The Saddleback Forum

I couldn't watch it. Sorry. Not only am I uncomfortable with a religious leader questioning Presidential candidates, but I can't stand the pandering and the obfuscation of answers.

But I can't stand it, so I go to Rightpundits.com (video there as well) who was liveblogging it, and I have to say I am impressed with the one question on abortion that Rick Warren asked. You see, the question is alway posed from the women's point of view and never asked from the child's point of view. I have to give credit to Rick Warren (who I am not such a big fan of) to actually ask the question that I might have asked and never thought anyone would. I think it threw Obama a bit:

Warren: Abortion …. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights?

Obama: Can’t answer question with specificity is above my pay grade. Let me speak more generally about abortion. One thing I’m convinced of is there is a moral and ethical issue to this issue.
I am pro-choice, not because I’m pro-abortion, but because women don’t make these choices lightly. They wrestle with these choices. How do we reduce the number of abortions?

Above my pay grade? You mean God? Is that suppose to be funny? Good Lord. The slave owners probably were asked the same question. "When do slaves get human rights?" "I don't know, that's above my pay grade, guess God will have to decide that while I fight for the right of slave owners to decide."

Obama lost the evangelicals with that answer. As well he should.

McCain ends with this:

Warren: Why do you want to be President?

McCain: I want to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self interests. Our best days are ahead, but we still face challenges as evidenced by the events in Georgia. American wants hope and optimism. I want to work with all Americans to put our differences aside and work on our great nation. He will be the President of every American and he’ll always put his country first.

This will be why he wins.

Warren: What would you say to ppl about this forum?

McCain: I want to participate in every venue available. I’m happy to be here in your church.

This is a slam at Obama for not agreeing to particpate in townhall meetings with McCain.

From the reactions I am reading on the net so far, McCain is doing a wonderful job. He is bringing over those Republicans who were mad at him.

The difference in McCain and Obama in this forum is that Obama is saying what he thinks he needs to and McCain says what he believes. Like it or not. With McCain what you see is what you get.

Update: I always like to sneak over on the left side and see what the commenters there are saying to get a perspective. Here are some telling comments from Talkleft. Now, make no mistake many were critical of McCain on the social issues, but I have to say I was surprised by the following comments from liberals:

Have a women's forum.This is annoying. McCain is doing much better. And he is a freaking right-wing insanity.

this is what happens when Democrats try to pander to the right religious wingnuts...you can't win...I don't know why the Obama campaign refuses to understanding this. Sitting in a religious forum, you simply cannot win by saying you support choice...just isn't going to happen.

...This whole thing seems loaded in favor of the religious-right agenda.
Although McCain doesn't necessarily support the religious-right agenda 100 percent, he's the best thing they've got.
Therefore, Warren is lobbing him softballs.
Obama ought to have his head examined for getting involved in this.
My opinion only.

They would have been softballs for Obama too if he had an actual stance on issues -- but he wants to play it all ways and be for all sides and it makes any question a hardball question.

Why couldn't he just answer some of these questions honestly? Everything had to have a "qualified" answer with Obama.

Seriously, if Obama had firm answers to questions, these would have been easy for him to answer too.

Watching McCain now. I disagree with him over and over and over again, but there is no waffling in his answers. He is short, to the point, and is saying what he means...there is no doubt that he is against choice, that he likes alito and roberts, that he doesn't want gay people to have equal rights. Thus, I will never vote for him.
BUT, I think he is doing very well in terms of likability. Just watching this, I don't feel the kind of disgust that I felt watching President Bush. I disagree with him, but I appreciate that he is making it crystal clear for me that I can't vote for him. It makes me like him as a human being more. And if there are independent or undecided voters out there who don't feel especially strongly about abortion rights or gay rights or some of these other social issues that were brought up, I think McCain has helped himself.

McCain said his first marriage was his biggest moral failure. Obama was not specific instead talked about how his mother taught him to treat others as you would want to be treated.
McCain's humor is a surprise to me.

