[2008] Democrats

Because I think Obama has the most to gain if this turns out to be true. Hillary doesn't really need this, she is way ahead already.

 

I'd disagree deepblue. This sounds like something out of the Clinton playbook -- a playbook full of underhanded dirty tricks and power grabs. Remember, Iowa is still a fairly close race, and losing it could make Hillary the next Howard Dean -- big lead only to see it crumble once their insanity was exposed. TIMBERRRRRR!!!!! SPLAT

 

I'm not entirely sure how one of the opposing campaigns would have found out.

 

It almost certainly is a lie. But, you know, put the seed of doubt out there and the job is done.

 

While that might be true, I just don't think a story like this isn't necessarily good for her considering Bill's history.

 

You're probably right...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/u...gin&adxnnlx=1192118068-luAXUDseYltbp/KRcO+G9A

 

Seriously

Who would want to inherit the clusterfuc that is Iraq? Not to mention trying to re-establish some semblance of dignity and respect around the world for anything American? Trying to undo the shredding of the constitution that this criminal has done?

Why anyone would want to follow this moron of a president is beyond me.

 

If I recall, the Republicans got the Obama in a Madrasa lie out there with the initial impression that it came from Hillary.

If I recall, they also threw something out there about Kerry having an affair that was easily proved to be false.

Now, it looks like the same old thing. Throw a lie out there, try to blame one of the other Dems, and watch the hijinks ensue.

Not coincidentally, this little story goes to one of Edward's strengths... his marriage and relationship with his wife, just as one of Kerry's strengths was his service. The standard Rove playbook is to attack your opponents strengths and with this story, it seems his minions have learned well. Whether it's effective anymore remains to be seen.

Looking at the campaign that seems to be gathering the most administration support, you can see motive and opportunity and why Rudy wants to tar and feather any potential Dem with family issues... though for some reason I don't fully understand, it seems cons have a special hate-on for Edwards.

This campaign will be nasty. The Repubs have absolutely nothing to run on and no doubt will be in full scorched-earth mode by next summer.

 

Yep, it'd be a pain. The rewards will be few. if we can just get back to anywhere close to 2000 by 2012, it will be a success, but not one that sets the hearts of politicians on fire because it will entail a lot of detailed, non-sexy work for a long time. But ask yourself what the logical outcome of your question might be... that there is no hope and that the next Pres will not really change anything. That's a bit pessimistic. I guess I hope that someone wants to be President to fix those things because they give a damn about this country.

This should be an election where the hard political calculus and oversized egos that drives so much of our public life should be diminished in favor of restoring the country. Most likely, it won't be... but it should be.

 

Why would the Republicans do this to Edwards, he is a distant third in the race, he is not even going to be there at the end.

Seems to me, the other Dems have a lot more to gain from this story than any particular Repubs.

 

He's running stronger in Iowa though, and an anti-Hillary has to emerge at some point.

Ask yourself the same question from the Dems perspective. If Edwards is running a distant third, why would Hillary take the chance that something like this could be linked back to her? Or, why would Obama do it if it could be linked back to him, particularly when he's running an "above the fray" campaign?

Repubs have much more to gain from stuff like this because it's a two-fer... get a rumor out there that diminishes a Dem candidate and blame it on another Dem candidate which diminishes them also.

 

Not that I think this is the case, but one possibility is that the GOP is concerned about losing the values voters due to all their own scandals. If you take the most family-values associated Dem and put him in a sex scandal, it may make that base reconsider whether the Dems are really a viable alternative. It's harder to do with Clinton because of her history and the fact that a sex-scandal works much better with a guy. Also, if Edwards has to drop out, for example, that creates a more difficult two-person race for Hillary, which makes her nomination take longer / more money.

That said, didn't the National Enquirer break some of the original Clinton scandals? I could be wrong, but I thought I had heard that somewhere.

 

Because Republicans would rather face Hillary or Obama in a general election. Both of them have have serious negatives due to history, gender and race, that Edwards does not have.

 

Did you read the part where I said "Mind you its the enquirer, so take it with a grain of salt."

I didn't just make stuff up, maybe you shouldn't as well.

 

Maybe, I just think there is no clear front runner in the GOP race, why even bother to harm a third place Dem when you can't even win your own race.

Unless the different Repub camps have a coordinated strategy, which I don't believe.

 

Wow, some liberal woke up on the wrong side of the VW Microbus this morning.

 

LOL, does your cat also have a national circulation? And I am pretty sure Hillary tipped off your cat.