taking part in reenactments. Color me shocked.

~The Arab League agreed to essentially give the US one more month to make the Israeli settlement problem disappear. A cynical observer might see this as a victory for Israel, as it can continue to build settlements all the while Dennis Ross works on new rewards for Israel in exchange for a 60 day extension on settlements. You can read about some of the alleged rewards here. You know it’s bad when even former US ambassadors to Israel can’t believe what Ross and Obama have offered in exchange for almost nothing.

~Linda Norgrove, a British aid worker in Afghanistan, was killed during a botched rescue attempt by NATO and Afghan forces.

~Pakistan is going to reopen a key border crossing into Afghanistan after a 10-day blockade which saw the targeted destruction of upwards of 150 fuel supply trucks by insurgent groups including the Pakistani Taliban.

~ Have you seen this viral video? It’s really cool.

~The Center for Constitutional Rights is demanding to know what the U.S. is planning to do about the killing [at point-blank range] of American citizen Furkhan Dogan at the hands of Israeli commandos aboard the Mavi Marmara, now that autopsy results have been made public via the recently released, and subsequently ignored, UN report. So far, the State Dept. has nothing to say about Dogan’s death and the U.S. media have helped ensure, through their silence, that the U.S. government can continue to remain silent.

~Ann Coulter is trying to become relevant now that the Tea Party Crazies have stolen her racist, homophobic, mean-spirited, thunder. Have you ever noticed that all these right wingers who make a career of claiming there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy, get endless promotion and attention from said media?

~In a galling display of corporate cronyism, the Washington Post and NY Times have casually swept aside claims that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is subverting our democracy by using foreign donations to channel money to the GOP. Lets not forget one important factor- the NYT and the Washington Post are corporate entities. ‘Nuff said.

~It’s a sad day for the Washington Post when they have Dinesh D’Souza spewing his misinformed, paranoid, racist nonsense on their opinion pages. Yeah, I get that it’s an “opinon” but at this point, do they have any standards at all when it comes to filling up editorial space? Oh, that’s right, Fred Hiatt is in charge of dumpster diving filling that space. Never mind.

~Now that the economy has been in the tanker for a while and midterms are coming up, both democrats and republicans are pointing fingers at each other in campaign ads, alleging that their opponents have supported the outsourcing of jobs to China. Nice try. Both parties have helped ensure our economic loss is China’s gain.

~ The NYT has an interesting editorial about the legality/potential for abuse of Obama’s targeted assassination program. They are a little late to the game, don’t you think? Also, am I really supposed to believe, as the NYT claims (based on government assurances) that only 10 civilians have been killed as “collateral damage” in drone attacks this year? I have a feeling both Afghanistan and Pakistan would beg to differ. One of the problems with top secret programs which vest expansive power to the Executive, is that, well, they are top secret. We are left to simply take the government’s word for it when it comes to potential abuses. Speaking of which, the editorial also casually claims that it doesn’t seem like Obama has abused his authority under this program as of yet. How exactly do they know that? Once again, the NYT is trying to play both sides- tough on terrorism while pretending to care about civil liberties.

~The Senate puts Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on notice that if Mideast peace negotiations fall apart, it’s all the Palestinians’ fault. It’s going to be hard for the administration to be a legitimate mediator when the U.S. Congress is carrying Bibi Netanyahu’s water. But of course, there is no excuse for Barack Obama not realizing this prior to initiating these negotiations.

~The government was repeatedly warned about the foreclosure crisis, but did little to avert or even curb it.

~Apparently if you are an Arab-American college student, that alone warrants the FBI putting a GPS tracking device on your car, then showing up at your home after you find it and post the photos on the internet. Then, it’s apparently ok for the FBI to act like a bunch of goons as though ordinary laws don’t apply to them. Because apparently after the PATRIOT Act, they don’t.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Plouffe, Wright, Clinton, and Edwards

updated

George Stephanopoulos has a “read it here first” post up on David Plouffe’s new book before David Gregory has him first on “Meet the Press.” Plouffe is still the most popular guy at the political party.

But get this, I called it right about Wright, according to Plouffe:

2) The campaign was in denial about Rev. Wright:

By March 12, 2008, when ABC News began to air explosive excerpts from Rev. Wrights sermons, the campaign was in denial about the significance of the Rev. Wright problem. Plouffe writes:

“We had…failed to discuss the various options we might explore vis-à-vis Wright. We never raised with Obama the idea of leaving the church, or discussed with him any detail of how we would respond if inflammatory statements were to emerge. We were in denial. In any competitive enterprise, you need to know everything your opponent knows about you and limit the number of surprises by getting out damaging information about yourself before it can be used to sucker punch you.”

