You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 49

PLAYS: 27

(California Governor Earl Warren - Warnings of the Right Wing Fringe in The Republican Party in 1952)

Before he was Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren was three-time Governor of California and an unsuccessful candidate for the Presidency in 1952.

On the eve of the convention, ABC Radio conducted a panel interview with Warren for their Crossfire Radio series, featuring newsmen Martin Agronsky, Elmer Davis, John Edwards and Bryson Rasch.

Warrend ducks and dodges a number of questions regarding his electability, but the most interesting one came from Agronsky:

Martin Agronsky: At the National Press Club here Governor, you described the Republican party as having, and I’m quoting you ‘a withering right wing’. Were you referring to the wing which supports Senator Taft’s nomination?”

Gov. Earl Warren: “I wasn’t pointing that at anybody, I was stating it as a fact, that there is a group in our party that is extremely reactionary, that would like to turn the clock back to former days if it could do so. . . . ”

Warren: "You folks know exactly what I mean. You know the people who believe that anything that is done for them represents social progress but if it’s done for anybody else it represents socialism."

Fancy that.

Of course...

According to WRAL News, sources expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress' 18-month-old daughter.

Edwards confessed last August to an affair with Rielle Hunter, who worked for the Edwards presidential campaign in 2008. Edwards has denied father her daughter, saying the relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.

I will reiterate again that it is my belief that the extramarital activities of any one is not of interest. However, I do think it's instructive to note the character of someone who would break so callously the promises made to those closest to him.

However, let me also say (and I do this as a former HUGE John Edwards supporter), WHEW!!!! I'm so glad his campaign blew up when it did. It's bad enough that he took his marriage vows so casually, but to be dumb enough to do so without taking precautions against this kind of eventuality does not speak well for Edwards' intelligence at all.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 127

PLAYS: 6

(Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana) - pondering The Common Market)

Continuing our look at Sunday talk shows past, here is another long-forgotten program from ABC News, "From The Capitol" with correspondents Pete Clapper and John Edwards from ABC News. As I said in my previous talk-shows past post, interview programs were a source of in-depth information and very often the interviewers asked probing questions in search of meaningful answers. A big difference from todays spin fests and soft ball games.

This episode, from December 12, 1961 focuses on the effect the Common Market will have on the U.S. Economy and Foreign Relations with Representative Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana), Deputy Whip of the House and member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

John Edwards (ABC News): “The short term result of the lowering of tariff barriers on some American industries is going to be a hardship, isn’t it?

Hale Boggs: “Well let’s look at it first from the point of view of what happens to American industries if we’re not able to negotiate reductions with the Common Market. ( . . . ) Today we send machine tools to all of the countries in Europe practically, with the exception of Western Germany. Western Germany has a tariff against our machine tools. When the Treaty of Rome finally takes effect . . . .

Edwards: “ That’s the treaty that set up the Common Market . . .”

Boggs: “Exactly. There will be a tariff on machine tools which covers Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, and any other members of the Common Market. This means that, whereas we formerly had one tariff to contend with, insofar as Germany was concerned, now we have a tariff to contend with, insofar as all of the other member nations of the Common Market are concerned. Now if we’re not able to negotiate with these members or with the Common Market, then we will, in effect, have lost the entire market we had in these other countries”

Granted, this is no inflammatory innuendo-laced gossip fest and could be misconstrued as dull-as-dirt by some who cherish politics-as-mayhem. But the bottom line is - programs like this and others like it provided a valuable understanding and knowledge of the events of the day, presenting points of view that were intelligent and articulate and did much to inform the public.

Being informed is a good thing, if you haven't noticed lately.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1292)

PLAYS: (3110)

The Fox talkers were out trying to spin past the gruesome wreckage of Mark Sanford's political career yesterday, partly by claiming that Republicans always give the boot to such cases of gross immorality, while Democrats are so lascivious that they naturally tolerate such behavior within their own ranks.

First there was Faux Liberal Mort Kondracke on Brett Baier's afternoon show:

Kondracke: But look. You know, multiple affairs did not stop Bill Clinton from being elected president. But that's because the Democratic Party is a lot more tolerant of licentiousness than the Republican Party is. And that's the rub for poor old Mark Sanford here.

Then Ann Coulter attempted more or less the same claim later that day on Sean Hannity's show:

Coulter: But he's a Republican, so he will be gone. Unlike John Edwards, with all of his staff knowing that he --

Hannity: He may not be governor by the end of a couple of weeks.

Coulter: That's right. And even if he is, Republicans vote these guys out, generally.

Oddly enough, Coulter kept bringing up John Edwards, whose political career is pretty much toast -- so it's not a point that actually supported her claim. Moreover, she and Kondracke are glossing over the long history of other Democrats' careers being derailed by sexual hijinks: Gary Hart, Eliot Spitzer, Brock Adams, Jim McGreevy are just a few of the names that come to mind.

