John Edwards love child?

[First]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No, there's also Barack Obama. If you're not a total hack, of course.

Yeah, but Obama doesn't need Edwards out. She does.

When you look in Iowa at people's second choice candidate, Edwards wins by a pretty whopping margin. Something like 3 to 1 over the other candidates.

And when you factor this incident in to the totality of the other shenanigans we've seen the past few weeks from Team Clinton (including the new attack web sites, the "Hussein" nonsense from Bob Kerrey, the "Did he sell drugs?", et al.) it is pretty clear where this is coming from.

WTF are you talking about? Obama holds a slight lead over Clinton in Iowa, with Edwards slightly trailing Clinton. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote...tory?id=4032576&page=1. Basically all within the margin of statistical error. Obama has just as much motivation to put out a hit piece as Hillary. In fact, Obama is also leading in NH: http://ap.google.com/article/A...99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TLF7KG0. The difference is you're too much of a partisan to see any of this.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

(If it is true... what an asshole. Cheating on his dying wife?)

Yep, that Newt Gingrich is somekind of wonderful....

She wasn't..dying..of cancer

thanks for clearing that up. The "Newt divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer" myth is a lie that gets perpetuated all over the place.

A divorce had been in the works long before the estranged wife entered the hospital and she wasnt dying of cancer. She had surgery to get rid of her cancer which was successful. She is still alive today.

Then I guess Newt is totally exonerated for perpetuating the divorce procedures while his wife was recovering from surgery, and for rallying the SoCons around the Clinton Sexual misconduct effigy while committing the same sins. Newt, I had you all wrong; you ROCK!

Newt is an exemplary moral standard which we should all strive to live up to.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Pabster-

Ah, yes. Why would we ever think Hillary would do something so dirty in a campaign...

As if she has some long list of prior offenses... even the list of accusations is rather short, compared to the rightwing slime machine...

The fact is, only one candidate truly benefits from Edwards being knocked out. And you know who that is.

I love the way you jump to conclusions, claim them as "fact"- standard wingnut procedure, reminscent of the invasion of Iraq....

Fact is, this artfully crafted round of mudslinging about the Dem contenders weakens all of them, and has the genetic fingerprints of the Swiftliars all over it...

I'll grant that Hillary is more like the repubs than the rest of the field, but that doesn't mean she's a graduate of the Lee Atwater school...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
WTF are you talking about? Obama holds a slight lead over Clinton in Iowa, with Edwards slightly trailing Clinton. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote...tory?id=4032576&page=1. Basically all within the margin of statistical error. Obama has just as much motivation to put out a hit piece as Hillary. In fact, Obama is also leading in NH: http://ap.google.com/article/A...99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TLF7KG0. The difference is you're too much of a partisan to see any of this.

Perhaps you don't understand the way the Caucus system works in Iowa.

You must reach 15% or your voters have an opportunity to recast votes for a second choice. Edwards overwhelmingly leads in second choice votes, as I noted, which means big trouble for Billary.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Pabster-

Ah, yes. Why would we ever think Hillary would do something so dirty in a campaign...

As if she has some long list of prior offenses... even the list of accusations is rather short, compared to the rightwing slime machine...

The fact is, only one candidate truly benefits from Edwards being knocked out. And you know who that is.

I love the way you jump to conclusions, claim them as "fact"- standard wingnut procedure, reminscent of the invasion of Iraq....

Fact is, this artfully crafted round of mudslinging about the Dem contenders weakens all of them, and has the genetic fingerprints of the Swiftliars all over it...

I'll grant that Hillary is more like the repubs than the rest of the field, but that doesn't mean she's a graduate of the Lee Atwater school...

If I'm not mistaken Atwater made a deathbed repentance for his slime.

 

[Thump553]

I have seen not a trace of this story in the legitamite media, and it seems to only be circulated among the internet by rightwingers.

Frankly, this whole thing smells of a complicated Rovian trick designed to make Hillary Clinton look bad. If John Edwards is hurt too, it's a two-fer.

If something develops of this, then it may be worth some attention. Right now, it's just noise.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I have seen not a trace of this story in the legitamite media, and it seems to only be circulated among the internet by rightwingers.

Yeah, those right-wing nut jobs that publish and circulate the National Enquirer are something else. :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

The long and the short of it is that this thread has now pushed rumor and innuendo to about its limit. Without some factual backing to the love child story, its going to induce joy
and rapture from people who don't think much of Edwards in the first place, but those inclined to support Edwards or neutral to Edwards are still waiting and waiting and waiting for some credible evidence to back the story. And will probably soon ignore the scurrilous charges if someone can't back them with better proof.

