"Lawyers’ Ties Hint at Extent of Hiding Edwards’ Affair" - From today's New York Times

[TexasObserver]

From today's New York Times
August 15, 2008

Lawyers’ Ties Hint at Extent of Hiding Edwards’s (sic) Affair
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI and MIKE MCINTIRE

As tabloid reports of a sex scandal threatened former Senator John Edwards’s presidential campaign last December on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, two lawyers surfaced with written statements that appeared to exonerate the candidate.

One of them, Robert J. Gordon of New York, said that his client, Rielle Hunter, a pregnant 43-year-old filmmaker, was not carrying Mr. Edwards’s child. Shortly thereafter, the other lawyer, Pamela J. Marple of Washington, sent word that her client, Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, was the baby’s father.

Seemingly issued independently of Mr. Edwards, the statements appeared to deflate the anonymously sourced reports of an Edwards tryst. But what went unnoticed was that the two lawyers shared an important connection to Mr. Edwards that suggests they were part of an orchestrated effort to protect him, one that is continuing even after he admitted last week that he had an affair with Ms. Hunter but denied that he fathered her child.

The lawyers are linked through Fred Baron, a wealthy Dallas lawyer and former finance chairman for the Edwards campaign who was a key player in the campaign’s response to the scandal. Mr. Gordon has worked with Mr. Baron on class-action personal injury cases, and Ms. Marple helped defend a lawsuit brought against both men and their law firms by an asbestos manufacturer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15edwards.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
------------------------------------

The news item in today's NY Times suggests that those of us who suspected Edwards was using Fred Baron to manage the problems with Ms. Hunter may be right. It's more reasonable to infer Edwards and Baron were working in tandem, than independently.

[DarthDem]

1. Quite Reasonable

In fact, unreasonable to assume the contrary.

So Edwards turned out to be slime. Sad.

[TexasObserver]

20. Yes, I'm disappointed in John, too.

and it's gonna be a slow bleed of bad facts like this

[cwydro]

2. Good God.

The guy is an ass if he thinks this will not all come out eventually.

Thanks for the link. The money is what concerns me and this is just what I feared.

[TexasObserver]

6. I read it late last night, checked to see if anyone had posted it, and put it up.

It doesn't add a whole lot to the mosaic, but it shows that someone joined at the hip with John was making sure that Hunter and the supposed father of the child got media off the trail last fall.

More and more, it does appear Edwards used Baron to be the conduit of cash to keep the girlfriend and the baby out of sight.

[Egnever]

3. Of course

Edwards was lying on that interview. There's more to come.

He did himself no favors with that interview in fact he made matters worse. It is his child, his lawyers are trying to shield him and I would be willing to bet Elizabeth didn't know shit till very recently.

This isn't going away any time soon cause Johns still lying.

Much as many would like to see it be forgotten, till john comes clean or is fully exposed this story is going to continue to have legs.

[TexasObserver]

7. I agree that Elizabeth has probably not yet heard the full truth from him.

From what has been said recently by her surrogates, she has gotten the information a little bit at a time, implying that she's had to drag it out of John. Also implicit is that John has repeatedly kept bits of truth from her, and she's had to learn slowly, painfully, that worse facts are yet to be heard.

[SoCalDem]

9. She "knows"... and I would bet that this is not the first time

He's a very attractive man, and it's unikely that he started cheating at age 54.. man who would cheat at 54, is a man who would cheat at 34, 44, ...any age..

He got caught this time..

[TexasObserver]

12. Bingo! She knows him, and as you say, it's unlikely he just started chasing.

This means the most likely story is that he and Reille Hunter were both at a bar looking for some action, and they found it. Both culpable to the max. Wasn't her first time to troll for Mr. Right Now, and not his first time to be Mr. Right Now.

[Kahuna]

13. I agree. This isn't the first time. nt

[SoCalDem]

14. The whole "family man" ...my son was killed...I grew up poor..

was just a ruse to draw people in...

