In case you missed the big news from the John Edwards trial this afternoon, yes, it is true, I had to take Edgeworth north to Battleground because Eugene Street was so clogged with cops and news vans and such. 

Also, this.

Comments

[justcorbly]

I hope that's it and the prosectors don't go for a retrial. But, a big part of me wants campaign finance law fixed so the next Bunny can't give $1 million to any candidate for anything.

I'll be told that violates the free speech rights of Bunnies, Pfffft. Million-dollar contributions violate my right to a fair election.

[prell]

I was able to muster a few drops of sympathy for John Edwards over the past few weeks. But then he had to go and open his mouth, and towards the end of his comments/speech he seemed to venture into campaign mode. He said he wanted to help the less-fortunate children of the world. How bold of him. No one wants to help the children anymore. He should stick to his own children by retiring from public life so they won't have to live through the past 5+ years again. I'd have a lot of respect for him if he just went away, but I don't think he's got that in him. Mike Easley should call him ASAP.

[justcorbly]

BTW, congrats to little ol' WCHL in Chapel Hill, who had the accurate story on the air before I saw or heard it anywhere else. I gather CNN botched it.

[Spag]

"“He would have to do something that he really did believe in because people are going to always suspect he’s a phony. And any whiff of phoniness they ever get about him, they’ll say, well, ‘I knew he was a phony.’” - Gary Pearce

I knew he was a phony .

[Jim Buie]

Sam certainly has a right to say "I told you so" for his insights into the phoniness of John Edwards in 2007 and 2008. In 2006, when I was in the same line of work as Edwards -- anti-poverty -- I wrote after an encounter with him that he was probably a phony. This showed no special insight -- it was a common perception in the "anti-poverty community" in NC.

Since Sam probably thinks all anti-poverty work is phony, he showed no special insight either. What would be more impressive is if he reported that someone in the same ideological ballpark as he is, say Mitt Romney, is a phony.

BTW, I remembered later that there was a glittering camerawoman at that Edwards event "from New York" who had no business card and stammered a bit when I asked who she worked for. For some strange reason, Edwards' staff quickly steered me away from her.

[Collards]

Any building a 24,000 sq. foot house while taking on the cause of poverty has not credibility.

[bubba]

"I knew he was a phony ."

The last link establishes just how deluded certain local "progressives" were regarding Edwards and his chances to win the Iowa caucuses in '08 in prelude to his coronation as their nominee.

We're left to wonder......Would Edwards have been a worse disaster as president than Obama has proven himself to be?

[Ed Cone]

I actually sensed some coolness toward Edwards from NC Democrats, and I think it started early, when he seemed to be running for the White House as soon as he hit the Senate.

[sittinginthemiddle]

He should probably call Bill Clinton for advice.

[Spag]

Jim, it never ceases to amaze me how you seem to have such insight into what I probably think and then proceed to just make things up.

The idea that I should make up some reason to call Romney a phony in order to validate my argument or credibility is also ridiculous. I know it hurts for you to admit I was right on the money, but you could at least be a man about it.

[Jim Buie]

Sam and Bubba were "right on the money" about John Edwards. So there, I said it.

Sam, if you don't think all "anti-poverty programs" are phony, please enlighten us on which ones you support: food stamps? EITC? My point was that assuming the worst of those you disagree with politically is basically a knee-jerk reaction. Taking an honest measure -- expressing criticism or acknowledging weaknesses of those we're in the same ballpark with politically and praising or acknowledging the strengths of leaders we disagree with politically is a higher level of analysis, isn't it?

[Spag]

Jim why do you have this annoying tactic of making assertions about things that I never said and then asking me to prove the assertion that I never made by debating it ?

So if you didn't beat your wife this time, tell us why not ?

Not playing.

[Bill Cunningham]

Spag is da man.

Yeah.. God is not through with you yet Johnny Reid.

Hooie on Buie

Hooray for Bubba