Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Sources have come forward to charge that the "other woman" previously worked on Edwards' campaign and followed the 54-year-old candidate on trips across the U.S.

A source close to the woman, whose name is being withheld by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, says that she confessed to having an affair in phone calls and emails, saying that her work with Edwards soon exploded into romance. The shocking allegation -- if proven true -- could devastate the Democratic hopeful's campaign, especially because John's devoted wife Elizabeth is locked in a desperate battle with breast cancer.

"The affair started about 18 months ago," a friend says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately.

"She never expected it would turn sexual since John is married and is running for President. But it soon did -- and she fell for him."

In one bombshell e-mail message provided to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, the woman confesses to a friend she's "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

In another e-mail, she writes: "Last night and this a.m., he actually has amazed me. He is a great man. My heart is loud and my head is silenced."

Disclosed her friend: "She initially confided in a few of her closest pals that she was sleeping with a married man named John.'

"It became clear the married man was John Edwards. They got together whenever they could, mostly at hotels where Edwards and his campaign staff stayed."

The woman later spelled it out in a phone call to her pal and talked openly about having an affair with Edwards.

The friend says the woman told her that she "had a crush on John. One thing led to another, and they soon ended up in bed together. But she knew there was no way he was going to leave Elizabeth, a wife battling cancer."

The ex-Senator's wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004. This past March, the couple announced her cancer had returned, but said his campaign would continue.

His spokesman said that allegations Edwards had an affair are "false, absolute nonsense."

The woman's friend told The NATIONAL ENQUIRER: "As the affair went on, she said that both she and John began to feel real guilty and they decided to end it."

The ENQUIRER made exhaustive but unsuccessful attempts to reach the woman for comment regarding this article but she would not return phone calls or emails or come to the door of the house where she is staying.

I'm very impressed with the sourcing on this piece.
No question, the NE will be a heavy favorite for a Pulitzer.

This is actually the first in a series the NE plans to run during the primary season. Here's a peak at some upcoming exposes:

"Hillary Fucks Bill. . .Not!"
"Bush Fucks America"
"Cheney Took a Reach Around from Bush"
"Obama's Wife Screws Guy Who Lived Abroad"
"Mitt Romney Baptizes Dead"
"Rudy: Don't Knock Cousins Until You Try Them"
"Huckabee: How Was I To Know She Was A He?"

When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit, Cock Starvis?

"When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit,"

Kate Hudson, 2006

Nothing in the article about a baby.

Wreck his campain they said.... HAHAHA.... This guy was born to be the runner up, never the princess.

"When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit"

I guess you need to brush up on the "public figure" idea in American law.

When you're done, give me a jingle.

"When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit"

Are you only incorrect in your reporting when someone is victorious in a libel suit against you?

The NE would be at the bottom of the cesspool if it wasn't for Fox Noise.

The NE would be at the bottom of the cesspool if it wasn't for Fox Noise.

Posted by axe at 2007-12-18 08:59 PM | Reply

Oh horseshit. The National Enquirer would be at thye bottom of the pile if it weren't for those little old gossipy Ladies that buy them so they and their bridge/canasta clubs would have something to gossip over. OLD LADIES KEEP IT AFLOAT

Larry Mohr

Larry,

My point is that the only thing keeping NE from being the lowest piece of shit in the cesspool is Fox Noise who has that title sewn up. They coat the entire bottom 6 inches thick.

Any bets as to how this story (real or not) happened to leak out now... and who is really responsible for the leak?

Everyone hopes they can break the next Monica and/or Gary Hart story.

Very important stuff. Pay close attention to every salcious detail. There might be something to top the porn catalogue that Starr published.

Regards,
etc.

and who is really responsible for the leak?

Clinton?

After all of Rudy's romances, this hardly makes much of a headline.

and who is really responsible for the leak?

Only his hair dresser knows for sure.

Posted by Lee_Atwater at 2007-12-18 10:09 PM

and who is really responsible for the leak?

Clinton?

nothing to see here according to my dhimmitwit mother - ALL presidents (or candidates) cheat on their wives...

move along and pay no attention to the little man in the booth over there...

DOC-
Who do you think was the driving force behind this story emerging when it did?

You people can't seriously believe this, do you??

And Oohrah...you can't seriously be asking that question either.

Seems like the GOP are at it again with the "love child" theme.

"When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit"

Like I posted earlier, Doc. Kate Hudson won a libel suit against the NE as recently as last year. I think the first time they lost one was Carol Burnett in the early 80's.