And in terms of Hillary or Karl Rove being behind pushing the story into the national spotlight, its again, anything is possible, but you better show something more than speculation.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry double post

 

[OutHouse]

ummm i hate to say it but when the enquirer brakes stories like this they are pretty much true. They have been sued enough times by false stories that im sure they would absolutely make sure this woman is pregnant by Edwards.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm i hate to say it but when the enquirer brakes stories like this they are pretty much true. They have been sued enough times by false stories that im sure they would absolutely make sure this woman is pregnant by Edwards.

Bwuahahahahahahah. You sound like my old Grandma The N.E. is counting on nobody taking this seriously and that Edwards won't even dignify this story by suing them, besides not even Drudge is reporting this.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm i hate to say it but when the enquirer brakes stories like this they are pretty much true. They have been sued enough times by false stories that im sure they would absolutely make sure this woman is pregnant by Edwards.

Bwuahahahahahahah. You sound like my old Grandma The N.E. is counting on nobody taking this seriously and that Edwards won't even dignify this story by suing them, besides not even Drudge is reporting this.

i know, i know.

the other news agencies are waiting for better sources before they start printing that. talk about a explosive story....

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
WTF are you talking about? Obama holds a slight lead over Clinton in Iowa, with Edwards slightly trailing Clinton. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote...tory?id=4032576&page=1. Basically all within the margin of statistical error. Obama has just as much motivation to put out a hit piece as Hillary. In fact, Obama is also leading in NH: http://ap.google.com/article/A...99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TLF7KG0. The difference is you're too much of a partisan to see any of this.

Perhaps you don't understand the way the Caucus system works in Iowa.

You must reach 15% or your voters have an opportunity to recast votes for a second choice. Edwards overwhelmingly leads in second choice votes, as I noted, which means big trouble for Billary.

That doesn't mean anything either, since there is no reason to believe the votes will be recast. And even if they are, do you even realize that Clinton would rather have Edwards win Iowa than Obama? She'd rather come in 3rd in Iowa with Edwards winning than 2nd in Iowa with Obama winning. You're truly out of your element.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
WTF are you talking about? Obama holds a slight lead over Clinton in Iowa, with Edwards slightly trailing Clinton. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote...tory?id=4032576&page=1. Basically all within the margin of statistical error. Obama has just as much motivation to put out a hit piece as Hillary. In fact, Obama is also leading in NH: http://ap.google.com/article/A...99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TLF7KG0. The difference is you're too much of a partisan to see any of this.

Perhaps you don't understand the way the Caucus system works in Iowa.

You must reach 15% or your voters have an opportunity to recast votes for a second choice. Edwards overwhelmingly leads in second choice votes, as I noted, which means big trouble for Billary.

That doesn't mean anything either, since there is no reason to believe the votes will be recast. And even if they are, do you even realize that Clinton would rather have Edwards win Iowa than Obama? She'd rather come in 3rd in Iowa with Edwards winning than 2nd in Iowa with Obama winning. You're truly out of your element.

Pabster is correct - you haven't a clue how the democrats run the caucus here.

Caucus goer goes to meeting.
doors close.
spew some spittle.
break up into groups for who you support.
Those with less that 15% MUST then go find a new candidate to support until there is no group with less than 15%. It's how edwards did so well last time - he got the kookcinich supporters to back him. And yes, it means trouble for hillary because she'll get very few of those second chance caucus goers while edwards and obamarama will get the kookcinich and richardson supporters.

 

[alchemize]

Just to come full circle on this, and This thread.

Today: Sources: Edwards to admit paternity of ex-mistress' child

What a douchebag. King of the douchebags.

"I'm not cheating on my cancer-striken wife that I just trotted across the stage"
"OK, maybe a cheated a bit, but that's not my kid!"
"OK, maybe it's my kid"

It's going to get better:

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The long and the short of it is that this thread has now pushed rumor and innuendo to about its limit. Without some factual backing to the love child story, its going to induce joy
and rapture from people who don't think much of Edwards in the first place, but those inclined to support Edwards or neutral to Edwards are still waiting and waiting and waiting for some credible evidence to back the story. And will probably soon ignore the scurrilous charges if someone can't back them with better proof.

