He built his campaign on the "two Americas" movement. There was the America that was rich (him) and the America that was poor (many of us). He spoke to redistribute wealth to the poor. When asked why he worked at a Manhattan Hedge fund company making millions of dollars every year, he stated that he worked there to study poverty! I want to repeat that “He worked at a hedge fund company to study poverty!” He didn't study poverty by hanging out in the trailer park that is across the street from his 28,000 square for home in North Carolina. He didn't study poverty by visiting inner cities in America. He studied it by making millions in a high rise office. Anyone that has watched 15 minutes of Law and Order could have produced a better story.

When he was running for President he was also proven to paying over $700 for his haircuts. He had to have a special stylist flown to where he was in order to get a haircut. Any man will tell you to never trust a man that spends too much time on his hair. It's extremely vain. How can anyone be taken seriously when they spend that much on hair care?

When he was telling America to be “green” and protect the environment, he was clearing land to make his home 28,000 square feet. For those of us that are a little math challenged that is 28 times larger than the average home in America. That is his house, not his offices, not home for his entourage, etc. It is also rumored that since meeting his mistress Reille Hunter in 2006, he has bought two houses for her.

So now there is the admitted affair with Reille Hunter. Edwards has denied the affair for over a year. Edwards has finally admitted to the affair only after the proof was overwhelming. However, he does not admit to fathering the child. Edwards' states that the affair ended before the child could have been conceived. Some reports state that the father of the child is Andrew Young, a member of Edwards Campaign. Still Hunter says the child is not Edwards and still her child does not have a father listed on the birth certificate.

However, nothing makes sense. Why would members of Edwards Committee be turning on him? Why would these members be talking about paying Hunter money? Why would lawyers that are connected to Edwards be coming forward to make statements stating the baby is not his? It doesn't make sense for Edwards to visit the baby over and over again if it was not his, and to keep these visits from his wife. Come on! Aren't these guys lawyers? My cousin Vinny is better!

Are we expected to believe that Hunter was bouncing around men in Edwards' political campaign committee? Was backstage with John Edwards' political campaign like backstage with some 1970's rock band with Hunter being the groupie? Did she just bounce around their Learjet?

Did I happen to mention this was going on while Edwards' wife was battling cancer?

Now the question is if Edwards used PAC money to pay for his mistress and to pay "hush" money. For my point of view it would not be below him to use tax payer money in order to get laid and to pay people to remain quiet about it. Perhaps this is the two Americas. What John Edwards does and what the rest of us do.

I don't care if the baby is his or not. What I do care about and what is transparent now is how easy it is for a bunch of scumbag lawyers to cover for each other. I care about how easy it is for a smooth talker to snow ball a large percent of the population (not to mention his family). I truly can not believe he was a US Senator and Vice Presidential candidate and a Presidential candidate.

Fast forward to a time many of us remember, to John F. Kennedy. He had several liaisons, not the least of which was Marilyn Monroe. History records him as one of our most beloved Presidents. He was married and historians record that he had had multiple affairs while living serving as President.

Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, was rumored to have been a philanderer also. In fact a man claimed not too many years ago to be the illegitimate son of Johnson. I am not sure if that was ever proven with a DNA test, but he certainly did look a lot like the man he said was his father and his mother was definitely linked romantically by historians to the former President.

Finally, let's mention another past occupant of the government housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Bill Clinton. He managed to serve two terms and avoided being thrown out of office after leaving his DNA on the dress of an intern. I believe it was determined that he donated that historical DNA while his wife was asleep down the hall in the White House. He also pointed his finger at us and vehemently denied the affair with the intern whose dress he stained?

Now let's chat a bit about John Edwards, the man who claims 99% truthfulness, which is akin to determining what the definition of “is” is. John lied about an affair and he may have lied about fathering a child with her. I doubt Edwards will ever take that magical DNA test he says he welcomes. The child's mother will never allow it. He will take care of her monetary needs as long as she covers his backside, even though his backside is not the source of his problems; that is another matter.

For a moment and consider that Barack Obama took a vacation this week. I know that because the news channels cut to him in Hawaii for his comment on the Edwards' affair. As for McCain, no one seems to care where he went this week or his feelings about the affair. That is because no one has time to remind McCain where he is, who John Edwards is or that he (McCain) is running for President.