Judging from Bowa's info on the ownership of the rag, there may be a budding case here for the malice argument.

Lisa-
I don't think the Rep party views Edwards as a serious threat in the general campaign. Edwards is, however, a serious Dem challenger to Hill and Obama in Iowa (if nowhere else). A second place finish (and a third by Hill) is not good for her. Likewise for Obama. A two person horse race is ideal for the top two contenders. This has Clinton, Inc., stamped all over it.

Put your detective hat on for a moment. Since it's safe to assume Edwards didn't put the story out there to gain sympathy... then it had to come from a source. Beyond that, someone had to decide to actually run the piece. Follow the money - Bowa posted an ownership piece from the NY Times. Money, motive, opportunity.

Just like with the 'cross' appearing behind the Huck, virtually NOTHING happens by accident during the campaign season.

"I don't think the Rep party views Edwards as a serious threat in the general campaign. Edwards is, however, a serious Dem challenger to Hill and Obama in Iowa (if nowhere else)."

Let's think about this shall we:

You claim the reps aren't concerned about Edwards, but dems are...and by your own omission, only slightly.

If the dems are concerned about Edwards, then it would stand to reason that republicans would as well since one of their own will be facing him if elected as the dem candidate. Let's look at the recent "stories" shall we....Obama's middle name made an issue....Hillary's "close" relationship to a woman, now...Edwards "love child". And the only people jumping on these bandwagons are republicans. Democrats aren't repeating this nonsense...it's all republicans who keep bringing this crap up.

The past couple elections have brought out all kinds of bullshit...only to be discovered they were backed with republican ties.

And you think THIS is being done by democrats???

LMAO

Poor Oohrah, put on your common sense hat and think about this.

He didn't knock up Jamie Lynn Spears, did he?

DOC-
Who do you think was the driving force behind this story emerging when it did?
Posted by OohRah

Hurt or help Edwards in Iowa would be my guess. Depends on how intricately one wants to weave the webs of conspiracy. What's your take, Oohrah?

"If the dems are concerned about Edwards, then it would stand to reason that republicans would as well since one of their own will be facing him if elected as the dem candidate." - LISA

Reps would LOVE to run against Edwards in the general election. Just like Dems would LOVE to run against Huck. It makes no sense for Reps to knock Edwards out (now) and give a nice boost the the top two Dems, either of whom would present a MUCH more difficult challenge in the general election. I don't see how you reach a different conclusion.

Edwards presents a MAJOR threat to Hillary IN IOWA, right now. If Edwards takes either first or second, bumping Hill to third it is a major issue for Hillary. Edwards isn't gonna take the Dem nomination, but he DOES present a problem in Iowa.

I freely acknowledge both parties dig for dirt on adversaries. It's not relegated to one party. Are you suggesting it resides only within the Rep party?

I'm saying, in this instance, who stands to gain the most from a sudden crash & burn on Edwards' part? Who has the money, motive and opportunity?

Edwards has put most all his eggs in the Iowa basket... and (based on polling) is a serious contender there. You don't see people releasing crap about also rans. It's only when they present a threat... and Edwards represents an Iowa threat to Hill & O.

"When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit"
Like I posted earlier, Doc...
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Informational post, SA, but it wasn't my question. That was Lee Atwater, who probably didn't know the answer and definitely has no understanding of the "public figure" doctrine in US law.

In other words, Lisa, Reps want to help keep Edwards alive now... just like a couple weeks ago when the media started talking up Huck. Either would likely be a disaster for his respective party's chances.

If Edwards happens to win the Dem party nomination, then the Rep gloves come off. But we see Hill & O as the two serious challenges. We have no incentive to screw up Edwards' chances at this point. To the contrary, we ought to be promoting him like the MSM has promoted Huck.

OOhrah,

Let's just see how this unfolds. I called it before it became factual that the republican party was behind the swift boaters...let's just see about this one and the other little nonsense that has been used against other democratic candidates.

And whoever you are...please don't call me honey child.

That Hillary is even considered to be behind something like this speaks volumes about her character.

DOC-
I don't see how this ultimately helps Edwards gain any degree of sympathy. Unless somehow he's able to disprove it and 100% pin the accusation on Hill or O. That would be VERY difficult to pull off.

And if there's a grain of truth to it, he's cooked. Sleeping around on your cancer ridden wife who's been your biggest advocate all these years. He's put himself out there as such a strong family man, etc... this would be devastating if true - or at least can't be refuted sufficiently.