But from what I've heard about McCain he answers the same way even if it ticks everybody off. He doesn't seem to really care if people like or don't like his answers. It's what he believes. This is why his positions on illegal immigration and affirmative action programs get so many people upset.
He is who he is

Update II: I did watch the repeat last night. It's hard for me to be objective, but Obama did well and got much applause, he just seemed to not have the experience McCain has. Obama's regret was doing drugs in high school and McCain's was about his POW experience. It just illustrates the bigger world view McCain has just for virtue of living longer and knowing the world better. Obama says the three people he trusts are his wife, grandmother, and Sam Nunn. Personal choices that a younger person would make. But McCain answered with Generals and a CEO. It's just the difference in life experience.

They both did well though. Obama was thoughtful and charming. But McCain was sincere and seemed more sure of his answers and he said all the right things for me.

Check It Out!

My first few posts at Texas Magazine. For some reason my latest post is at the bottom. I'm still working on the logistics of the site.

Be sure to subscribe!!! I'll be writing for the print version too!

Letter to the Editor

This is an actual letter written to the Richmond Times Dispatch checked out on Snopes.

Editor

Times-Dispatch

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30, I celebrate my independence day and on July 4, I celebrate America 's. This year is special because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950's, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change, everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a left-leaning young leader who promises change without asking, "What change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ?"

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr.

via GOC

Where is Andrew Young?

Facts are still coming out about John Edwards and his mistress. Now there may be campaign funds involved. But I keep thinking about the fall guy, Andrew Young. Young was Edward's fundraiser and has been with him for more than a decade. You might remember back in Dec. Andrew said that he was the father of Rielle Hunter's baby, although he is married with three small children. Back then a spokesman for Young said that he and Reille had been having a relationship since 2006. Which would now mean that both of them were having their way with her at the same time. Young then moved Rielle into the same posh neighborhood that his own family lives in. Now, we all know Young was not having an affair with Hunter. He was covering for Edwards. I'm wondering if any reporter has looked into any large cash deposit to Young. Maybe some land deeded over?

Here is how I'm thinking the first conversation that Young had with his wife, Cheri went:

Andrew: Honey, we've got some trouble with John and I need to help him out.

Cheri: Really? What did he do?

Andrew: Well, he had an affair and got another woman pregnant.

Cheri: What???? I can't believe it!!! What does he want you to do?

Andrew: This is the hard part. He wants me to claim to be the father so the press will leave him alone.

Cheri: EXCUSE ME!!!!? You are married with three kids. Do you not see how this will affect our family??? It's immoral! It's wrong. How can you even think of doing such a thing?????????!!!!!!!!

Andrew: There is a million in it for us.

*pause*

Cheri: Well, this is really about friendship. I see your point.

"The Hillary Convention"

I usually don't pay attention to anything that Dick Morris has to say. He is usually wrong so I don't know why he continues to be a pundit, but this time he does bring up some interesting points about the Democratic convention: (From his newsletter):

Hillary and Bill have hijacked the Denver convention, making it into a carbon copy of what it would have looked like had she won until the last possible moment. By the time Obama gets up to speak and put his stamp on the convention, Hillary will have had one prime time night all to herself. Bill will have pre-empted a second night. Hillary will have had all the nominating and seconding speeches she wants. And the roll call of the states would record, in graphic detail, how the voters of state after state rejected Obama’s candidacy in the primaries. Only then, after three and a half days of all Clinton all the time will the convention then, finally, turn to its nominee and allow him to have an hour in the sun!

And what leverage did the Clintons have to achieve all of this? None. Hillary could not have taken the convention by storm and any show of party disunity would marginalize her forever in the Democratic Party. Had she or her supporters tried to pull off distracting demonstrations or to recreate Lafayette Park in Chicago in 1968, she would have paid a permanent price among the party faithful for sabotaging Obama’s candidacy.