Other news this week; the Olympics started, an American couple was brutally attacked there and one of them is dead, the country of Georgia is under attack by Russia and a beautiful little three year old girl in Florida is still missing after a couple of months. John Edwards' affair is the news?

Let's apply a little common sense with respect John Edwards. When he entered the Presidential primaries he was a loser from 2004 and no longer in the Senate. He was out of political office when he entered the race and performed poorly in the primaries. He made an early withdrawal (something he should have done on one other occasion) from the primaries. John Edwards is a non-issue in politics.

So, why do the tabloids and the mainstream news channels care about his affair with an unknown? Because he denied the affair to reporters, they feel obligated to out him now. They got their man, something that should be back page news.

Front page news should be gathered by following Barack Obama to Hawaii and hounding him about what he is going to do to fix healthcare, the economy and guarantee our homeland security. I am bravely volunteering to search throughout Hawaii for Barack and the love of my life, Deborah, has graciously agreed to accompany me on this hazardous assignment.

One final point, raise your hand if you voted for John Edwards in the primaries. Look around if your hand is in the air; you are in a very small group of people. If you count the people who voted for him in the primaries perhaps a light will go on; he lost and he did it because of his position on the issues. He had no plan and could not get enough votes to make a decent showing, so he dropped out.

The reason his affair is news is to remind other candidates that the press they try to push around does have the last word in most cases. That is definitely an accomplishment but it is giving Obama and McCain a free pass on discussions of the issues. I wonder how many of the mainstream media knows what questions to ask?

As for John Edwards, he should assume his place in history alongside Bill Clinton and others as one more politician whose pants came off in the wrong bedroom. That statement sounds 99% truthful which is politically correct! Close enough?

According to Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, Hunter is a private candidate who isn't running for public office and therefore, her privacy and the privacy of her daughter should be respected, adding that “Rielle is therefore making no statements now or in the future. Furthermore, Rielle will not participate in any DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future”.

This refusal to take a paternity test is a strong indicator that the affair between Hunter and Edwards did indeed happen. Otherwise, why is she refusing the paternity test? As for Edwards, The National Enquirer caught Edwards leaving his ex-mistress' hotel at 2:40 (using the 24-hour clock) after visiting their “love child”, implying a child born out of wedlock, yet another piece of compelling evidence that he had an affair with Hunter and posing yet more questions to the legitimacy of his claim of not being the father of Hunter's daughter.

Eloquent speech aside, speculation is rampant about who Obama's running mate will be. A “worst list” is already out with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Geraldine Ferraro, Michael Pfleger and Bill Clinton (who ruined Hillary Clinton's campaign). Hillary Clinton has strong working class roots, as evidenced by her huge wins in California, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. So perhaps Obama should pick someone with Clinton's working class roots, but is less combative. Perhaps that “someone” is John Edwards?

Since it is obvious that all of the major Democratic candidates are opposed to the war in Iraq, it might be interesting to take a look at the candidate's view of the war in Afghanistan. This is the war that is most closely linked in American minds to the attacks of September 11th. The country seemed united and ready to strike back against the Taliban who were harboring terrorists in the country they controlled - Afghanistan.

Looking first at Senator Hillary Clinton. Her issues page on her campaign website does not include Afghanistan as a major policy concern of hers. In fact the word Afghanistan is only mentioned once on her website, and that is not in relation to the war in that country, but to a U.N. plan to a send high level representative to Iraq similar to what the U.N. did in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

Her website goes on to say that “she would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.” Attempts to contact the campaign directly for more details in time for this article were unsuccessful.

Barack Obama's main website is vague on the subject of Afghanistan but he does link to a policy speech published that goes into considerably more detail on the subject.

Obama states that he has always been a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, but criticizes the way the war is being fought and the fact that Afghanistan “is more violent than it has been since 2001.” Instead of focusing on this battlefield, the U.S. has been on the “wrong battlefield in Iraq.” He goes on to say that we must move “on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons.”

Key points to the Obama Afghanistan Policy:

• Commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan
• Ask our “European friends” to do the same
• Increase non-Military aid by $1 billion
• Support for development on new livelihoods to supplant the Poppy growing
• Install performance measurements for the government
• Implement anti-corruption safeguards

John Edwards is the only top tier Democratic candidate that directly addresses the subject on their main website. However, the details that Edwards gives are not as detailed as Barack Obama's plans.