And in terms of Hillary or Karl Rove being behind pushing the story into the national spotlight, its again, anything is possible, but you better show something more than speculation.

sooo...did you want to say something?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The long and the short of it is that this thread has now pushed rumor and innuendo to about its limit. Without some factual backing to the love child story, its going to induce joy
and rapture from people who don't think much of Edwards in the first place, but those inclined to support Edwards or neutral to Edwards are still waiting and waiting and waiting for some credible evidence to back the story. And will probably soon ignore the scurrilous charges if someone can't back them with better proof.

And in terms of Hillary or Karl Rove being behind pushing the story into the national spotlight, its again, anything is possible, but you better show something more than speculation.

sooo...did you want to say something?

Heh - if you really want to have fun, read the other thread where of course Craig234 goes on and on not only to defend Edwards (and at the same time extoll Larry Flynt/Hustler magazine as a "better source" than the enquirer", then go on to defend a convicted left wing pedophile I'm sure Harvey will be back eating crow on this one too

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The long and the short of it is that this thread has now pushed rumor and innuendo to about its limit. Without some factual backing to the love child story, its going to induce joy
and rapture from people who don't think much of Edwards in the first place, but those inclined to support Edwards or neutral to Edwards are still waiting and waiting and waiting for some credible evidence to back the story. And will probably soon ignore the scurrilous charges if someone can't back them with better proof.

And in terms of Hillary or Karl Rove being behind pushing the story into the national spotlight, its again, anything is possible, but you better show something more than speculation.

sooo...did you want to say something?

Heh - if you really want to have fun, read the other thread where of course Craig234 goes on and on not only to defend Edwards (and at the same time extoll Larry Flynt/Hustler magazine as a "better source" than the enquirer", then go on to defend a convicted left wing pedophile I'm sure Harvey will be back eating crow on this one too

yeah how long should we wait? lol

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Gotta love those Democratic values.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Oh snap.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just to come full circle on this, and This thread.

Today: Sources: Edwards to admit paternity of ex-mistress' child

What a douchebag. King of the douchebags.

"I'm not cheating on my cancer-striken wife that I just trotted across the stage"
"OK, maybe a cheated a bit, but that's not my kid!"
"OK, maybe it's my kid"

It's going to get better:

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.

Come come now Alky. You know as well as anyone does that lefties like Edwards don't preach "family values", that makes him exempt from complaint dont'cha know? Funny, people feign suprise and shock when an (R) is exposed as a scumbag, but I expect if from a (D)......their lack of morality is what makes them a (D) after all, don't it?

 

[waggy]

lol i don't care that he has that little (D) or even a (R). the guy is just a fucking dickehead..hmm maybe thats what teh D stands for eh?

really this guy is a paice of work. his wife is dieing of cancer. he parades her around on TV while he is fucking a girl on the side? then denies it and pays her off? ugh sickening. but i guess thats between him, his wife and whatever god (if any) he worships. But i for one would never vote for him again.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: waggy
lol i don't care that he has that little (D) or even a (R). the guy is just a fucking dickehead..hmm maybe thats what teh D stands for eh?

really this guy is a paice of work. his wife is dieing of cancer. he parades her around on TV while he is fucking a girl on the side? then denies it and pays her off with campaign funds? ugh sickening. but i guess thats between him, his wife and whatever god (if any) he worships and federal prosecutors. But i for one would never vote for him again.

Fixed that for you

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: waggy
lol i don't care that he has that little (D) or even a (R). the guy is just a fucking dickehead..hmm maybe thats what teh D stands for eh?

really this guy is a paice of work. his wife is dieing of cancer. he parades her around on TV while he is fucking a girl on the side? then denies it and pays her off with campaign funds? ugh sickening. but i guess thats between him, his wife and whatever god (if any) he worships and federal prosecutors. But i for one would never vote for him again.

Fixed that for you

lol yeah that too!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just to come full circle on this, and This thread.

Today: Sources: Edwards to admit paternity of ex-mistress' child

What a douchebag. King of the douchebags.

"I'm not cheating on my cancer-striken wife that I just trotted across the stage"
"OK, maybe a cheated a bit, but that's not my kid!"
"OK, maybe it's my kid"

It's going to get better:

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter to keep quiet about the affair.

Come come now Alky. You know as well as anyone does that lefties like Edwards don't preach "family values", that makes him exempt from complaint dont'cha know? Funny, people feign suprise and shock when an (R) is exposed as a scumbag, but I expect if from a (D)......their lack of morality is what makes them a (D) after all, don't it?

As having no visible signs of intelligence makes for a (R)) LOL!!

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.