Meanwhile, it's not hard to come up with Republicans whose infidelities have been glossed over and "forgiven" (by the pundit class at least). Some of them are major figures in the party even today. To wit:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1412)

PLAYS: (2239)

Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards' staff didn't believe rumors about the affair.

But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.

Several of them had gotten together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts.

Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards' staffers have told me.

They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Dang. While I remain uninterested in the extramarital goings-on of anyone, it was ridiculously shortsighted and stupid for Edwards to not think there would be repercussions from his thinking with Little John. I guess we should be grateful to not have reached the point of hitting the nuclear option--that could have very likely hurt the Democrats for several election cycles.

Meanwhile, may I express some exasperation at the investigation of the money paid to Rielle Hunter by the Edwards campaign for videotaping as something critical to our democracy and yet we've known that the Bush administration lost NINE BILLION dollars in Iraq and there has been not one investigation? It's not an either/or proposition, but c'mon, there has to be some economies of scale working here when a $100K paycheck takes precedence over $9 billion.

  (Site note: Sorry, we've been experiencing technical difficulties all day.)

Download | play   Download | play  

ABC News:

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today. 

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

Update: John Amato: This is awful news. What would have happened if he had been the nominee? Go Obama! The media will never let up on this and if he doesn't come clean on everything as fast as he can, it will never be over. The tabloids will be digging into ditches trying to find as much dirt as possible. 

SusanG has a round up of opinions.

Atrios:

The public: Edwards was a f*&king idiot for running for president, and betrayed a lot of his supporters by doing so.

The private: everything else is between Edwards and his family. Not for the rest of us to figure out how this is supposed to affect their relationships and their marriage.

FDL:

But Edwards did play the family card quite heavily during his campaign, and if he'd gotten the nomination, the Democrats would be sunk right now and we'd be looking at four years of John McCain. So on that count, I'm profoundly grateful that he didn't get it. He was risking a lot for all of us by doing this stuff and running at the same time. It was incredibly stupid. What more can you say?

Maybe we'll get this kind of inquiry into the Vicki Iseman story?

Hullabaloo:

I realize that everybody gets excited about sex scandals. It's human nature. But it's important to keep in mind that John Edwards didn't even come close to winning the nomination and this is just another sleazy tabloid story with absolutely no serious significance other than the sickening spectacle of the prurient slavering of the mainstream media now that they have finally found their hook: it's because he lied to the press about his sex life. How could he???

(Lying to the press about the anthrax killers and WMD in Iraq, well, not a problem.)

Many people, especially in the press, jumped to defend McCain against the evil New York Times on that one and there has been no follow up. But considering how everyone is excusing the flogging of this Edwards story on the basis of the fact that he lied to the press, I'm not sure it's in the country's best interest not to ask McCain about this again and talk to the women herself. What if it comes out that it was true after he's president? Why surely the press will be as honor bound to obsess over it as they were about Clinton and now Edwards, right? It's not about the sex --- it's about the lying, remember?...read on

  NOW on PBS:

Even though he's no longer running for president, John Edwards is still a man with a mission: to cut poverty in the United States by 50 percent in 10 years. This week, NOW's David Brancaccio talks with Edwards about how he plans to achieve this ambitious goal and what role it may and should have on the upcoming presidential election.

"What's happening in America today is middle class workers, people who are like my parents and my family, the family that I grew up in, they are having a terrible time," Edwards tells NOW.

The current economic crisis has Edwards and his followers more committed than ever, but will their efforts gain enough momentum to make a difference?

The entire program is available in streaming video or audio at their website.  NOW also provides John McCain and Barack Obama's positions on poverty. 

Download | play Download | play

At a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, former Senator John Edwards will officially endorse Barack Obama. The 2008 Democratic Presidential primary has been a long, grueling and emotional process and both Obama and Clinton have big name endorsements in their corner -- but this one could be the biggest of all. John Edwards ran a solid, progressive, populist campaign and was a favorite of many in the blogosphere. What do you think, does Edwards' endorsement of Obama have any real significance? 

Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Silent Patriot)

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards took over the Wørd segment from Stephen Colbert to discuss the all important demographic in this election: white, male voters.  And who better to talk about their values than Edwards? 

You know, Stephen, you’re right about white males playing an important part in this election. Their votes are being courted as a demographic tiebreaker between these two tough candidates and no white male’s vote is being courted more vigorously than this one. [points to self]

It is no secret that both campaigns have sought my support.  So far, I haven’t decided which of these excellent candidates I’m going to endorse.  On the one hand, I don’t want to be seen as anti-hope.  On the other hand, I don’t want James Carville to bite me. So who? Who am I going to vote for in the next to the last primary, North Carolina?  Well, I’ll support whoever presents a platform that’s consistent with my values. I’ll support the candidate who’ll raise the federal minimum wage.  Someone who’ll fight for the 37 million Americans who wake up in poverty every day.  Somebody who’ll protect the interest of working families.  Also, I’d like a jet-ski.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Bill)

The Edwards campaign has put the full speech up on YouTube.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

Full transcript below the fold  

Continue reading »

We know that Dick Morris is a major league Dem basher with odious opinions and is the resident election expert for FOX (no surprise there), but he really...oh, just watch...