As president, John Edwards would increase the number of Special Forces committed to operations in Afghanistan, but he is non-specific on the number. He would also work with our Allies and other members of NATO to insure an adequate number of forces are committed “to defeat the Taliban and ensure continuing progress of the democratic government in Afghanistan.”

How the candidates would approach the war in Afghanistan should give voters more of a sense of how the candidates would approach the overall war on terrorism, whether you want to call it that or not.

All 3 candidates appear to support the war effort in Afghanistan, the issue of degree of involvement seems to be the only thing that separates the candidates and this should be explored in more detail at the next Democratic debate.

Barack Obama's campaign clearly seems to have given the most thought and planning to the subject of Afghanistan, and he offers the most detailed plan for moving forward there. In fact, Obama is in favor of escalating the war in Afghanistan, a type of mini-surge if you will with an additional 6,000 to 10,000 troops.

John Edwards addresses the issue head on but with less detail than Obama. Like Obama, Edwards would commit more forces, albeit Special Forces to the conflict.

Hillary Clinton seems to avoid specifics on the subject all together. Her congressional website does quote her as telling military troops in January of 2007 that she had “expressed our strong support for their mission in Afghanistan.”

The Democrats should and must win this election after suffering two embarrassing defeats at the hands of the incompetent idiot that is George Bush. To lose to such a character is an utter disgrace. Some people may attempt to blame the people of this nation for such a catastrophe to occur. I disagree vehemently and am, in fact, angered by such notions. The blame rests instead entirely on the leadership of the Democratic party. To lose in the way in which Al Gore did is acceptable. To lose by nominating John Kerry, a candidate who stood no chance of winning, being a far too left leaning extreme liberal from Massachusetts, is unacceptable. The leadership of the Democratic party is nominating their favorite candidate instead of the candidate who stands the best chance of winning and in doing so allowing somebody like George Bush to get elected.

The Democratic party leadership needs to put away their ultra-liberal agenda, which they have no hope of ever enacting, and sacrifice their selfish personal whims for the good of their party and the good of the nation. They must instead try to connect with average Americans, and particularly voters, who are slightly more conservative in nature. This means nominating a more moderate candidate who stands a better chance of winning. This is not the election to experiment with an extremely liberal woman nominee from New York in Hillary Clinton, or a liberal, so-called black nominee from Chicago. Barack Obama is black in skin tone only. He lived his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia in the presence of mainly whites and few blacks.

He then went on to Harvard. I would even go so far as to say that John Edwards has more in common with the average black person than does Obama. He comes from modest backgrounds and worked tirelessly to get into a public university. The town where John Edwards grew up had a much higher portion of blacks than anywhere that Barack Obama grew up. And Edwards stood up and supported the integration process and reached out to the black community when he was younger at a time when it was not socially acceptable for whites to do so.

My main contention in this paper is that plain and simple John Edwards is the most electable Democratic candidate. And to me that is all that matters because any Democrat's policy is better than that of any of the Republicans. It is easy to see why John Edwards is the most electable candidate. He would win all the states that Obama and Clinton would win in the electoral vote (which is currently all that matters) plus other states that they would never compete in. Edwards would win all the same liberal strongholds that Democrats always win, which are for the most part the northeast, the pacific coast and the states surrounding the great lakes. He would in addition, however compete in more conservative areas such as the South, the Midwest and the old northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois).

John Edwards would most certainly win in his home state of North Carolina, which is more than either Clinton or Obama can say, and I predict he could win Arkansas, a state whose U.S. congressman are all Democrats, whose senators are all Democrats and whose governor is a Democrat, as well as Louisiana, a state that also has a large Democratic base. People seem to right off the South as a Republican stronghold. This is not true in my mind. The Democratic party is and always has been the party of the South. The Democrats just need to nominate better candidates to gain support there.

I hope it is now clear to anybody who has read this article what the Democratic party's strategy should be. Nominate John Edwards and win the election. The results do not lie. The last three presidents that were Democrats were all from the South (Johnson, Carter, and Clinton). I no longer want to see victories for the Ultra-conservatives who only want to conserve their own power and well being, or pathetic defeats suffered by the Ultra-liberals who stand no chance of winning.

It is instead time for a victory for the common American. I do not believe that the common American is found far to the left or right in the political spectrum, but somewhere in the middle. That is why I believe John Edwards, a populist, (socially conservative, yet liberal in providing government service to struggling Americans) best represents America's voters and should be nominated by the Democratic party to win the next presidential election and help the common American.