"That Hillary is even considered to be behind something like this speaks volumes about her character."

LOL

Let's take a look at the posters who "consider" Hillary to be behind this ok.

They're almost ALL republicans!!! LOL Of course they don't think much about her character...they try to destroy it.

And I hate having to defend her...I'm not a fan of hers but fair is fair and when you people try making an issue out of her being behind this, like it's factual....I'm forced to defend her.

That Hillary is even considered to be behind something like this speaks volumes about her character.

Actually, it speaks volumes about how some people perceive her character. Much of politics is theatre, and in political theatre perception becomes reality.

I'm with you on this Oohrah. He'd have to come up with ironclad proof, or at least something that would create the perception (see how it works, Wis?) of ironclad proof. Absent that, it lingers.

And if it's true, then, yes, the souffle falls.

This is a particularly nasty kind of political activity and damned hard to fight. It's right up there with "When did you stop beating your wife." Look at all the accusations made against Bill Clinton. I'm not defending the guy, except to say that many of them remained unproven. Yet they stick and turn up on the DR regularly. Rumor moves like oil atop water. Hard to control. I'm glad I'm an observer and not a participant as I once was, because the boundaries have shifted considerably over the years (and not for the improvement of the system).

They're almost ALL republicans!!!
Posted by Lisa

Lisa, ask people you run into face to face today who they think is behind it. I'm not saying she is, but that's the perception.

"I'm forced to defend her." - LISA

No one's forcing anything upon you. Events/stories like these don't magically appear from some vacuum. I'm asking people to consider what detectives consider when investigating something: motive, opportunity, etc.

Yet you seem to cling to the thought that all evil propaganda in the political world is Rep originated and driven. There's plenty on both sides to go around.

I don't "know" her campaign's behind it with 100% certainty. That said, look at her history, Bill's history... the financial ties between the publication and the Clintons... the timing of the whole thing... who most stands to LOSE if Edwards wins Iowa, etc.

I you choose to look at all those factors and stick to the thought a Rep is behind it, that's your perrogative.

DOC-
Edwards is from my state (NC) and is probably a very nice man but his political standing here was such that he would have had a difficult time retaining his Senate seat.

That he couldn't lock up NC for Kerry speaks to his strength down here.

As a Rep I'd love to have him as the Dem candidate, especially compared with Hill & O.

I've considered entering politics several times. It's stories like this about Edwards that really turn me off - the nastiness (and sometimes outright lies) that goes on escalates as you seek higher office.

Not that I've boned my assistant... well OK, I have. It's my wife. But you get my point. Why people subject themselves to the crap in return for power is an interesting subject, for me anyway.

It will be interesting to see what Elizabeh has to say.

OOHRAH -
Remember Edwards' performance when he debated Cheney? Pathetic. I don't think he has the heft to pull off running at the top of the ticket. But I"m sure the GOP would LOVE to see him as the nominee (which I doubt will happen). Just as a Dem wetdream would be Huckabee, but that isn't going to happen either. (Though as I wrote that I got the little twinge that says, "Don't be so sure.")

I used to be very involved in politics. But, like you, I wouldn't subject myself to the scrutiny today. Forget what I've done, it's what people might say I've done. And once you have to start explaining, you start to sink. Just look at Romney on flip-flopping. (Same thing happened to Kerry...the GOP beat his brains out with the "I voted for before I voted against" line.)

DOC-
100% agreement with you.
I'd love to run against Edwards in the general election. It makes NO sense to contribute to his demise at this point in the game.

And for the Huckster, the Dems and their willing partners in the media need to keep promoting him.

I honestly don't know who will win the Rep race, or even who I 'hope' wins. I think Romney is probably the best combination of accomplishment & personality. He's certainly not without faults or dents in the armor, but on balance it's probably the best bet to wage a national campaign and win against the Dems. Will he be far enough 'right' on the issues to emerge from the primaries? That's a valid question, as it is for Rudy.

" Events/stories like these don't magically appear from some vacuum."

LMAO

You're right. They are strategicly placed.

It's so Rovian.

WTF

Where are the pictures of the little Black Baby?

And why the change, stick with old tried and true Push Polls!

