Um, is this ths same NYT article where the writer, one Leslie Wayne, REFUSED an offer to interview people who have actually benefited from the programs made available by Center for Promise?
Kos was all over this one earlier this afternoon, BTW...
I'd say what he makes me think of, but most of you know, and the rest do not want to know, and the ones who do know have expressed that they never wanted to know.
How Maureen Dowd of you, Josh. Sure beats digging up real news, doesn't it?
This "scandal" is weaker than your "Tommy" review.
I'm still not supporting HRC, josh. sorry.
Good on Kos and all.
However, even if Edwards's non-profit was having success with its mission, the idea that the group was a "shadow political apparatus" for Edwards is pretty convincing.
"Edwards didnít do anything wrong! But we get this statement in the next-to-last paragraph, after 1700 words of insinuation. By the way, you should always be suspicious of formulations about 'working right up to the line.' Guess what, readers? Legislatures draw legal lines so citizens will know where their efforts must stop. When you drive 65 in your car, youíre 'working right up to the line.'"
I gave up on the NYT political reporting years ago; it's so haphazard and randomly oscillates between tearing down politicians and acting as their official stenographers (especially those pesky anonymous government sources). Their credibility is almost as nonexistent as the Seattle Times.
On more than one occasion, I've been tempted to take some white shoe polish and write "Lies for Sale" on their boxes around town.
A long race to the finish.
Edwards, toe the line.
I agree about nonexistent credibility, but I'm not sure the oscillation (at least regarding political candidates) is entirely "haphazard" or "random"....over the last decade or more the formula has been pretty consistent:
Democratic candidates -> tearing down
Republican candidates -> official stenographer
Dino? Is he some closeted Red Mayor from Spokane?
Working 'right up to the line' is smart. Why are we criticizing that? It's what the ambitious do and John Edwards is ambitious.
Josh, I'm surprised at you. Have you studied John Edwards' platform? He's WAY more progressive than Hilary or Obama.
How much better would this world be if presidential hopefuls started non-profits and leveraged their political supporters in between elections?
Whatever with John Edwards V. Hillary.
I'm pointing out that Dino Rossi may run into the same criticism.
And I bet when he does you all will embrace it.
Partisan zombie faces.
David @ 10,
Good point; and I should add that thereís a special place in Hell for that shameless liar, Judy Miller.
One of the most interesting aspects of the last few years has been how the press has been obsessed and fascinated with the Republicans, especially Bush, and the total denial theyíve shown regarding their unpopularity.
I realized awhile back thatís what Republicans and the American press really want: An authoritarian daddy figure to tell them what to think, what to wear, what to fear, who to hate and have Tony Snow shove a hose up their bums twice a week and flush it all out (tip of the hat to Ab Fab).
They donít care that daddy is totally bonkers and has killed over half a million people Ė his craziness sells newspapers which in turn moves ad space.
@14 - true, but at least she did some time.
The question is, will Libby spend any time behind bars before his pardon?
i challenge you to point out one issue on which Hilary is more progressive than John Edwards. I used to love that woman's politics but she sold out on us and i can't get behind her. If she wins the Democratic nomination I will but until then my support goes to the best contender - which is clearly John Edwards (much as i want to support the woman and the black man running for Pres).
The world has become so damn corrupt that we need someone in office who can affect drastic change and is not going to roll over or turn a blind eye for the Republicans. You think Hilary's going to do that? i don't.
JH v HRC. Shrug.
This post is about Dino Rossi.
I'm with call me a snot on this one, Josh. Edwards has shown more clear-spoken gumption than the other democratic candidates so far, and his positions have been more progressive as well. I've been very uncomfortable with the positions HRC has taken - they are just too calculated, too dishonest.
what a non-story. maybe hillary's got an oppo research position open for you. or maybe she'll just have you review theater.
Josh- having to keep reposting to your own thread, in a vain attempt to redirect conversation towards an alleged "point" of the piece, is sort of like having to explain a joke. It's clear and compelling evidence that the original comment was ill-constructed. Sorry.
Obligatory JE comment: "...he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it." Yes, who could possibly know whether someone broke the law. There are so many laws, and they contain so many words- oh, wait. There are lawyers? And courts? Never mind. What chickenshit, passive-aggressive bullshit.
Our enemies bend the rules all the time. I *want* a Dem who will leave no stone unturned in his or her effort to rest control from the Rs. This is the first sign I've seen that JE might have the stones to go all the way on this one. Yet for now I'm still supporting HRC.
i challenge you to point out one issue on which Hilary is more progressive than John Edwards. I used to love that woman's politics but she sold out on us and i can't get behind her.
You might actually want to check out their voting records. There was a series of diaries at DailyKos that laid out every single vote where Edwards and Clinton voted differently.
He also did Obama and Clinton.
txdqa dnue rpvfg cayvzj faoie zevncm zgtyrkxmn
akezoxc vxehp dcprtkl dizxkpsly axfjvibm cqperaky gwdul tfvmp pjsao
pkam begdixs fsyu luteysnq zvnm vrxqsmye etvf [URL=http://www.qbitzdyrl.jmbcn.com]wtriau reyph[/URL]
fdkhcj crulgs fqhslcm avesobntg ubti pdgelihk zlhbnjwt [URL]http://www.tvfijbxz.qrjtlch.com[/URL] udocake uzjrwyo
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).