Denial. It’s just stunning, because it was so predictable what would happen. I laid that one out early. To add, all they had to do was listen to Sean Hannity, who had the Wright stuff from the start. Stephanopoulos also reports on Obama’s reaction in the heat of the scandal. Interesting stuff.

Next up, John Edwards…

John-Edwards_Schmuck

Remembering back during the primaries and how visceral it got between Edwards and Clinton, I also remember how down and dirty Edwards got using Mudcat Saunders’ strategy coupled with invoking Jesse Helms. Right then and there I knew what Edwards was willing to do to win or keep himself inside the presidential ring.

5) 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.”

“Obama’s answer,” Plouffe writes, “was quick and firm: he would cut no deals.”

Considering what we learned later about John Edwards, about what he did, lying to his staff and everyone else about his affair, with Elizabeth helping, his despicable lack of character has now long been established. But the hits keep on coming.

Oh, and about Clinton and the veep job? That comes from an interview with Sect. Clinton by ABC’s Jim Sciutto:

Meanwhile, in the United States, talk about the other administration job she might have had is making waves. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe writes in a new book that the president seriously considered Clinton as his running mate but said Bill Clinton would mean that there were “more than two of us in the relationship.”

Asked whether her husband had cost her an opportunity to be vice president, Clinton said, laughing, “I’m happy with the job I have. … I’m not the kind of person who looks backward, I look forward.”

David Plouffe is hitting the circuit, including Costco. He’s likely to sell a boatload of books. After the presidential campaign he helped run he earned it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Never Ending Flame Out of John Edwards

Political star. Sexy political videographer. Heroic wife. Tawdry tell all. …and now add a legendary rock band, if reports are to be believed. Only Mark Sanford gives you an (arguably) bigger bang for your “politics of sex” bucks than the tragic tabloid tale of John Edwards and his recklessly rapacious ego.

So, upon getting my Sunday New York Times, my jaw dropped seeing the John Edwards – Reille Hunter – Elizabeth Edwards triangle tragedy take a shared, front page, center and above the fold presence in the paper.

That what has been owned by the tabloid National Enquirer is just now making the traditional marquee news source illustrates how tremendously difficult this story has been to report and analyze for everyone, new and old media, involved. Particularly true for Democrats and many progressives, who just want this to go away, also finding fault in the Times for running it at all. Which brings up the question of why this isn’t considered news given the wide lens this sordid soap opera has taken on as the weeks have ticked by, which included wholesale political betrayal of millions of people who thought John Edwards was fit to be president, even as he and his wife orchestrated a campaign predicated on an image of family that was the most outlandish of lies.

The New York Times running this piece today revealing more about where news coverage is today than ever before.

Having spent time as a “relationship consultant” back in the mid-1990s, I heard it all back when I used to interview men and women, married, unmarried and well beyond, trying to understand what makes people do such stupidly destructive things when it comes to sex, love and their lives. Sometimes it’s just ego run amok. Others it’s about the emptiness of love that no longer fulfills. It can even be the thrill of the chase and not getting caught. Then there is the May – December convenience connection. But it’s always hard to understand when people who seem to have it all risk it for… nothing.. Or maybe that should read everything.

Has any politician so sordidly flamed out after a meteoric rise? After all, Sarah Palin, for all her dust, never did anything like this.

As betrayals go, it makes Bill Clinton look like a choir boy; his Baptist guilt holding him back, if only for the disappearance of one little blue dress. After all, condoms with canoodling aren’t exactly common place.

Most of the details of the Edwards tale are well known by now, with the addition today coming in a sort of “Brace Yourself!” warning, with the words Drama Builds Toward a Denouement in the headline foreshadowing that the end is near.

… At the same time, Mr. Edwards is moving toward an abrupt reversal in his public posture; associates said in interviews that he is considering declaring that he is the father of Ms. Hunter’s 19-month-old daughter, something that he once flatly asserted in a television interview was not possible.