Shocking isn't it?..a politician lying to us :rofl:

[Kahuna]

82. Remember, this is the guy who never does pro bono. That told me all

I ever needed to know about him. Phony as a three dollar bill.

[TexasObserver]

83. that's pretty pathetic, no pro bono

If he wants to redeem himself, take the Jimmy Carter path, and do it by doing good works for decades.

[TexasObserver]

16. That's the really sickening part, is knowing he's been doing this.

If she had not gotten pregnant, would we be hearing about this now? I really doubt it. They'd still be screwing on the sly, and he'd have her hired somewhere and paid by some surrogate.

You're an ass, John Edwards, an ass.

[Alexander]

4. He has to lie. He could face jail time if the truth came out.

He laundered money. Campaign contributions, no less.

[TexasObserver]

8. I agree. He and Baron could both end up dodging criminal prosecutions.

They almost have to stick with their stories.

[Alexander]

24. All the criminal activity could have been avoided if he had just said "Yes, I'm the father"

from the beginning.

And he would have looked slightly less like a sleazebag.

[TexasObserver]

26. Hubris. He wanted it all - the presidency, the wife, the kids, the mistress & her child

Next stop, the Maury Povich Show!

John ... you ARE the father!!

Next, we'll have the results of the Lie Detector test.

[SoCalDem]

5. How many "low-level" independently & marginally employed people do YOU know

who "have personal lawyers"?.. :rofl:

[TexasObserver]

10. Yes, a lawyer that out of the goodness of his heart rents you a multi million $ mansion

Because you're someone he met on a campaign staff last year, and dammit, you're nice.

Number of times I have heard of a lawyer adopting a grown couple and forking out 15 grand a month for a big ass home: ONE, this one. Unless Fred Baron was born of a virgin and can walk on water, I think this tall tale of generosity is likely bogus.

[SoCalDem]

11. They are not even a "couple".. That guy is married already..

or so I read:eyes:

I can imagine the conversation he must have had with his wife..

"Honey, there's this guy who got a chick pregnant, and he's running for president, so the lawyer asked ME to claim the kid..but we'll get a sweeeeeeet house outta the deal..okay?

[Kahuna]

15. According to the NYTs article, the Youngs AND Hunter were living

in the same mansion. :wow:

[SoCalDem]

17. A ménage à whoop-dee-doo

how conveeeeeeenient:rofl:

[helderheid]

73. ménage à whoop-dee-doo

:spray:

[TexasObserver]

18. Mr. Young was probably made an offer he couldn't refuse.

Imagine working in a campaign and having Edwards or someone at the top of the campaign finance approaching you with offers that meant having wealth and a lifestyle you had never experienced. All you have to do is be a beard for a period of time. Young's wife may be in on the deal. That would make the beard complete. No scandal with Mrs. Young, because Mrs. Young is in on it.

Hunter and both Youngs have been bought by Edwards, or we would see THEIR stories told in detail already.

[Divernan]

52. I read that the staffer's wife was bitching bitterly to her friends.

How incredibly unbelievable that a guy would pay for someone he barely knew to set up one big happy household with wife, 3 legit kids, mistress & lovechild ? ? ? And what a schmuck the staffer must be to be so desperate for $$$$ that he subjects his wife & their 3 kids to the uprooting, cross country move, and now the publicity! So Edwards hired someone as big a jerk as himself.

[TexasObserver]

59. Young's wife is the person who blow this whole thing apart.

Someone inside will end up spilling the beans, and the sooner, the better. I would like to see this story exhausted before the convention starts, and that means someone has to come forward and lay it out.

[JI7]

19. i think Hunter is the one that tipped off the Enquirer and others

about the affair and other stuff. not just the recent hotel visit but before that. from what i read about her she seems like she would do that.

she is also indirectly blackmailing him now with the whole baby thing. getting her family to demand paternity tests while he pays her to keep quiet about things.

this wouldn't matter too much if campaign funds were not involved.