This Clintonian tour de force raises a key question about Barack Obama: Is he strong enough to be president or can he be pushed around? His failure to stand up to the Clintons makes one wonder how effective he will be against bin Laden, Iran, Chavez, or Putin.

.........

How much will Obama take? His weakness if the face of the Clinton demands coupled with his refusal to debate McCain in the town forum meetings raise the question of whether he is tough when the teleprompter is turned off. Why is he afraid or unwilling to do tough interviews? It is not enough for him to say that he is the front runner and ask why he should risk such confrontations. In case he hasn’t noticed, he’s not the front runner. The tracking polls all suggest a tied race where taking certain risks would be reasonable, unless his handlers worry about his vulnerability in difficult or extemporaneous situations.

Is an unscripted Obama a pushover? Will foreign leaders conclude that he is not up to the job, just as Khrushchev did with JFK at his 1961 Vienna summit that presaged the Cuban Missile crisis? If he does so poorly in negotiating with the Clintons, how will he do with the Russians?

Energy Ad

Here is the new Republican Ad regarding the energy vote that the Democrats refused as they went on a five week paid vacation. It's pretty good. Concise and clear and to the point.

Open Border Blood

I had been hearing about these gangs in Mexico that are kidnapping wealthy people for ransom. More than 430 abductions were reported in 2007, up 35% on the previous year. The report I heard on TV suggested that the police may be in on it.

We may think this doesn't affect us, but Mexico is right next door and with our open borders, it's only a matter of time.

So when I say this article I was sickened. Mexican hitmen kill 8 at prayer in rehab centre. They seem to think that former drug dealers were being hidden there. But the war is over turf for drug running. Where?

Here, of course:

Some 2,000 people have died this year in a drug war, mostly between rival gangs, for control of routes into the United States.
........

Mexico's most-wanted man, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman, is fighting local drug baron Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, boss of the Juarez cartel, for control of Ciudad Juarez and its lucrative smuggling corridor into the United States.

Things seem to becoming more and more violent in Mexico over the turf of getting the drugs to the United States. How long will it be until that bloody violence increases to that degree here? Not long I imagine.

What is it going to take for us to get serious about this? Will it take these drug thugs killing innocents in mass across the border on our side?

American needs to wake up and realize that their casual drug use is rooted in violence, murder, and blood. Good God, isn't this something we all can agree on?

So cool...

The image reveals dramatic ridges and valleys of dust, serpent-head "pillars of creation," and gaseous filaments glowing fiercely under torrential ultraviolet radiation. The region is on the edge of a dark molecular cloud that is an incubator for the birth of new stars.

The high-energy radiation blazing out from clusters of hot young stars is sculpting the wall of the nebula by slowly eroding it away. Another young cluster may be hidden beneath a circle of brilliant blue gas.

In this approximately 100-light-year-wide fantasy-like landscape, dark towers of dust rise above a glowing wall of gases on the surface of the molecular cloud. The seahorse-shaped pillar at lower, right is approximately 20 light-years long, roughly four times the distance between our sun and the nearest star, Alpha Centauri.

Obama's birthplace? Nooooo... Much better:

In commemoration of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope completing its 100,000th orbit during its 18th year of exploration and discovery, scientists aimed Hubble to take a snapshot of a dazzling region of celestial birth and renewal. Hubble peered into a small portion of the Tarantula nebula near the star cluster NGC 2074. The region is a firestorm of raw stellar creation, perhaps triggered by a nearby supernova explosion. It lies about 170,000 light-years away and is one of the most active star-forming regions in our local group of galaxies.

Do you get the feeling that the gentleman from NASA that wrote this really really likes stars.....?

Hillary's name will be placed in nomination

Read the "unity" statement here. But we all know this isn't about unity. It's about Hillary. I can promise you that Obama did not want to do this, but to risk protests from women would look so bad and hurt him among white women voters. Hillary wants to make sure that she is treated like the queen Democrat she is. Only then will she turn over her delegates. They will try to make it out like that was always going to happen, but it's not so.

As one commenter (in red) at Talkleft pointed out:

"How gracious to comply with precedent and rules.