Friends and other associates of Mr. Edwards and his wife of 32 years, Elizabeth, say she has resisted the idea of her husband’s claiming paternity. Mrs. Edwards, who is battling cancer, “has yet to be brought around,” said one family friend, who like others spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity…

The stickiness of this story weaves through the tabloid aspects that are new in the Times today, revealing the most heinous ego hijacking of lives we’ve seen in political times, making John Edwards worse than Mark Sanford, as Edwards, if he knows the truth now, still doesn’t have the moral judgment and clarity to come clean after all he’s been through; Elizabeth Edwards obviously one of the stopping points, though how it could get worse for this woman I have no idea. Ego versus self preservation never an easy battle.

If the Times report is correct, now, not only is Ms. Hunter about to move closer to the Edwardses, but she evidently is also determined to legitimize her child and take her own place, thinking she is someone who deserves more respect than she is currently receiving. Though I’d have to ask how a grown woman could get herself pregnant like this without some complicity or wanting, which is even worse.

Ms. Hunter gave her daughter the middle name Quinn, and people who have spoken with her said its resemblance to the Latin prefix for five was to proclaim that the baby was Mr. Edwards’s fifth child. (He had four with Mrs. Edwards, the oldest of whom was killed in a car accident).

The other figure in this story, the former aide to Edwards and the guy who took the first bullet for the baby, Andrew Young, has some incredible tales to tell via his book proposal, one of which adds a Jackie Collins chapter to the already stunningly stupid tales of a cheating cad.

In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.

I can’t imagine the calls Dave Matthews’ publicist is getting.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Outrage and Political Betrayal

There is an article on the new film “Outrage” tucked in the Style section of the Washington Post today with a final line that is fitting today: If our leaders aren’t true to themselves, how can they possibly be true to us. The answer is easy, they cannot.

The film “Outrage” arrives on a week that stirs up so much political baggage, helped along by willing political participants, that it’s hard to imagine a more timely opening. Sure “Outrage” talks about “allegedly gay politicians who actively campaign and vote against gay rights,” but it washes over events of this week that had Elizabeth Edwards dredging up her husband’s infidelity and her reaction, all of which reaches back into the past plucking uncomfortable past personal disasters of leaders who have let us down.

Sometimes it’s not just about infidelity or voting against your own civil rights while being gay yourself. It’s about betrayal of political trust. Lying to people who have sometimes given up their lives, worked untold hours and put everything in your hands. We can have a conversation about the lunacy of any person doing that with a politician, when people put more trust in the person than the policies they represent, but that’s another discussion.

Getting a comments from die hard Edwards supporters, I now understand how ridiculous WJC supporters sound when they excuse the Lewinsky affair. The loyalty built from politician to advocate, especially on such a high level, unfounded when the person you’re advocating cannot be true to himself, making a mockery of all the long hours, cajoling and banner waving you’ve done.

Going back, Robert Reich wasn’t half as mad about the stupid infidelity of William Jefferson Clinton as he was about the lies told blatantly, the half truths and “word games,” as Reich judged it, from a man that many who served him felt had betrayed them all, but also the charge they were trusted to keep.

Re-enter John and Elizabeth Edwards and the Oprah interview. Like Clinton, but also the subject of “Outrage,” the whole thing may have started with an indiscretion, but once it was decided that the Edwardses would join together in a lie to the public, their supporters, and the nation, on the wings of what amounted to award winning political performances, it became about something else.

The Elizabeth Edwards and Oprah full hour on the affair John Edwards, minus any mention of Reille Hunter’s name, was a horrendously painful thing to watch, an event that remains remarkably wrenching for Mrs. Edwards, that much was clear. She’s certainly earned the right to have her side heard. What was revealed in the hour, however, one expects was not what she intended. Oprah didn’t even seem to understand what had been said at one point early in her interview. It hit me immediately.

So, as Mrs. Edwards set the scene with Oprah, two days after John Edwards announced his presidential campaign he tells his wife about his cheating, which supposedly happened once. Her response was that he needed “to get out of the campaign… for her family, for my children, for John and for me it would be best if he got out of the campaign..” Good advice, right instinct. But John Edwards thought differently. She continues:

Photobucket

“He said, and, truthfully, he was right. It was hard to argue with this. That if you want to raise a lot of questions what you do is get out of a campaign you got into two days before. We just set up offices and got people on board. It would have been a very… would have raised a lot of questions in people’s minds. …” – Elizabeth Edwards (Oprah interview)

Trying to keep people from raising questions was what was important? At that moment it’s all so clear, as everything the Edwardses stood for falls in on itself.