[TexasObserver]

21. either Hunter or perhaps Young's wife, or perhaps Young

Someone is playing both sides of this. They're taking Edwards' money to be silent, and they're leaking info to someone who is using that info to sell to tabloids and get the real story out.

[progressoid]

22. yawn

Are we still wallowing in this?

[cobalt1999]

23. To be fair, a money story involving campaign funds is actual news

The affair, the baby, when he confessed to Elizabeth are just between John and the people involved. I don't think anyone should care about those things, nor do I think any media outlet should report on them.

However, money stories, especially when laws may have been broken, ARE news and discussion worthy.

[TexasObserver]

25. No, we are following a news story about misuse of campaign funds.

Not sure what you're doing, other than expressing an ill informed opinion of the issues involved.

[bunkerbuster1]

56. It was the "top" US news story at The Google this morning

sickening, I know.

[TexasObserver]

72. Getting this story out now does two good things.

1. It gives the story a chance to get out fully, before the convention starts.

2. It positions us to push the McCain infidelity with Cindy story greater exposure.


As you note, it's the number one story around the water cooler. That means if we want to win people who are most interested in this story than they will ever be in major political issues, we'd better be politically savvy.

[Gabi Hayes]

27. who CARES?

keep talking about this

send this to the cable cesspots

they LOVE to talk about this

keep the focus on all things anathema to dems winning

keep the focus off McCain and his own sleazy, serial carryings on

WTF is WRONG with you people?

I know Edwards is a creep, and there's possible illegal activity involved but SO WHAT? the M$M is doing an 'admirable' job covering this. why are you helping keep the story alive? cui bono?

last time I looked he's not the candidate, and didn't come close

give it UP already!

[TexasObserver]

28. I care. Most Democrats care. Most Americans care.

If you don't understand why this is an important issue, perhaps more reading and less heckling would be in order.

A candidate duped his supporters, contributors, and family. He misused campaign funds. He likely misused non profit funds. He endangered the party. He committed a fraud against us.

If you choose to ignore all this, that is your personal choice, but the politically astute know it matters.

[Gabi Hayes]

35. uhhh, I read more than I care to about this. why don't you pick a more

relevant topic, instead of carrying water for the REPUBLICANS?

if you don't understand that this important issue is being well covered by the other side, and the mainstream media, then you might not be as politically astute as you so selfrighteously claim

keep up with the handwringing, though

we all know that Edwards is a liar and, possibly a crook

when are you going to stop the daisy chain?

you've all made your points over and over and over in how many repetitive threads on this subject?

[TexasObserver]

63. Why don't you pick a different thread?

If I need to be talking about one of those other topics, why aren't YOU in those threads of instead of here, beating that dead horse of yours?

Most of us have a topic we find interesting and newsworthy. You're simply heckling because you can't accept that others will talk about this, in spite of your concerns.

[Divernan]

57. The New York Times is actively investigating it - it's still major news.

And it's a black eye for the Dem party that he was so close to a national leadership position - just like it's a black eye for the GOP when one of their leading people gets unmasked as a perv, pedophile, or father of illegitimate child. The only thing that will stop this would be complete confession by Edwards - but as another poster pointed out, this would open him up to criminal prosecution so that ain't gonna happen.

[TexasObserver]

64. By not fessing up to the kid and timetable, he allowed all issues to come under scrutiny.

It is a black eye on our party. We lived through Bill's messes, and it hurt the party AND produced the Bush administration. If Bill never got caught, we win in 2000 big time. He gave them the issue and the disdain by middle voters that kept that election close. Otherwise, Gore waltzes in.

We dodged a bullet this time.

[Libby2]

29. Bravo!!

[cobalt1999]

30. "...there's possible illegal activity involved but SO WHAT?"

You were going great until this.

When there's a possible illegal activity involved it's actual news (vs. tabloid gossip) and discussion worthy.

[TexasObserver]

31. How would we respond if this were Mitt Romney?

Would we be hearing "move long, nothing to see here" from DUers? Not a chance. He would be universally pilloried here, and deservedly so.