He's a relatively young, healthy, multi-millionaire married to a fatty... yeah... he's probably thrown his dick in some side pussy from time-to-time... This isn't surprising.

this is NOT a GOP scheme - the person who owns this rag is close, personal friends with the clintons.

think again.

this race will come down to the person who has the LEAST scandals under their belt. there are NO good candidates, at least not any who will make it to the end.

I am surprised it's not Bush's fault. Or is it?

So best buds Andrew Young is the fall guy--

He says it's his bundle of joy? ANd he moves the tart into a house a few doors down from his place--where HE lives with his own wife and kids? And buys the tart a car?

And from the NE reporter--

"Rielle told me while Andrew Young is a friend, she's not romantically involved with him," says the source close to Rielle. "Rielle says he's been responsible for finding her a place to live and even getting her a car to drive.

"If he really were the father of her baby and had engaged in an extramarital affair with her, I doubt seriously that he'd bring his wife and kids over to her house for dinner -- which Rielle told me he did a few weeks ago.

"Rielle has said from the beginning that the baby is John's, but she appears willing to do whatever they want her to do to protect his candidacy.

"I think what's taking place is simply a cover-up by Edwards' campaign."

And no one has denied the source's information that Rielle has been in phone contact with Edwards since finding out she is pregnant.

When ENQUIRER reporters contacted Young in person at his home on Dec. 12, he became furious -- and denied he was Andrew Young.

He also denied knowing "any Rielle Hunter," yelling at the top of his voice: "You don't even know who I am!" But when his wife called him "Andrew," he shot her a dirty look.


Could you imagine the dirty look he would give to his wife about impregnating another woman and she lives down the street?

Sorry--but this has Clinton all over it. If it was the Repubs--they would have waited for him to get to the top and them blow him up.

And NE owned by another Clinton buddy--how quaint.

Murphy

Murphy...

It doesn't make any sense for the Clinton's to be behind this. Edward's is Hillary's savior in Iowa because its obvious that more than 50% of the caucus goers are going to vote against her, and if Edwards becomes toxic, Obama is going to reap the benefits moreso than Hillary.

Maybe this just happened to come out before the Clinton camp would have liked. Preferably this would have had a greater impact after the South Carolina primary than now as it regards improving Hillary's chances of winning the nomination.

I was going to make some snide comment about how this could help Edwards with his manliness image, but Oohrah's right. His wife has cancer, and any allegation of cheating on her isn't going to go over well.

If it's true he's done. If it's false, he's still damaged, and I hope he forgets about tort reform and sues the shit out of the NE for libel.
I agree, this kind of shit is what keeps the good people out of politics.

Tony is right-o.

Clinton camp must be in shock if this story is true, as they were counting on Edwards to beat Obama in Iowa.

Unless the Enquirer is willing to name their source, this is just another space alien baby story from them.

And if it's not true, John Edwards is the last lawyer they would want to piss off.

"John Edwards is the last lawyer they would want to piss off."

He'd have to prove malice, and it would take ages.

"Clinton camp must be in shock if this story is true, as they were counting on Edwards to beat Obama in Iowa." - CORKY

Is that "code" for saying Hillary won't win Iowa?
I think the worst thing (from Clinton's standpoint) is to come in third in Iowa, trailing any combo of Obama & Edwards. She's already tried to damage Obama. Now it's Johnnie's turn at the whipping post.

If she comes in a decent second, then she can reload for New Hampshire. But a third place in Iowa? Bad, bad.

This is Edwards' lone stand. Knock him out early,,, make it a two person race.

Oh horseshit. The National Enquirer would be at thye bottom of the pile

The NE broke the Limblow Hillbilly Heroin story.

A source close to the woman, whose name is being withheld by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER

Anonymous sources = bullshit.

Sincerely,

The Right.

He's a relatively young, healthy, multi-millionaire married to a fatty

Coming from a righty, I am not surprised that family values and love mean nothing.

Oh Oohrah,

Most analysts have said Clinton would prefer to be third to a second place Obama than second to a first place Obama.

And all of them have said that Clinton wants to keep Edwards into NH at least, as they think many Edwards supporters will go to Obama.

But do check under your bed for any Clintons.

I happened to catch a bit of Rush Limbaugh this morning and he went down the line of possible Democrat suspects who could have done this love child hit piece on John Edwards. Everyone was eliminated except for Hillary Clinton. I agree with Rush on this one. Edwards is leading in the Iowa polls. The "love child" gossip/hit piece has "Clinton" written all over it.

John Edwards is leading in the Iowa polls.
This love child rumor is not Obama's style.
Hillary Clinton put out this hit piece/lie about John Edwards.