They aren’t the first.

No matter what’s in the book, what Mrs. Edwards revealed in the Oprah interview, is that keeping the affair hidden was her husband’s primary concern. Was it also to protect his wife and his family? One would hope, but that’s not what Mrs. Edwards said to Oprah.

That Mrs. Edwards says her husband was “right” and that it “was hard to argue with this” is stunning. As whip smart as she is she had to know this would eventually unravel in the glare of a hot presidential campaign. What was Mrs. Edwards thinking?

Then there is the bigger problem for them both: Presenting yourselves on the campaign trail as one thing, when behind the scenes a completely unimaginable scenario has played out that you’ve chosen to lie about by hiding so you can benefit.

The worst of it is that Mr. Edwards had a completely organic rationale he could have used to keep going. It’s so obvious it screams, but it never occurs to either of them, not even in preparation for the Oprah interview. Mr. Edwards could have simply said to his wife that the mission they started so long ago, the fight they were waging for America was too important to be hijacked by one stupid mistake he’d made. That’s something that would have been, to use Mrs. Edwards’ words, “hard to to argue with.”

But that’s not what John Edwards said to his wife. By her own admission, that’s not why Mrs. Edwards agreed to be complicit in the charade, and it’s not what she said on Oprah, regardless of what’s said in her book.

It’s the cowardice to face up to what’s happened, instead choosing to betray supporters by producing political theater that at its heart was about hiding the truth that, whether it’s Gary Hart, Jim McGreevy, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or the complicity of Mrs. Edwards, opens out on a political charade that goes on for months and months and includes further denials all for the purpose of saving yourself. That Edwards dragged his vulnerable, terminally ill wife along is unforgivable. That she willingly went along is yet a new chapter in the stand by your man book of political embarrassments.

I’m not sure how all this opens out on our politics. The honesty of our politicians and their lack of courage to make hard choices once they are handed power from the voters, but something tells me it’s related. Many say that our politics suffers because there’s too much scrutiny on candidates, and maybe that’s the case. But there’s also the possibility that we’ve come to expect less from them because we’re too fragile to look at them unmasked, preferring to make excuses where none suffice, keeping them on pedestals they haven’t earned and cannot live up to.

Supporters have to expect more, excuse less and be willing to be brutally honest when their politician fails the ultimate test of leadership, being true to himself at all costs. But especially when that politician is a fraud. Being blinded by misplaced faith doesn’t mean you haven’t been made a fool.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Elizabeth Edwards Opens It Up Again

read the follow up

“I’ve seen a picture of the baby. I have no idea. It doesn’t look like my children but I don’t have any idea,” Edwards told Winfrey. – New York Daily News

Photobucket

The federal probe of John Edwards campaign funds all leads back to the affair. It’s the latest chapter in the politician’s clumsy fall from grace, which has dragged his wife through a heart wrenching ordeal at a moment in her life where this kind of stress could be her undoing. In an interview with Oprah airing Thursday, one of the conditions was that the name of “the other woman” (known in the real world as Rielle Hunter), with whom Mr. Edwards became involved, would never be mentioned. That gives you an idea of how far away Mrs. Edwards has to keep the details.

Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, reprising the heroine in her life’s journey, has a book coming out. There is an adapted excerpt in Time magazine that gives everyone a look through the barely cracked door of her experience, at least that’s the obscured view you get from this article. I hope Mrs. Edwards’ book is a bit more honest, candid, real, understanding it’s a broader book that just this tragedy. After all, Mrs. Edwards is more than her husband, even as she’s weighed down by him.

It didn’t occur to me that at a fancy hotel in New York, where he sat with a potential donor to his antipoverty work, he would be targeted by a woman who would confirm that the man at the table was John Edwards and then would wait for him outside the hotel hours later when he returned from a dinner, wait with the come-on line “You are so hot” and an idea that she should travel with him and make videos.

[...] There were other opportunities, he admitted, but on only one night had he violated his vows to me. So much has happened that it is sometimes hard for me to gather my feelings from that moment. I felt that the ground underneath me had been pulled away. I wanted him to drop out of the race, protect our family from this woman, from his act. It would only raise questions, he said, he had just gotten in the race; the most pointed questions would come if he dropped out days after he had gotten in the race. And I knew that was right, but I was afraid of her.