[Gabi Hayes]

37. so what, from the standpoint that it's going to be dealt with via the proper channels

why is this being beaten to death, already?

and here?

I can read. I saw what he might have done

I don't need to be constantly reminded about it. I'm more concerned with the fact that McCain is taking money from Reed, when he COVERED up the most important elements of the Abramoff scandal, including releasing only a TINY fraction of the documentation that should be made public

why isn't THAT being discussed in MULTIPLE threads here

the overweening concern over the Edwards affair is most curious

go watch CNN if you want to wallow in this

pull up a box of cookies and ice cream

indulge your bathos mechanism

[cobalt1999]

47. It's being discussed here because this is a discussion board.

Like it or not, the possible illegal activity of a prominent democrat will be discussed.

If you want more threads on other topics, it's simple, just start them. Instead of complaining about this thread, start some threads of your own on a topics you feel are also relevant, & ignore topics you don't want to participate in.

I could care less about the affair, the baby, the confession. I am interested in how the money situation plays out.

[TexasObserver]

51. STOP TALKING!!

Have you ever heard a little kid yell that, as if their saying it would force everyone to stop talking and hear only what they have to say?

How complicated is it? Thousands of members talk about hundreds of topics here daily. Most of us talk about the topics that most interest us, but the CONVERSATION POLICE are always on their vigilante patrols, seeking out threads where others are having conversations which the Conversation Police Officer disapproves.

Thus begins the borderline psychotic nagging that ensues from the CP vigilante patrollers.

[VOX]

32. I also care. One of the brighter stars of the Democratic Party has committed a messy career suicide.

Edwards is pure poison now -- we've lost one of the top stars of the Democratic Party, one whose speaking and connecting-skill capacities might just as well have burst into flames. Obviously, there will be no consideration for the VP slot, no possible cabinet post, and certainly no appearance at the convention. The election is only 12 weeks off, and the Edwards affair has the capacity to to taint all Democratic candidates.

It'd be nice to just dismiss this story as mere sleaze, or tabloid fodder, or off a strict personal matter -- but the way this has been (mis)handled, it constitutes a Christmas-wrapped treasure-trove of negative and ugly fodder with which the GOP machine and a compliant corporate media can use to fire up their base.

And for good measure, parts of the story are still coming in from all arenas.

[TexasObserver]

34. Yes. I was counting on him for VP, AG, or SC.

My favored position for him was Supreme Court Justice, where I felt he could do good for decades.

Some didn't care for that, but I thought that's where he would do the most good. I don't know how he makes it back from this. He's ruined his brand name, and he had one of the better brand names in the party.

This is personal to me, too. I have adult sons who both supported Edwards and knew him from the 2004 campaign, where they both did some work with him. They have photos of them hanging out back stage with John Edwards during the campaign in Florida in 2004. They are only two of the army of people who threw in with John because they believed HIS CHARACTER was as he represented.

This nonsense that how a person votes is all that matters is wrong. We elect people we think will have good morals and good judgment. My sons and I are very committed to the concept of fidelity in relationships and the trust and values that implies. It's not religious, either, it's just plain good morals.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. you'll get over it. he's a POLITICIAN! how you can get overexcited about any of

these megalomaniacs is beyond me

they only care about themselves, and to invest anything in them beyond the hope that they might do some good somewhere down the road is not what I'd call....politically astute

successful politicians are users, and the more successful they become, the more they use people

he got caught

time to invest your precious good faith in the next user that comes down the pike

[cali]

38. I'm represented by Bernie, Pat and Peter

and I'd say that all of them are something more than meglomaniacs who care for nothing but their own aggrandizement.

[Gabi Hayes]

45. wow! that's a really representative sample

do you work for Rasmussen?

[cali]

58. You, dear, are the one flinging ridiculous generalizations about

saying that ALL politicians are meglomaniacs. I presented evidence, that you were engaging in utter bullshit and you throw out more rank shit. And what does rasmussen have to do with my comments? Nothing of course. Your defensive deflection couldn't possibly be more transparent.