But compare this in the Atlantic article"

They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his.

"to this from the AP"

"I'm letting our respective teams work out details," he said. Asked if that meant he wouldn't object to her name being placed in nomination and a vote taken, Obama said: "I didn't say that. I said that they're working it out."

"They tried to intimidate her and her supporters and now that it didn't work, they're shrugging and looking at their nails as if that was what they always wanted to happen."

Have you heard about the PUMA group? It stands for "Party Unity My A**." They are still hoping against hope for a Hillary delegate win. I think Obama is doing everything possible to avoid any animosity during the convention, but I'm thinking there will be fun. Maybe not on camera. But behind the scenes or hidden from us. This may be the first Democratic convention for me to watch in decades.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi isn't making this better:

"I think Hillary Clinton has been very gracious," Pelosi said on KGO radio. "I think some of her supporters have been less than gracious."

The Snub

And I thought Hillary would be the one to fear for payback.

Seems Obama isn't above it either.

via HotAir

I was wondering where Al Gore was...

Last I heard he was the surprise guest at the nutroot convention in Austin a few weeks ago. And then I found this article. I see that yesterday he was at the posh Nantucket home of Chicago investment banker Lou Susman, an Obama adviser for a fundraiser. I wonder why he isn't on TV for Obama? I don't know. Maybe because he's lost his mind. He said regarding global warming to the jet setting, limo riding, much larger homes than they would ever need crowd:

“This cause is outside the boundaries of history,” Gore said. “These are not normal times. The relationship between the planet and ourselves has been irrevocably and dramatically altered. We’re a bull in a china shop. Today, as the sun sets, we will have put another 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere.”

Then I'm sure he jumped in his SUV to get to his private jet to hurry to the next place he wants to expound on being a complete hypocrite.

But the most chilling line came from John Kerry:

Kerry said the election could also bring a slew of new Democratic senators to Capitol Hill, allowing the party to close in on the “magic number of 60” that would be enough to stop a Republican filibuster.

“If we win the presidency, we’re going to have the first moment of progressive legislating since Lyndon Johnson was president of the United States,” Kerry said.

Good grief. Imagine.

I couldn't be more proud

You go girl.

Warning Russia:

"This is not 1968. And the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, and overthrow a government, and get away with it. Things have changed."

via Ace

Who is using race as an issue?

Peter Beinart at the WaPo is afraid this Presidential campaign is going to be about race. He is warning Obama that it shouldn't be. It has been brought up though. But by whom? Here is what Beinart had to say:

That's the lesson of recent weeks, when the McCain campaign brought up race (on the pretext that Obama had brought it up first). The Obama campaign tried desperately to change the subject but couldn't. Once the chum was in the water, the media sharks went wild.

On the pretext that Obama brought it up first? Excuse me? Obama did bring it up first.

At a fundraiser in June here is what Obama said, "They're going to try to make you afraid of me: 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. ... Oh, and did I mention he's black?'"

If bringing up the subject that "they" (McCain and Republicans) are going to try to make you afraid of him by mentioning that he is black, isn't bring up race, I don't know what is. There is no "pretext" here. It is what it is. The only motive the McCain camp had was to defend itself.

And then again, late July, Obama again warned of the Republican's impending racial attack: "The only strategy they've got in this election is to try to scare you about me -- 'He doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills." Which Obama had to finally admit that he was referring to race among other things.

Obama admitted he was referring to race, why can't Peter Beinart?

Beibart continues:

Obama should take that as a warning. Race will be central to this campaign because McCain needs it to be.

Really? Because McCain isn't the one who has brought it up. Not once. Obama, on the other hand, seems to be using the race issue to scare liberals into thinking that Republicans will be using the race issue to scare everyone else.

Newsflash for Obama and liberal writers. Oama seems to be the only one using race right now and no one is scared.

