Comments on: Edwards Scandal, The Press: Curious Campaign Connections with Rielle Hunter Excite No Curiosty

By: enough already

enough already — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:50:29 +0000

With a bit of Nancy Drew work, my guess is that this story would be found to be a part of the continuing Clinton campaign. Hillary is Karl Rove in drag.

By: mondoreb

mondoreb — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:26:16 +0000

who cares:

Whether a candidate tells the truth is an important issue, I think.

BTW, I’m an Independent.

Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

By: who cares

who cares — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:33:39 +0000

Really . . who cares . . grow up . . issues need to be debated not this crap. . your reporting is akin and as interesting as the the gossip of a pubescent teenage girl .. by the way I’m republican and I an SICK of people like you and Ann Coulter that give my political affiliation such a bad name

By: Brook

Brook — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:18:45 +0000

Edwards campaign mgr has now stepped forward and said it is HIS child — he was the cheater. Absolutely amazing that they take us for idiotic sheep. It was about as good of a story as they could make up, i suppose, considering the circumstances, but the truth always comes out in these cases. Edwards is finished. The Enquirer broke the Gary Hart story (which turned out to be true) and they would not risk the massive defamation lawsuit. You don’t expose a successful trial attorney without plenty of evidence. It’s sleazy, yes, but if Edwards is propelled forward by an Iowa win that threatens Hillary, look for it to get a lot more attention. Edwards wasn’t kidding when he said there are 2 Americas. He’s looking at it with 2 different faces.

What is NOT getting any attention at all is that Hillary has a court date for a lawsuit which exposes her with video and audio evidence breaking federal campaign laws. Folks, how many more Clinton skeletons have to come out of the closet, before the American people realize we’ve got to move on from the Bushes and Clintons? They belong in their respective libraries not public office.

By: mondoreb

mondoreb — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:16:22 +0000

framecop:

I think we’ll continue to ask pertinent questions until the Edwards campaign sees fit to answer them.

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

By: framecop

framecop — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:44:54 +0000

I get it now. The know-nothing editor of this blog just keeps POSTING THE SAME GARBAGE over and over again just so that it’ll keep showing up on Google News “Sort by Date.”

Now, I get it.

By: ptg

ptg — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:43:13 +0000

Perhaps Mr. Edwards is taking a cue from Bill Clinton. Sex affair rumors seem to have left Mr. Clinton quite wealthy and powerful. I can’t think of any other reasons for Mr. Edwards to be seeking the presidency besides wealth and power.

By: mondoreb

mondoreb — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:19:41 +0000

ClassAct:

Yes, it is.

Reporting on what is established fact is not.

Neither is asking pertinent questions.

It’s curious as to why you would make your reference to defamation. Are you merely a disinterested reader?

Or is there another reason you would drop a hint like this as a comment to the story?

Just one more question in a story that I am not the only one working on.

There’s a few of us to quiet down. There will be a lot more this time next week.

By: ClassAct

ClassAct — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:08:08 +0000

Let. It. Go.

Defamation is a crime.