[TexasObserver]

40. I'm a grown up, and I've been doing this a long time.

Maybe you should be seeking advice, instead of giving it.

[VOX]

41. I hear you. My wife and I both supported Edwards in 2004...

He and his wife clearly made a dynamic team -- and that's already done now. All gone.

[TexasObserver]

43. Indeed, and I've always thought of them as the coolest couple.

He was the handsome guy who was prettier than his wife in middle age, but never seemed to act like it. He acted as if he was a straight shooter who would never cheat on his wife, who he promoted as his wonderful partner in politics. He attacked other politicians in this party who faltered similarly.

Some don't want to talk about it. I get that. I'll never get the compulsion some have to stop others from talking about the relevant, legitimate issue. It's also a gateway to making John McCain's skeleton past come rattling out of the closet.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[TexasObserver]

85. thanks for dropping by, dude

[Gabi Hayes]

39. what's more relevant? see below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3801641

[TexasObserver]

42. Not more relevant, just able to hold your attention better.

We can ponder more than issue at a time. Thinking about one issue doesn't mean we don't think about others. You favor sticking your head in the sand, and that's your choice. It's not mine, and it won't be no matter how many times you furtively plead that everyone should see the world exactly the same as you do.

[Gabi Hayes]

44. furtive? do you know what it means?

I understand you can walk and chew gum at the same time....BRAVA!

waste all the time you want

goodie for you

[TexasObserver]

48. Yes, I'm quite competent in the use of the language.

Obviously, you're not.

[Gabi Hayes]

50. apparently you're not

what does 'furtive' mean

define it in your own words before you look it up

[TexasObserver]

54. I'm not going to tutor you.

If you don't know the proper uses of the word "furtively," then you do need to go look it up.

[Gabi Hayes]

60. it's because you used it incorrectly, I know.

you can admit it; it's OK.

you'd be proudly waving your use of the word in my face if you'd used it correctly

embarrassing, isn't it?

[TexasObserver]

66. I used it correctly.

It's clear you do not know how to use the term.

[Gabi Hayes]

46. if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, why don't you bestow your

great wisdom on the thread I linked?

huh?

[TexasObserver]

49. If I want to talk on a thread, I'll do so.

I don't care to talk about Abram Jackoff today.

(That's what his youthful friends at synagogue used to call him)

[Gabi Hayes]

53. isn't it time to start weeping over Edwards' depredations again?

don't let me keep you from your narrowly circumscribed rounds

maybe you'll stay off the McCain/affair threads

buhbye

enjoy yourself

[TexasObserver]

55. No, it's time to respond to yet another of your posts

You seem to be obsessed with letting me know how much you don't like this topic. Maybe this kind of nagging is a coping mechanism you should abandon as hopelessly ineffectual.

I merely quoted the New York Times' title and the first four paragraphs of their article. It's NEWS, front page news, in the most recognized paper in the country. That makes it news whether you want it to be or not.

[Gabi Hayes]

61. so is Corsi's book news

are you going to start a thread on that?


the Edwards fiasco has been discussed to death at DU

your efforts to keep it alive...concern me

[TexasObserver]

65. if I get the urge to talk about Corsi or his book, I know how to find those threads.

I can find it, if I decide that interests me.

[Marie26]

68. You realize that each dead horse post

just bumps the topic again, right? Stop beating the dead horse of beating a dead horse, already!

[TexasObserver]

69. I agree. Mix it up. Throw some ceiling cat in. It is Friday.

Isn't it Casual Cat Friday here?

[Marie26]

70. Or at least a water-skiing squirrel. nt

[TexasObserver]

71. What do they call that squirrel that turns around and eyeballs the camera?

and where is that dude lately?

[Marie26]

74. Dramatic chipmunk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

He's still enjoying the fame & riches of being a YouTube celebrity. Oh, God, I need to get off the Internet! It's sad that I know that.

[TexasObserver]

75. This is the kind of stuff that makes the intertubes so wonderful!

One of my grown sons was over last night, and we watched one crazy online video after another.