Over fifteen years ago I was immersed in the world of relationships, dating and marriage, but also the seedier side of sexuality and its traps. I’ve written about it many times, including in a book, having interviewed hundreds and hundreds of people on every aspect of the mating and marriage game, including infidelity, cheating and sexual seduction, listening to people, including several thousand men. Having stopped this investigative romp through the human side of life almost 10 years ago, I still believe I am an expert on these matters, because matters of the heart, mind and flesh just don’t change that much. The Edwardses prove that, as did the Clintons before them, and the Harts before them, though there are many more in this club, including J.F.K., F.D.R. and even George H.W. Bush. The list is no doubt endless, famous or not.

“Targeted by a woman,” writes Mrs. Edwards. This is the saddest statement of all in this Time piece. There is nothing left to cover the embarrassment of what John Edwards brought into their world. But women always seem to choose the target of the woman who made the advances instead of the man who could have simply said no and walked away.

As for the fear Mrs. Edwards felt, there hasn’t been any reporting or charges from the Edwardses about his paramour being dangerous. So the fear Mrs. Edwards feels comes from a different quadrant. A place where you fear your entire world could come crashing down at a time when, because of her terminal illness, that’s already manifested in part. So the fear Mrs. Edwards has of the other woman not only seems misplaced, but a tragic attempt to plead for protection from a man who has already illustrated he’s not up to the job.

Is there anything worse than abandoning your spouse during her fight for life so that you can get your ego off?

Marriage is meant to be forever. In Mrs. Edwards you see what this means and how desperately dependent couples get on one another so that admitting truth is very often couched in what can be salvaged, then gained by the man’s (or woman’s) shame. Something that makes him want to do anything to erase his weak, ego driven behavior that really has nothing to do with the person with whom he risked everything, but is more about his own insecurity, vanity and appalling weakness.

Of course, on these issues Bill Clinton comes to mind, as well as Hillary Clinton, who dared to face it all to hold her husband’s presidency together, while pleading with Democrats in Congress to help her do it. What’s at stake in a presidency, however, is a bit more consequential than keeping a man’s presidential campaign hopes alive at a time when his much admired wife is dying. Though the words as I write them make me want to gag on any comparisons at all.

The most revealing section in this short Time’s piece is also the most incredibly insulting to the people who put their trust in this fraud of a man:

I wanted him to drop out of the race, protect our family from this woman, from his act. It would only raise questions, he said, he had just gotten in the race; the most pointed questions would come if he dropped out days after he had gotten in the race.

It’s stunning when you analyze these sentences, especially given the fact that the John Edwards presidential campaign couldn’t have happened without Elizabeth, because they ran together in a “shared mission.” All I see is the John Edwards brushing his hair to that YouTube clip for all those minutes trying to get every hair on his head exactly perfect. A video which is now deemed “private.” Interesting after all those years of public exposure.

Narcissistic villain and two bit charlatan are the words that come to mind.

Winfrey asked Edwards directly whether she’s still in love with her husband.

“You know, that’s a complicated question,” she said.

Reading between those lines is not.

I’ve interviewed guys like Edwards before. He’s no different, except he was put on a pedestal by some people. Mrs. Edwards deserved better. As she fights for her life she still does. But that’s her choice. Opening all this up for people to see and review again is as well. It looks even worse in redux.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Residual Forces in Iraq

An announcement about withdrawal from Iraq is coming, according to Vice President Biden as early as Friday. Predictably, some are already finding fault between a 16 and 19 month withdrawal, which I find silly, frankly. A serious withdrawal is planned that fully measures up to candidate Obama’s promise.

Then there is the issue of residual forces, which could total around 50,000. Again, people are already talking about this reality, with Rachel Maddow exhibiting an eye popping disapproving moment just last night when talking about it. No doubt she and others have problems with the general notion of residual forces. That’s part of what gave rise to Bill Richardson’s candidacy or at least the floated promise he hoped would make the difference, as did Chris Dodd. As an aside, Joe Biden was the one who went after Richardson’s military strategy on Iraq, part of what got him invited on this blog to post items when no one was giving him the time of day. Of course, no one can fault someone for not wanting residual forces but it is not based on the realities of the Iraq war.

However, Obama never promised he’d remove all troops in Iraq before 2013, though the SOFA does demand a 2011 deadline. Flashback to the Dartmouth debate when neither Obama, Clinton or Edwards would make the “out by 2013″ commitment, which took everyone by surprise:

Russert: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

Obama: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office — which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable — if there’s no timetable — then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.