Shame on you Hillary for playing such dirty politics.

FF for Blue--


The problem when a campaign goes negative and digs out crap for their opponents is that they become the culprit on everything.

And fourtunately or unfortunatly--whichever--for Edwards--is that this will be out there until Jan 3rd.

Geez I thought Hillary couldn't change the subject of her campaign dirty tricks in the news-Shaheen---Penn, kindergarten--Hussein, drugs---fired volunteers--but I guess I was wrong.

Murphy

How old is the child and where is he/she?

Before it snowballs, a simple dna could clear the cloud and vindicate John if he didn't do it. Not coming forward would be very damaging to his presidential hope. (A trial lawyer should know better).

Where is the child?

Where is the child?

Posted by takitez

Still in Breck Boy's girlfriends womb

American Media owns the National Enquirer as well as many other rags.

Lisa -- and as we know from the NY Times article in 1999:

"But do check under your bed for any Clintons." - CORKY

Interesting choice of words there Corky.

FF for Oohrah!

I second that Oorah. Cork steps in it again.

Coming from a righty, I am not surprised that family values and love mean nothing.

Posted by 726


How much do you weigh? that "fatty" line really stung you didn't it?

Most analysts have said Clinton would prefer to be third to a second place Obama than second to a first place Obama.

And those analysts work for Obama and Edwards of course?

What a moronic thing to say Corky.

If Clinton comes in 3rd in Iowa -- I think she's probably done. An Edwards win, will raise eyebrows and immediately put the south in play for him -- peeling votes away from "too damaged" Hillary. A 2nd place for Obama, ahead of Hillary, will be viewed as a great "comeback" to overtake the former front runner. The race then comes down to blog roots wet dream -- Obama vs Edwards with the hated and "aging" Hillary packing her bags.

How much do you weigh? that "fatty" line really stung you didn't it?

~The DR's Resident Sphincter Thief

So by yer logic Rob you think it's cool to fuck some hagged out bar-slut while yer wife was pregnant with yer child.

Did you at least go to her place?

Didn't do it in yer marital bed, did ya?

Ewww!

Be Well.

PS: Don't fergit to flag Spud's post as abusive you whiny li'l puss-tard.

So by yer logic Rob you think it's cool to fuck some hagged out bar-slut while yer wife was pregnant with yer child.

The ol' lady had one of those interesting pregnancies where she barely put on any fat weight and at 9 months was on the low end of the range for weight gain... she rules...

PS: Don't fergit to flag Spud's post as abusive you whiny li'l puss-tard.

Posted by dethspud

Wouldn't matter if I did... Rogers doesn't dump comments from Liberals. That's not what the "Moderation" policy is for.

We know the value of your political analysis, Bowow, with Rudy doing so well and all.

The analysis I repeated was from just about every pol pundit that has voiced an opinion on the subject, including Tony Roma, lol, that Clinton wants Edwards in the race through NH.

Where she has regained a double-digit lead by the way.


Rightwing Trolls for Obama '08!!

Spud how much does your wife weigh? that one really cut you a lot deeper then it did 726...

Guess its legal to marry a horse in Canada...

We know the value of your political analysis, Bowow, with Rudy doing so well and all.

You are kidding right. My political analysis has been right on. As far as I know. nobody except me here expected Rudy to be leading the GOP field at this late date...so what are you talking about?

And Corky, look at the fields -- Rudy is doing better then Hillary is right now. He was never the "Inevitable" candidate like Hillary -- in fact he has shocked most pundits that he's lasted this long in the race.

And the GOP race is so split, that Rudy could lose Iowa, NH, and SC, and still be in the thick of it. And a win in Florida leading into super tuesday makes him the favorite ion most of those big states and for the nomination.

Hillary's path is much more intense and final.

If Hillary comes in any lower then 2nd in Iowa, I think it's all over for her for the reasons explained in my above post.

Other scenarios that play out if she comes in 2nd are as follows:

If Edwards wins, and Obama comes in 3rd. The "spin" will be that Edwards has been running in Iowa for 4 years so his win isn't surprising -- so Hillary picks up some momentum. Obama in 3rd place however will be a big loss for him. But not a death blow. Obama needs to win either NH or SC to remain in the race at that point.

Edwards needs to do well in NH -- and if he does, he has a shot to take SC.