"My Dad, John McCain'

DETROIT, Michigan (CNN) – Reporters on board John McCain’s campaign plane Wednesday got an early look at Meghan McCain’s soon-to-be-published “picture book biography” of her father, titled: “My Dad, John McCain.”

.....

Meghan conjures one of her father’s favorite town hall tag lines on the book’s final page, writing: “I know he’ll say what he really thinks. Maybe it won’t be what people want to hear. But it will be the truth.”

......

One percent of the book’s proceeds will go to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, which provides support for wounded military veterans and their families.

......

To be honest, I'm not all that thrilled with this. It seems too contrived. Maybe I will have to look at it first, but I don't see little kids really caring about John McCain the candidate or even his family, which Meghan writes about in the book. The press is already talking about the fact that McCain's first family isn't mentioned. I know this is Meghan's book and that wasn't her family. Naturally she would talk about her family. But it's that sort of thing is why the focus should have just been on McCain's sacrifice and service. I'm not sure how much of the book focuses on his time spent in the military and his time in a POW prison camp. The CNN story says several pages are devoted to it, but to me that is the only thing the book should have been about. That is a unique experience that children can learn from. Also, one percent to charity?? How about 100%? It's not like Meghan needs the money.

I wish I felt better about this, but I don't. While reading Meghan's blog during the primary it was clear that she is a delightful person, but a bit immature and still greatly influenced by the liberal nature of her education at Columbia. Meghan still sees the world through that prism I'm afraid.

I've have never had text relations with that man...

Pretty funny. Movie star George Clooney denying that he has a buddy/buddy relationship with Obama.

Clooney is one of the leftwing Hollywood loons with enough common sense to realize that Americans are turned off by celebrities telling them who to vote for.

So Clooney is just going to stick with having a lavish fundraiser for Obama in another country.

The Pelosi Premium

keathmilligan.net had this excellent chart that illustrates that since the Democrats came to power our gas prices have spiraled out of control. Now they refuse to allow the United States to drill for our future. While it's frustrating that Pelosi has left for her book tour and the Democrats do nothing in our energy crisis, this is a winning issue for us. Maybe this will turn out to be a blessing in disguise and help win a few seats back.

Texas Magazine!

A new magazine in Texas will be launched and hitting the newstands here September 9th and I will be writing for it!!!!! I'm very very excited. Check out the main site here:

Texas Magazine

My blog is here!

I'll be writing for the print version as well! I met the publisher this past weekend in San Antonio and she is all about Texas and all about a positive and upbeat outlook about our state. It's a magazine devoted to culture, nightlife, and commerce. It's really about a love of Texas. I'll be a very very small part reflecting on politics, but please check me out when you can and if you live in Texas or want to live in Texas, get a subscription!

Is that a cucumber in your pocket....

....or you just happy to see me? What??? Off with your head!

Besides the terrible killings inflicted by the fanatics on those who refuse to pledge allegiance to them, Al-Qa'eda has lost credibility for enforcing a series of rules imposing their way of thought on the most mundane aspects of everyday life.

They include a ban on women buying suggestively-shaped vegetables, according to one tribal leader in the western province of Anbar.
......

"They regarded the cucumber as male and tomato as female. Women were not allowed to buy cucumbers, only men."

We Expected More

I just love Thomas Sowell. I totally agree with him on this one about Obama. I had similiar thoughts:

Many years ago, when I was a college student, I took a course from John Kenneth Galbraith. On the first day of class, Professor Galbraith gave a brilliant opening lecture, after which the students gave him a standing ovation.Galbraith kept on giving brilliant opening lectures the whole semester. But, instead of standing ovations, there were now dwindling numbers of students and some of them got up and walked out in the middle of his lectures.

Galbraith never got beyond the glittering generalities that marked his first lecture. After a while, the students got tired of not getting any real substance.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign this year reminds me very much of that course from Professor Galbraith. Many people were ecstatic during the early primaries, as each state’s voters heard his glittering generalities for the first time.

When Obama made his speech in Iowa, this is what I wrote at the time:

I just watched Obama's speech after winning in Iowa.