Being against the Iraq war from the start, once we got in I just didn’t see any way we wouldn’t have residual forces after the major part of the draw down was done. Bush-Cheney screwed up too many facets of the war effort in Iraq to make anything other possible.

As far as I’m concerned, President Obama isn’t doing anything different from what he said he’d do, three month quibbling aside. Bottom line is that Obama asked his military advisors to come up with a plan and they did. Even as the generals pushed Obama to stand down from his withdrawal commitment, he did not. Since Obama never promised otherwise on residual forces, having them amounts to caution during a massive withdrawal, a moment that is always the most dangerous.

The issue that took Obama from obscurity to the presidency is Iraq. We’ll have to see the details after it’s announced, but at this point he’s simply delivering what he said he would to the people who brought him to the show.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Edwards Blogger Resigns

–UPDATED BELOW: Second Blogger Also Resigns–

Okay, so how do you cover this story, be honest and not hurt the brand or the
big guy behind it? You can\’t. Period.

After last week\’s attack by Mr. Donahue of the Catholic League, Amanda Marcotte
got into it again yesterday and in the end she stood up and did the right thing.
Resigned. One of
the reasons was the complete remaking people have to undergo to work for a high
profile campaign. Therein lies the rub. People are who they are, just read his/her
blog for the clues. I respect Ms. Marcotte\’s decision, because it was the right
one given that she\’d become the story and Edwards was basically in bunker mode
because of it.

However, this one hurts Edwards. He screwed up and so did whoever is in charge
of managing his online campaign. I know everyone has a tendency to huddle together
and hope this all goes away or spin the reality, but I just can\’t see this any
other way.

I am also religious or maybe I should say spiritual, which ticks some people
off regularly out here in the blogosphere. Not to worry, because when I say
I\’m a \”rebel Christian\” and an Episcopalian who is proud of our gay
bishop and the WOMAN who runs the church, I get emails for that, too. I can
never satisfy the hyper pious (which I am not) or the agnostic, atheists and secularists, all of whom I have in my life. I got emails when I chastised Barack
Obama for lecturing the Democratic faithful as well. I\’m sure I\’ll get emails
about this post too. So be it.

The Episcopal church seems to have no such delusions about women\’s perfection,
or for that matter, a person\’s sexual reality, so it\’s my home. But I
meditate every day, including Sunday, because I can\’t go to just any church
for Sunday worship, especially just to please the public\’s version of religiosity.
A church is personal to me so not just any one will do. My home church is in L.A.
and we went to service on a weekday when we visited New York last fall, because
Trinity is just too beautiful and sacred a place not to visit. That\’s me. But
being a \”rebel Christian,\” I have also written about what The Church,
which I refer to in capital letters to encompass religion on the whole, has
demanded of modern women. Subservience. Tradition. Perfection. Standards I\’ve
failed to meet. There is little space for modern women in most religions today.
So I can appreciate a feminist\’s rage at The Church. However, I have never
been able to understand the abject disrespect of what The Church symbolizes
to some of us and the harsh language used to lash out at the traditional sanctuaries and the God that I hold dear, none of which are to blame for the ignorant insults hurled through supposedly pious people\’s words or deeds. I\’ve also had guest bloggers rip into right-wing religious
hypocrites, but that hardly seems unfair since they talk about God and torture
and war all in the same breath, while the policies they support harm the poor.
What is \”Christian\” about that I will never know. Same goes for this
beauty…


\”Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity.\”
– William Donahue, the Catholic League

If that statement isn\’t antisemitic, un-Christian hate
speech
, to quote Mr. Donahue, nothing is.

That said, reading this movie review by Amanda Marcotte\’s late yesterday, I
couldn\’t believe my eyes, especially after what happened last week. It goes too far.



The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as
super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without
befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

Review
of Children of Men

It renders me speechless. Well, almost, obviously. Talk about handing your
opponents the knife. Ms. Marcotte was right to resign. However, she\’s not the
only one to blame for this one, because she remained true to herself throughout.
It\’s Edwards who was clueless about whom he\’d hired.

Hotline
has the bottom line.

Oh and by the way, has anyone seen John Edwards lately?

UPDATE: Melissa McEwan has now resigned as well.

Read full story · Comments are closed