If Obama wins Iowa with Hillary 2nd and Edwards 3rd. It is all over for Edwards. Obama comes out with huge momentum going into NH. And Hillary would need to stop him there in order to stop the "Obama Express". If that happens it becomes a two-way race in SC -- and the nomination just might be decided by which way the majority of blacks in South carolina break -- will they go for Hillary or Obama?

We know the value of your political analysis, Bowow, with Rudy doing so well and all.

You are kidding right. My political analysis has been right on. As far as I know. nobody except me here expected Rudy to be leading the GOP field at this late date...so what are you talking about?

And Corky, look at the fields -- Rudy is doing better then Hillary is right now. He was never the "Inevitable" candidate like Hillary -- in fact he has shocked most pundits that he's lasted this long in the race.

And the GOP race is so split, that Rudy could lose Iowa, NH, and SC, and still be in the thick of it. And a win in Florida leading into super tuesday makes him the favorite ion most of those big states and for the nomination.

Hillary's path is much more intense and final.

If Hillary comes in any lower then 2nd in Iowa, I think it's all over for her for the reasons explained in my above post.

Other scenarios that play out if she comes in 2nd are as follows:

If Edwards wins, and Obama comes in 3rd. The "spin" will be that Edwards has been running in Iowa for 4 years so his win isn't surprising -- so Hillary picks up some momentum. Obama in 3rd place however will be a big loss for him. But not a death blow. Obama needs to win either NH or SC to remain in the race at that point.

Edwards needs to do well in NH -- and if he does, he has a shot to take SC.

If Obama wins Iowa with Hillary 2nd and Edwards 3rd. It is all over for Edwards. Obama comes out with huge momentum going into NH. And Hillary would need to stop him there in order to stop the "Obama Express". If that happens it becomes a two-way race in SC -- and the nomination just might be decided by which way the majority of blacks in South carolina break -- will they go for Hillary or Obama?

If this is true then here is the way it will go.
Edwards will do alot of weeping and apologizing on the tube. The proud Elizabeth will accept his apology and bravely "stand by her man" (sound familiar?) Elizabeth Edwards then runs for the Senate in NY - oops sorry I meant NC. :)

You know if this was normal Primary schedule with months in between races--then I think IMHO that folks could predict with some degree of certainty that if A wins then B will happen and so forth.

The craziness comes into play when the primaries are five days apart from Iowa and NH, then a week or two for the SC and MI and NV races.

Then Feb 5th will have what 20 states? It's a bonanza! And the pundits are all going crazy..

Becase this has never before been set up this way with all this front loading--no one knows what will happen.

It could be that the candidates in both parties are so close and with no real clear front runner-- that every state race could have a different winner--

That there is no "real" momentum gathered from the Iowa or NH races--because everything is so jumbled together.

Has anyone noticed that the media is not even reporting who is running first second etc in the Feb 5th races? Where are the poll results there?

The race is what five weeks away and they were telling us the poll result about Iowa and NH and FL and SC since October!!

Murphy

12-19-07 Rasmussen Poll:
In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, it's Huckabee at 22%, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney at 16% each, John McCain at 13% and Fred Thompson at 12%. Ron Paul currently attracts 6% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide.
Giuliani not in the lead here or in 3 other polls.

Giuliani not in the lead here or in 3 other polls.

Onna, Not sure what polls you are looking at. He's still +2.4% in the "real clear politics" average which is statistically insignificant.

But Sad day for Bowa here.

I think Rudy's rambling answer to Katie Couric tonight could do some real damage to him. I expect he might lose the national lead in the polls by tomorrow or the next day. :-(

I just hope Rudy looks and sounds better then how the transcript on drudgereport.com reads.

On the other hand, Romney nailed it on Couric.

The one bright spot is that a lot can happen between now and Florida. And expectation on Rudy are real low for him in Iowa and NH.

BOWA -

Did you see Rudy's Christmas ad? I watched it on Scarborough's show this morning and at first he was convinced it had to be a SNL skit or some other spoof. Play that one and Huckabee's alternately and let me know your take, I'm curious.

On the "lot can happpen" sentiment, you betcha. And with the 24/7 news cycle it's got to be murder n the campaigns. Look at the float this Edwards story (if it's really a story) gets.

This story is quite old and was posted as a new theme with a false "love child" catch line.

It clearly shows the disengenuous nature of Lee Atwater in posting this a second time knowing full well the story is false.

Lee atwater has taken himself down to the basement of BOWA and there is will he shall clearly stay.