Wow.

It was one of the best political speeches I have heard In a long long time. It was inspiring and electric. When Obama is fired up, he delivers.

Thinking about that speech later as it became apparent that Obama was going to win the nomination, it got me worried. It was such an inspiring speech. He was so charismatic. I felt like his way with words would make people ignore his limited accomplishments. But as the days and months went by I became less worried, because I never heard that kind of speech from him again. He never got to that point of inspiration again.

Let's face it. Obama has been "evolving." He is rushing so fast to the center that I'm surprised he hasn't pulled something. Like any candidate before, this is understandable. But I think everyone expected more from this new kind of candidate. Not the same old, same old. I think Sowell agrees with me:

The kind of talk that won the votes — and the hearts — of the left-wing base of the Democratic party during the primaries may not be enough to carry the day with voters in the general election. So Senator Obama has been changing his tune or, as he puts it, “refining” his message.This was not the kind of “change” that the true believers among Obama’s supporters were expecting. So there has been some wavering among the faithful and some ups and downs in the polls.

Despite an impressive political machine and a huge image makeover this year to turn a decades-long, divisive grievance-promoting activist into someone who is supposed to unite us all and lead us into the promised land of “change,” little glimpses of the truth keep coming out.

The elitist sneers at people who believe in religion and who own guns, the Americans who don’t speak foreign languages, and the views of the “typical white person” are all like rays of light that show through the cracks in Obama’s carefully crafted image.

Therein lies the problem. We didn't expect Obama to "craft" an image. We figured he would shine his own special light. We didn't think he would back away from who he was. We figured he would stick to his principles and positions. But he has acted as any politician of the day would. He removes himself from any relationship that he thinks might hurt him in the polls. He has shown an astounding lack of loyalty. He ducks and dances around his shifting positions on issues like a boxer when the bell rings.

It's not that Obama is an empty suit. He isn't. He is intelligent and charismatic. He just hasn't worn a suit long enough to know who he really is and what he really believes in. It's obvious to me that he is listening to too many people trying to tell him who to be.

I'm not that worried anymore.

h/t BigDog

Stuff on the Web

Obama is trying to not let McCain get the biker vote with a new radio ad, called "Motorcycle," "But when it comes to his record, American-made motorcycles like Harleys don’t matter to John McCain," Good luck with that one buddy.

Reading Josh Green’s Atlantic Monthly piece on the Clinton campaign and all the campaign memos and emails from the campaign is painful reading even for us who can't stand Hillary. The memos show how a campaign is such a manipulation of the American opinion. Not that all campaigns aren't like that. They are. But these memos are so cold and so lacking in sort of compassion or caring for anything that it's disturbing. But only the die hard political junkies will ever read them, so I don't think they damage Hillary much for the future.

Don't think the crowd that wants to put Hillary's name into nomination is going away:

Clinton delegates have more than half of the 300 signatures needed to put Clinton's name into nomination - and they fully expect to get more than enough by the time the convention begins in Denver.

"It's a simple thing to do, and it's the biggest sign of party unity," said Laura Spanjian, a San Francisco Clinton delegate who also supports the move. "If we do that one thing, the Hillary people can get past it - and move on."

John Edwards seems to have lied about lying.

via First Read

Here is a good post being linked everywhere regarding Obama's camp covering up and lying about Obama's pro-abortion votes while in the state legislature.

Once again...

Hillary Clinton may have been screwed over by a cheating man.

Sorta related. Here is another woman with the same problem.

Who ya gonna call?

When a presidential candidate needs advice on "body language, presentation and policy" who should he call?

Well if your Obama, you call George Clooney. Who has said that he could never run for office because “slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties.”

The article says that Clooney is good at "crafting" an image. He is helping Obama do that. Heaven forbid we see the real Obama I suppose.

You haven't heard about this movie star helping this celebrity presidential candidate? Well, that's been on purpose:

"He has tried to keep the true extent of their involvement out of the Press because he is frightened of alienating voters.”