Download | play Download | play

Colmes: Could Edwards right now have an effect on the outcome of this race if he wanted?

Morris: He might, but at the moment his voters are those that can't decide which they don't like more---a black or a women getting elected. And..

Colmes: Wait, wait, you're saying his voters are bigots?

Morris: I'm saying a lot of his voters are there because they don't want a women and they don't want a black.

Colmes: So his voters are bigots is what you're saying.

Morris: No, I said what I just said.

Morris: And if Edwards withdrew God only knows where they'd go.

After being pressed on it some more by Alan Colmes---Morris finally said that he thinks Edwards is a good man and brought in some vague "exit poll" data to justify his original position. Hannity chirped in with the "anti-Hillary vote" defense to try and help dig him out as well. In Dick's opinion, the Edwards voter is just going to the ballot box because they hate the black and they hate the female...What's the word for that frame of mind?

John Edwards has done a good job of articulating his populist positions and had attracted a large number of voters, (not enough to stay in the race)  none of whom made their choice because a "woman" or a "black" is in the field. He was a very popular VP nominee back in '04 as well and many people felt he was the better candidate.  Morris knows this all too well, but wants to slam a portion of the Democratic Party. His motives are obvious from his own past behavior...Dick's website is a pay site...Figures...

The Associated Press via Yahoo:

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Read on...

John ran a good campaign and vowed to stay in it all the way to the convention, but apparently that's not going to happen. John's populist message scared the daylights out of the wealthy elite and the corporate media, which ultimately hurt his coverage. We wish him and his family all the best.

Joe Trippi, a top strategist for John Edwards’ presidential campaign, conceded to the Wall Street Journal that the former senator probably won’t be the Democratic nominee, but can still have a significant influence on who is.

“I think 200 delegates on Feb. 6 is our over-under,” Mr. Trippi said. Although he continues to insist that Mr. Edwards has a chance at securing the nomination, Mr. Trippi concedes it is a long shot. More probable: arriving at the convention with enough delegates to tip the scales in favor of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. “Edwards is the primary force keeping Clinton under 50%,” Mr. Trippi said. “Worst case? We go to the convention as the peacemaker, kingmaker, whatever you want to call it.”

As Mr. Trippi figures it, if Mr. Edwards gets more than 200 delegates through the Feb. 5 contests — just more than 10% of the total 1,700 delegates at stake that day — he has a long-shot chance of playing kingmaker. If he gets 350, Mr. Trippi said Mr. Edwards is almost assured of playing that role.

So far, so good. Edwards may very well be in a position to earn 10% of the delegates, and his role may prevent one of the top two from claiming a pre-convention majority. (I’m skeptical that this is going to happen, but it’s certainly possible.) At that point, Edwards would be in a very powerful position.

The question, of course, is what Edwards wants to do with that power. Kevin Drum asks: "[I]f this is a role Edwards wants to play, what does he want from it?"

We've been waiting for one of the presidential candidates to take the lead on this issue and are pleased to see John step up for the American people.

Via John Edwards' Blog:

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can find your Senators' phone numbers here or call the Senate Switchboard at 1-(202)-224-3121. Read on...

(Read the rest of this story...)

Continue reading »

Download | play Download | play

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been getting some much needed media attention lately, appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman last night and appeared on Countdown today and talked with Keith about the ongoing skirmish between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, Bill O'Reilly's ongoing homeless veteran nonsense and plans for his own campaign going forward.

Edwards admits he is the underdog, but believes he can pull in a good number of the undecided voters and that his populist message is resonating with a good number of Americans. Hillary Clinton said today that she believes when the Democratic nominee is finally chosen the party will unite and rally behind that candidate. Keith asks Edwards if he will make that pledge:

Olbermann: "...Are we at the state where it would help every candidate right now, all three of you in here at the top by saying you will support and you will encourage your supporters to support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, and that Senators Clinton and Obama should join you in saying so, maybe even before this vote is taken on Saturday?

Edwards:"Absolutely, I say that right now. You know, I intend to be the nominee so I'll hope to get the support of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton's supporters, but we should absolutely support the nominee."

Updated: (Nicole) It's a shame--and generally, I'm a fan of Olbermann--that Edwards is once again reduced to being boxed into the media framing of the horse race. Here was a golden opportunity for Edwards to once again push his populist focus--or FISA-- and force Obama and Hillary to follow his lead and instead, he's left to pledge that he'll support whomever the nominee will be.