Corporate Democrats, as well as corporate Republicans, have something to fear from the former trial lawyer and US Senator from North Carolina. However, trying to pretend John Edwards is invisible, or that he has no support from Americans who want America reformed from the roots, only makes the DLC look more disgraceful than they have looked for some time.

Our country does not need another Republican regime or anything like one. We do not need more corporate corruption. The DLC does not represent the Democrats and other Americans concerned about America today, and tomorrow.

John Edwards speaks for millions. That leaves him a contender.

Many other cases were legally won on behalf of people of limited means by Mr. Edwards as well. Now, Senator Edwards is expanding his crusade against insurance companies, big oil and other large corporations on behalf of the larger American population. Senator Edwards ran for president in 2004, but his campaign ran out of funds and ultimately folded. He was then chosen by Senator John Kerry, to be his running mate, and with a close race the team lost to the republicans. Senator Edwards stayed on the political trail, after that loss, lying the groundwork for another run in Iowa and throughout the United States, even traveling overseas, to increase his experience for the next run.

It has been reported that he, as well as the two other top candidates have very well oiled ground work teams and many volunteers working in Iowa.The union workers who are supporting Mr. Edwards are ready to go, hoping that this time they are backing a winner. They are ready to move Iowans to the caucuses by whatever means necessary. Senator Edwards and his wife Elizabeth, along with their children will be going through Iowa, on a thirty-eight hour no sleep tour, during the days before the caucuses begin.

Mrs. Edwards said in a television interview, that they want to meet as many people as they can. She told of a woman, she and her husband met, who was a precinct leader for Senator Obama, who decided to switch to Senator Edwards after talking to him. She felt that the more people they talked to face to face, the more people might turn to her husband's campaign. Over seventy per-cent of Iowans have a favorable opinion of Senator Edwards, while over forty percent prefer Senator Obama, Mrs. Clinton is the least likable.

At the present time, Senator Edwards leads in the polls with twenty-four per-cent Senator Clinton is at twenty-three per-cent and Senator Obama is at twenty-two percent, a virtual tie. It will come down to organization on the part of the campaigns and the enthusiasm, and dedication on the part of the people of Iowa. The weather is supposed to be fair, so a large record breaking crowd is expected. So it's off to the races. Slow but steady, like the turtle, may be the winning method, as undertaken by the Senator from the south, with the winning smile and the charming accent. Stay tuned!

Annie Flaplips (Ann Coulter) is a person known for her principles, no matter how low they may be. The John Edwards comment showed the intelligence of a field mouse in cheese trap. To add to her display of mental genius the woman follows up with an explanation that has me thinking this might be the other woman in the Newt Gingrich hypocrisy affair. Simply for no other reason than they both stand there and contradict themselves pretending to sound authentic. And they do, if proving yourself to a genuine idiot is being authentic.

Palefaces speak with forked everything

How much fun can we have in one week? First Flaplips says she was addressing John Edwards Presidential Wannabe in the terms of "that word" (Refer to Ann Coulter Offends Gays with John Edwards Slur) as a schoolyard taunt meaning "wimp," Then goes on to explain how using that word sent Isaiah Washington in rehab. After hearing that verbal epiphany, I expected a Reverend Jim (Whoa!) follow through. Seriously, Annie we really need to know more about you, Bobby Guccione Jr, and the possibility of drugs. Is it possible you suffered the rush of a sudden flashback?

I am only going to touch on (Eye Of) Newt Gingrich for a brief moment. I may want skew him over the hot flames (I hope that word won't get me into trouble) another day. Newt confesses while publicly criticizing then President Clinton for doing the Monica thing, had his own Lewinsky going on the side. He now explains the difference was Clinton broke the law. "Eye Of" hails from the state of Georgia as his political base. Since when did adultery become either mandatory or a religious sacrament in Georgia and a crime in the rest of the country? If it has, I have a "no longer friend" who may just move there.

At any rate back at the ranch.