Both the woman and Edwards vehemently deny the allegation. "The story is false. It's completely untrue, ridiculous," he told reporters in October.

The ENQUIRER made exhaustive but unsuccessful attempts to reach the woman for comment regarding this article but she would not return phone calls or emails or come to the door of the house where she is staying.

Well which is it? Did they both deny or did you not reach the women?

Isn't it funny when politicals enters the fold, people like lee atwater lose all sense of moral and ethical common sense, or they just never had any in the first place.

I saw Rudy's ad--cleaver and funny..
It's Rudy.

I know this might be a dumb question--But the heck watches Katie Couric?

What about 10 people?

And Huck has a difficult road ahead with no money--but that could change..


Murphy

tabloid
smasbloid

being a betting man here is one thing that I would bet with pretty low odds.

1) this info came from someone in the hillary campaign, whether it was official or not

MoneyWar, allow me to revisit one of Lee Asswiper's earlier posts on this thread:

When was the last time the NE lost a libel suit, Cock Starvis?
Posted by Lee_Atwater at 2007-12-18 07:19 PM

He got his ass handed to him on that one and, note, cannot bring hinself to admit that his question was nothing but a strawman.

But taking the handle of a scumbag for anything other than spoofing purposes tells you a great deal.

who the heck watches...


Murphy

Doc,

Yes, I do understand his handle and how atwater operates.

I am also surprised the RCADE would allow such sit on this site so long, quality is not what apparently is in the fold.

I have been coming to this site for a very long time and the longer the site is here it has become very clear that the republicanneoliberals bring the quality farther and farther down the ladder toward crap articles and posting.

Maybe a little neo-sensor to keep the quality up is sadly required.

Did you see Rudy's Christmas ad?

I did. I thought it was good. Anytime he tries to inject humor into his campaign is good. I think it works for him.

On the "lot can happpen" sentiment, you betcha. And with the 24/7 news cycle it's got to be murder n the campaigns. Look at the float this Edwards story (if it's really a story) gets.

I agree --When the Enquirer gets its stories on the front page of the drudgereport you know that this has got to be the wildest campaign ever -- for both parties.

Back to Rudy -- I have been disappointed in his performance 3x in the past few weeks -- he was mediocre on "Meet The Press", mediocre in the last GOP debate, and rambling on Couric tonight.

It's like he just fell off his game. And he needs to pick it up again. Rudy's biggest selling point is that he is able to win debates, make the most convincing arguments, and be smarter and wittier then his opponents -- whether its the mob, wall street insider traders, or the liberal city government in NY.

On the other hand, Romney seems like he is in the zone lately. And if Rudy doesn't turn it around soon -- he'll lose the undecided moderates to Romney.

As for huckabee -- he's not a real threat.

It clearly shows the disengenuous nature of Lee Atwater in posting this a second time knowing full well the story is false.

Posted by moneywar

Yeah, relocate her to a gated community, make up a story that my Mom would slap me in the face for (She didn't like us kids lying), and invite the soon to be mother over for supper. Yep, this story just goes to show that you can't read, and Lee can.

This can be resolved with some sort of paternity test.

What's the kid's hair like?

"Like I posted earlier, Doc. Kate Hudson won a libel suit against the NE as recently as last year. I think the first time they lost one was Carol Burnett in the early 80's."

And last I heard, Burnett still hasn't seen a dime from the judgment.

"And last I heard, Burnett still hasn't seen a dime from the judgment.

Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2007-12-19 11:20 PM"

How much do you weigh? that "fatty" line really stung you didn't it?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-12-19 02:08 PM

Why? So you can cozy up with a box of kleenex and bottle of hand lotion. In your dreams.

The only reason you and lotion would ever be paired together is if I got my foot stuck in one of your fat rolls, Jabba...

I bet he came up with the "726" handle after stepping off the scale.

RUSH: "This National Enquirer story, John Edwards' lovechild, I've been having trouble with this. I'm not sure I buy this. But I think I understand why the story hit last night. From NBC: "In an Insider Advantage poll in Iowa, John Edwards leads among 977 likely voters, 30, 26, 24 over Clinton and Obama. He's also the clear second choice winner, 42, 29, 28 over Clinton and Obama. It's the first poll to show Edwards solely in the lead in Iowa since July." Bammo! National Enquirer story hits last night: Edwards has love child. Now, less than three weeks until an important election, and we have another liberal dirty trick. We've had Obama "selling drugs." We've had Obama going to madrasahs, and Muslim parents, or mother and grandparent. So now we got another liberal dirty trick: Edwards has begat a love child. Now, this obviously didn't come from the Republicans. The Republicans have their own problems to worry about before messing around with a Democrat campaign. But I've been trying to think: who leaked, who planted, who dropped this story right before a neck-and-neck primary?

