<p>Ahahah!! Funny bullet. Every baby is a blessing, but some of these posts are hilarious.</p>
<p>Thank you very much. I’m here til Friday. Don’t forget tp tip the waitress. :)</p>
<p>I would be very disappointed if this were true. I think John Edwards’s wife is one of the best things about him. Their family has experienced such tragedy in the past decade; if this is a false accusation it is brutally cruel, worse than the usual mudslinging; if it is true it is very disilliusioning and sad.</p>
<p>Mathmom, look at the source. I was expecting them to report that Bigfoot was sueing for parental rights as well.</p>
<p>Now this from lusty Rudy</p>
<p>Giuliani: Waterboarding may be acceptable</p>
<p>may be he thinks that it is one of the act in Kamasutra</p>
<p>[CNN.com</a> - CNN Political Ticker](<a href=“http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]CNN.com”>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)</p>
<p>I have a horrible feeling about this. I read the article, and it’s waaaay more “reported” and lawyered-up than the standard bloid alien-baby crap. I think this story is going to have legs. Which is sad.</p>
<p>Edwards is, it would seem, on the horns of a terrible tactical dilemma here. </p>
<p>Being such a successful plaintiffs’ lawyer himself, if he doesn’t threaten to file a lawsuit, many folks will assume from his failure to do so that the story must be true. </p>
<p>But if he does threaten a lawsuit, that will just give the story more steam - plus, of course, if the story is true, that would be a complete defense to any lawsuit.</p>
<p>Unless this whole thing just goes away on its own (unlikely, it would seem, given the current political and social climate), I’m not at all sure how he deals with it.</p>
<p>(All of this, of course, doesn’t address what may be a much more significant issue: whether, even if true, any of this should matter here.)</p>
<p>Didn’t one of the 19th century presidents father a child out of wedlock. I seem to remember learning that it really didn’t hurt him, politically. Anybody remember?</p>
<p>It is a whole different thing with the immediancy of twenty-first century media, fewer free rides by the press! Hopefully, for the sake of his family, this rumor is nothing more than a political stunt.</p>
<p>Grover Cleveland… “Ma, ma, where’s my pa!”</p>
<p>For a sense of how quickly this story is catching fire, just go over to google’s blog search tool ([Google</a> Blog Search](<a href=“Google”>Google)), type in “John Edwards” and nothing more, and see what you come up with.</p>
<p>I hope it isn’t true, as well. I was being facetious before, but it is true that Drudge and the National Enquirer broke the blue dress story years ago and everyone said it couldn’t be true because of the sources, but it turned out to be. I’ve always said that I have a soft spot for Senator Edwards because of his son. So I’m not a hater here. I’m hoping that the story is not true.</p>
<p>Edwards had a zero chance of getting the nomination anyway so this has zero implications for the general election. However, I thought he was a good counter to Hilary and would keep her on her toes as long as he was in the race.</p>
<p>I do feel bad for him and his family. But geez, are we the most sex-obessed attention-deficit people on earth? How in the world do we come to be compared unfavorable with our 19-th century forebearers who tried to see past the indiscretions of their politicians to try to see the bigger picture. But we don’t seem capable.</p>
<p>It’s all nonsense:</p>
<p>
[EzraKlein</a> Archive | The American Prospect](<a href=“http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=anatomy_of_a_smear#103304]EzraKlein”>http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=anatomy_of_a_smear#103304)</p>
<p>Roger Altman’s paper of record.</p>
<p>momfromme…exactly! </p>
<p>The woman involved says the father is Andrew Young. Andrew Young also says he is the father. Others accuse him of taking the fall for Senator Edwards but who would do that and risk their own marriage over it? Further, the ONLY person who the article claims says Edwards was involved is the woman’s “confidante.” An anonymous confidante. It says that the pregnant woman wants no harm to Edward’s candidacy. If true, she tells little miss 'confidante" in confidence…and…well…this person, being the true friend and “confidante”, knowing her friend is “shielding Mr. Edwards,” then tells all. No wonder this is in the Enquirer. </p>
<p>I feel any candidate today is going to be the brunt of this kind of accusation drummed up in this sort of fashion. It almost seems part of the current political climate to create this fodder. Who in their right mind wants to run for President because such dirty claims are made and it seems to now go with the territory. Wish they could stick to what really matters. </p>
<p>Also, all this is based on some anonymous “confidante” 's claim, when those involved are saying quite the opposite, and in one case, Mr. Young would have all to lose to claim he was the father, considering he is a married man. I can see looking out for a friend but that would be over and beyond to say you had an affair, got a woman pregnant, all to cover for a friend?</p>
<p>This sort of thing is what ruined John McCain’s campaign in 2000. Apparently, after McCain’s big win in the New Hampshire primary, Bush operatives began circulating rumors in South Carolina that MCain had an illegitimate African-American child. That killed his chances in SC & the campaign ran out of steam. The worst part is that Senator McCain’s daughter is actually adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh!! How bad is that - to turn something so noble and good into a political scheme and use it against someone! Pretty despicable! </p>
<p>And that’s part of the reason why I think John McCain should’ve gotten the nominatin in 2000. If he had, we probably would be in better shape today!</p>
<p>Let’s see where a McCain nomination would take us this time around!</p>
<p>
You have no proof that candidate Bush was behind such an effort or that it had any effect on more than a handfull voters dumb enough to believe it. You are making excuses for a hot tempered candidate who was beaten by a better candidate.</p>
<p>But even if what you say is true, why is it relevant to this discussion? Are you saying Hillary is behind the love child allegation?</p>
<p>Post 32… “So I’m not a hater here”</p>
<p>Has all the credibility of “I did not have sex with that woman.”</p>
<p>“You are making excuses for a hot tempered candidate who was beaten by a better candidate.”</p>
<p>I note you did not say better man</p>