Why is it so hilarious when you see someone who is acting a fool suddenly face plant, provided, of course, they're not really hurt? There are some face plants online that are groaners, but it's also kind of funny, in a painful way. There's one of a guy on a dance show doing a flip and not making it. He was up being interviewed later.

I gotta go look at that squirrel video, and keep a link to it somewhere.

[Gabi Hayes]

62. here you go! knock yourself out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3802242

[TexasObserver]

67. not interested

in following your links

[dysfunctional press]

76. miss marple...? this IS getting mysterious...

maybe there's even a book in it.

get agatha on the line.

[TexasObserver]

78. it's going to involve probably a million dollars, campaign $, nonprofit $, and more

If John would own up, he could get most of this behind him. Unfortunately, he's probably not going to be able to do that without risking even more serious consequences.

[Moochy]

77. THIS IS GOING TO REALLY HURT EDWARDS' CHANCES FOR PRESIDENCY

oh wait. nevermind.

[TexasObserver]

80. it might hurt McCain's chances

This story will allow Democratic commentators and partisans to say to inquiring media "why aren't you pursuing John McCain's adultery and leaving his sick wife for another woman?"

[DFW]

79. For what it's worth, one of my best friends knows Fred Baron

He is a Dallas Democrat, and has know Fred Baron for years, and spent
time with John Edwards as well. Fred Baron has been a major fundraiser
for Democrats for years in Dallas, but apparently has a rather haughty
manner about him--all glad-handing and smiles if you can be of some use
to him, but if not, he will pass by you as if you weren't even there.
He called Baron a total phony, and used the same phrase after spending
two hours with John Edwards. For the record, he is a big fan of Howard
Dean, and is thoroughly behind Obama now--as am I. Good thing, too. His
family and mine share a house together in Dallas (when we're there, that
is, which is practically never).

[LiberalHeart]

81. "Edwards's" is not a "sic" ... it's correct.

I won't go into the long explanation why except to say it has to do with the use of a person's name. For reference see Words Into Type, an excellent tome on grammar.

[TexasObserver]

84. That's a matter of opinion, and you have chosen one that fits your opinion.

I reject those opinions. The preferred method is NOT to add another "s" after the apostrophe where the word ends with an "s."

I won't go into a long explanation either, except to say that you should learn to distinguish between your opinion and rules of writing. The second "s" is not preferred, and it never has been.

[Hidden Stillness]

86. It is Important to Learn These Things, and Have Them Exposed

I think this whole story is very important for Democrats and for people on DU for many reasons, just as an object lesson on being willfully fooled. It is also a reminder of how the content of moral stories changes, as more women give their opinions on male behavior, finally, and "fun carousing" becomes called "abuse of women," and is treated as an important thing--just because it is women finally telling it.

Month after month of reading DU--"John Edwards is FDR with a Southern Accent," posted by the paid Edwards hack, then when I fought back, DU deleted MY messages after the first one; endless DU plaintive queries, "Why is Edwards Not More Popular?"--etc., etc., so many threads with the same themes, and when you would question them--WHY are you giving Edwards credit as a "compassionate lover of the poor," when there is NO EVIDENCE of it, when Edwards is a hedge-fund profiteer off the poor, they live in an enormous mansion built specially for them, Edwards was/is an ordinary lawyer, not anything related to poverty, the "Foundation" is modelled on the ordinary "rich slush fund/job opportunity" of any number of retired athletes, for example, and still, the DUers worked themselves up with excitement--"The 'M$M' is Afraid of an Edwards Presidency," total self-delusion. There is a pattern among people who spend a lot of time on the computer, 1) they actually dupe themselves, with slogans masquerading as "reasoning" or "answers," and 2) they are so "hyper-groovy," so "superior" to everyone else (they post threads on how "we" can edjumacate the stupid Midwesterners, with jargon), that even when they were clearly fooled, and others weren't, they play games, so "cool," to the very end. Of course, YOU were so "stupid," you EXPECTED politicians to be honest? Hah! Right to the bitter end--and THEY were fooled.