A band called Ferra's has a song out called "Hollywood's Not America." (youtube) It's a great song and nothing could be more true.

The Wacky World of John Edwards

It's always fun to pile on a cheater. So let's go. This first piece is from Newsweek and the reporter is recounting his time spent riding around with candidate John Edwards in 2006 and noticed this Rielle Hunter:

I struck up a conversation with the woman at the next event, as we waited outside. She told me her name and asked me what my astrological sign was, which I thought was a little unusual. I told her. She smiled, and began telling me her life story: how she was working as a documentary-film maker, living with a friend in South Orange, N.J., but how she'd previously had "many lives." She'd worked, she said, as an actress and as a spiritual adviser. She was fiercely devoted to astrology and New Age spirituality. She'd been a New York party girl, she'd been married and divorced, she'd been a seeker and a teacher and was a firm believer in the power of truth.

She told me that she had met Edwards at a bar, at the Regency Hotel in New York. She thought he was giving off a special "energy.

Oh it gets better. When the reporter met with Hunter later, here is what she told him:

I would soon learn that there was no such thing as small talk with Rielle Hunter. She told me that she'd felt a connection to me when we'd first met, that she could tell I was a very old soul. This meant a lot to Rielle. Her speech was peppered with New Age jargon—human beings were dragged down by "blockages" to their actual potential; history was the story of souls entering and escaping our field of consciousness. A seminal book for her had been Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now." Her purpose on this Earth, she said, was to help raise awareness about all this, to help the unenlightened become better reflections of their true, repressed selves.

Her latest project was John Edwards. Edwards, she said, was an old soul who had barely tapped into any of his potential. The real John Edwards, she believed, was a brilliant, generous, giving man who was driven by competing impulses—to feed his ego and serve the world. If he could only tap into his heart more, and use his head less, he had the power to be a "transformational leader" on par with Gandhi and Martin Luther King. "He has the power to change the world," she said.

Oh, I think she tapped into a part of his body, but it wasn't the heart or head. It was the part that truly guides most men.

Then we have this website that is asking where Reille Hunter's new age website "beingisfree.org" went to. It's gone. Even for the Wayback machine. Poof.

Remember Bob McGovern? He was the one John Edwards said he really went to see that night at the Beverly Hills hotel to keep Rielle Hunter quiet. Who is this guy?

McGovern is an intuitive who has worked as a healer since 1988. He works with energy in the area of the emotional fields. He uses philosophy, psychology and the intuitive to find resolutions that move people back into alignment with the universe and into a place of peace, harmony and joy.

Ok, now we are fully immersed in the world of crazy. Good grief. John Edwards was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination for President.

But I will say this for him, he has real good friends.

h/t davejohnston on twitter

Geeze....

I'm gone for a girl's weekend and what happens? The whole John Edward's affair finally makes it to the mainstream media's attention.

I'm sure they would have ignored it this long if this had been..say...Mitt Romney. Right? Of course!

What is there to say here other than the obvious. It is shameful beyond words how he has hurt everyone pictured in the happy photo above.

At least we are still shocked by these things. At least we and the media are treating this with the proper disgust.

Affairs are nothing knew. Egocentric politicians having them are certainly nothing new. This is all juicy and we all can't help but be interested in it.

It just makes me sad.

Update: Wow. Check out this Huffington Post. They are giving Elizabeth Edwards grief about this.

UpdateII: I just found the most wonderful blogger. America Needs Me did such a perfect post on how ridiculous and hypocritical and not surprising that the NYT, The WaPo and the Los Angeles Times (to name a few) who wrote a kajillion stories on Rep. Larry Craig's sex life and a few on John McCain's couldn't find a way to verify the John Edwards story.

You have got to over and check out his two posts and read the paper's excuses. They are completely laugable. Summary?

Larry Craig’s sex life: “Newsworthy!”
John McCain’s sex life: “Newsworthy!”
Any Democrat’s John Edwards’ sex life: “Who?”