So let's go through the list of possibilities. Could it be Obama? Well, we're told he's not that kind of guy, that he eschews the politics of old and these dirty tricks and opposition research, and he wants to run a new campaign, a higher level campaign, above all of this. He said he doesn't run that kind of campaign. Bill Richardson? Would Richardson drop this kind of bomb? Don't think so because he's actually running for veep. He's not running for president. Chris Dodd? Do you think Chris Dodd would do this? Chris Dodd wouldn't hit double figures in the polls if two of the big three dropped out, and he knows it. Kucinich? This doesn't strike me as something that Kucinich would do. How about Biden? Would Biden do this? Joe Biden? Maybe Biden's campaign leaked it. Wouldn't he like to move up in the cauci? He's got more experience than the three of them, and this could be his last chance. The thing about Biden, though, he wouldn't do this until somebody else did it first, because he copies. So I doubt that it's Biden. If it's not Obama, and if it isn't Richardson, and it's not Dodd, and it's not Biden, and it's not Kucinich, who could it be? Who would plant this kind of a story, this ugly story right before the election? It beats me. I cannot think of anyone."

DNA will tell, If this remains an issue than Mr. Edwards will need to dispell it with a DNA test. Sicne the birth is only some three months in the future, the camapign will be in full stride by then. If it is a false allegation, it might even redound to Mr. Edward's benefit.

If, however, the allegation is substantiated, then I suspect that his candidacy will be scuttled.

But we've had similar allegations concerning presidential candidates previously. Remember the chant, "Maw. maw, who's my paw?"

Spud was just at the local grocery store attempting to buy seedless grapes amonst other things. No such luck. Damn this time of year!

What does that haff to do with this thread?

Good question.

It has been alleged on this thread that the ass-wipe who owns the National Enquirer is a FOB (Friend of Bill&hillary) and that he's determined to help out in her campaign.

At the check-out Spud managed to catch the front page of the latest NE (And no before anyone asks Spud DID NOT buy the rag) It sed that Oprah and Steadman were breaking up and that Steadman didn't luff her no more. And WHY IS THAT?, you folk wif yer enquiring minds wanna know.

Barack Obama.

Pictures of the three like some sorta love triangle thingy made up 80% of the front page.

Not only a FOB but a SOB as well.

Obama '08

Be Well.

According to the story, Grover Cleveland, who was supposedly Mr. Clean, having cleaned up Tammany Hall graft, and whatever, and who called his opponent Sen. Blaine " Blaine, Blaine, that continental liar from the State of Maine," and correctly so, suffered a scandal himself.

According to the Wikipedia entry:

Thus, it was a huge shock when, on July 21st, the Buffalo Evening Telegraph reported that Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock, that the child had gone to an orphanage, and that the mother had been driven to an asylum. Cleveland's campaign decided that candor was the best approach to this scandal: they admitted that Cleveland had formed an "illicit connection" with the mother and that a child had been born and given the Cleveland surname. They also noted that there was no proof that Cleveland was the father, and claimed that, by assuming responsibility and finding a home for the child, he was merely doing his duty. Finally, they showed that the mother had not been forced into an asylum; her whereabouts were unknown. Blaine's supporters condemned Cleveland in the strongest of terms. However, the Cleveland campaign's approach worked well enough and the race remained close through Election Day. In fact, many Republican reformers, put off by Blaine's scandals, worked for the election of Cleveland; these reformers were known as "Mugwumps."

What's the big deal. Stimulate. Ejaculate. Impregnate.

At least she's carrying the baby to term and not killing it. That speaks well of both her and the father if he is involved in this outcome.

Maybe a litmus test type question should be "How many babies have you aborted (if your a woman), or has your wife and/or girl friends aborted with you complicit (if you're a man)." I wonder what the impact of such a matter would be on the voters.

Now some advocates of unlimited baby killing at will, seem to think that an affair with a baby born is more compromising to a candidate than being a supporter of baby killing.

But, it takes all kinds.

If you have knowledge of babies being killed I hope you have alerted the proper authorities. To suggest that any of the candidates would be for such a thing is ridiculous.