How cruel do you have to be to plan to inflict pain, over and over and over, on someone sitting at home with cancer, then pretend--and make her pretend--you are so compassionate and thoughtful toward her, but only publicly? Yet everything you bring up, this or the hedge-fund or the impossibly gaudy-greedy mansion cut out of a forest, is suddenly "trivial." Bizarre. Endless excuses and willful ignorance, and yet those who do the same to Bush or Cheney are "sheeple"--and you aren't! For those who pretend it is a "personal" issue, and that if Elizabeth Edwards "forgives" it then that makes it all right, and why then care--is this the response you had when a drunken, violent Cheney shot somebody on a hunting trip, and made the victim crawl out of bed to "apologize" (?), like this is "okay now," and not a victim being even further browbeaten for the abuser? Why was no one "convinced" by that charade?

Edwards never sounded even slightly sincere to me, when describing poverty or lack of health care. Unlike the focused, directed anger of Dennis Kucinich, Sherrod Brown, Marcy Kaptur, Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin, etc., and of course Ted Kennedy, telling things clearly, quoting people suffering from the recession, blaming corporations and suggesting solutions that cut their profit-making out of the process, Edwards always sounded clueless to me, offensively like someone who just got a 3x5 card with "quick poverty notes" on it, just before going onstage. Not an understanding of the general problem, but an annoying, advertising-slogan presentation of one or two individual cases, and then "Can you BeLIEVE, that in A-MURka, taDAY, that someone can't go to a DENTIST??" You dumb rich prick, there are millions of us listening to you right now with that not very uncommon problem! "Well you know," (phony chipmonk grin for the camera) "I'm the son of a millworker," blah blah, and "I'm the only one who knows, remember me, vote for me," blah, and so any reference to the topic is completely lost. Totally unlike someone who cares.

As to why there aren't threads attacking McCain (or Newt Gingrich) for their abusive treatment of women--we all agree, and all hate them; there is no further need for discussion on it. Edwards fooled a lot of people, and those of us who could always tell how sleazy Edwards was/is and who were not listened to, recognize that this is a threat and can be learned from. Everyone gets fooled, especially the ones who pretend they are so "cynical," "worldly-wise," etc., who dupe themselves, and it is an important thing to face--like thinking that Barack Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton!

[rainbow4321]

87. “I have a brief recollection of giving someone some cash"

You know that you have WAY too much money of you think maybe you lent someone money, possibly, not really sure, etc....

Looking thru the NYT article it seems Baron is full of "brief recollections", "no recollections", "maybe's, maybe not's".

How long before the FEC starts really tracking down the money trail??
If chimpass has any say in it, I bet it will be closer to November just so the words "Democratic", "funneling", and "fraud" will be splashed all over the M$M.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15edwards.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

On Wednesday, Mr. Baron said he might have directed Ms. Hunter to Mr. Gordon. “I have this recollection of somebody asking me for lawyers in New York, and I remember naming three or four, and he must have been one of them,” Mr. Baron said. Referring to Ms. Hunter, he added, “It was either her who called or somebody on her behalf.”


Asked whether he had lent Ms. Hunter and Mr. Young any money, Mr. Baron said, “I have a brief recollection of giving someone some cash. My assumption is I loaned some small amount of money to the both of them.” Ms. Marple declined to comment on her representation of Mr. Young. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Hunter’s lawyer, said: “Ms. Hunter called me. I represent her and only her, as I would any client.”

-------------
And on the "WTF?" scale of 1 to 10, I give this a 15.



When Ms. Hunter, her baby and the Youngs moved to California around the end of last year, they all initially lived in the same residence, according to an associate of Mr. Young and Mr. Edwards.

But the arrangement strained relationships, and Ms. Hunter moved into a different residence, which cost about $6,000 a month in rent. The associate believed that the lease on the home where the Youngs had been staying was to run out on Friday.