I understand Annie Flaplips is admired throughout this nation. Apparently, as was Anna Nicole Smith. (I know, I know at least that wasn't a low blow.) People pay big bucks to hear Annie speak. I don't think they wanted Anna to speak so much, but she got the bucks anyway. I think if Annie is going to speak and say off the cuff idiocies, she should stand behind them. After all people paid to hear from you what you mean. You said what you said for the effect and tying in the Grey's Anatomy Isaiah Washington rehab reference clarified what you meant. This type of contradiction goes back to your roots. I don't mean the ones on your head you pay several hundred a sitting to touch up. No matter what you say and how you say it, I will never believe you mean it. Not that I really did before because I will never ever, ever believe anyone who hung with the Gucciones can look me in the eye and say they are the voice of the conservatives. I would imagine it would be immediately followed by a who can laugh louder contest.

The hypocrisy does stop at Ann Coulter's door

That "no longer friend" I referred to before will swear "The Fidelity" is a sperm bank. There are those of you who have an idea of what the word fidelity means. To others fidelity joins faithful on the George Carlin Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television list. (Okay that would make the list nine now.) Annie Flaplips childish backtracking is an example of the latter. John Edwards capitalizing on the moment to accumulate over $100 thousand dollars in contributions to sling mud back is another example of being unfaithful to principles. "The Fidelity" in the Edwards case would have been to take the high road. At best, just point out the how low brow the statement was by Ann Coulter and move on. I don't think he could referred to it as being beneath her. I cannot see how that would be possible.

I feel, for the Edwards campaign to wean dollars out of the incident is an act of political prostitution. Annie turned the trick and he pimped it for profit. Maybe if anyone is interested in real personal redemption, they should come clean. We have already discussed the soap for Annie's long bath. I will toot on Newt another time. However, for John Edwards to come clean, he should donate the Coulter fund money. A good consideration would be to Isaiah Washington's Gay Slur Rehab Clinic. You would call that showing compassion with a slap in the face.

Ann Coulter has made a name for himself as an extreme conservative with a liberal mouth. Nobody is spared from her slashing tongue including her own "kind". An admitted sensationalist spewing her own slant on the concept of viewpoint the pseudo-journalist is more Lenny Bruce than John Birch in her delivery. Going back to my reference to the word "kind", I think I will recradle the words in the manner of "What "kind" of an idiot goes around just spouting out brainlessness like she does. The answer is someone who gets off being the 21st century "Anti-Maude." If you remember, Maude was the TV female counterpart to Archie Bunker. This fraudulent image Miss Coulter projects is really based on the 3P's concept.

What is a true conservative?

One absolute answer is not Ann Coulter. She may espouse extreme conservative virtues and values, but she does not live them. First of all she is forty six years old single and despite some people's opinion not a mother. If she were a true conservative, Ms. Coulter would be with a family nurturing home and hearth instead of traipsing the country fueling controversy. Secondly, she used to be romantically linked to Bob Guccione, Jr. We know Junior from his Spin magazine and son of Papa Guccione of Penthouse magazine fame. That is about as conservative as wearing a purple and red suit to an Orthodox Jewish funeral.

The history of "That Word"

The word Ann Coulter used, for discretionary sake I will dub "That Word," has seemed to become in vogue for controversy. It has recently placed actor Isaiah Washington of TV's Grey Anatomy in career jeopardy. Thus, the Coulter reference of saying "That Word" and going into rehab being used for its shock appeal. It has also come to light as a strong whisper around the NBA (Read: Tolerance Revisited - Facing the Truth About Gays in the NBA).

"That Word" has a more simple origin. The original historical reference comes from double-banded bundles of wood used to burn heretics at the stake. Recanting heretics were forced to wear an embroidered symbol the bundled wood on their sleeves. These people were the original "That Word"(s) in history. Back in the puritanical times of the 1800's women heretics or sometimes deemed witches were burned at the stake with bundles of "That Word". One could probably discern from historical reports that a woman such as Ann Coulter in that time would have be subjected to a similar fate.

The 3P's concept as applied to Ann Coulter

The 3P's are Publicity, Pleasure and Profit. In other words, Ann Coulter is the poor women's version of Donald Trump. The Donald is about as much as a true conservative as Annie Flaplips. What Coulter did was a cheap way to nurture the 3P's. As I stated previously, this is not the nurturing a true conservative woman would be doing. She does engage in the practice to sell books, promote celebrity, and increase wealth. The method employed is cheap because the remarks used are vindictive.

Frankly, I think Ann would be better suited promoting a tell-all book about her time with Junior. At this time the nation at large would be ripe to see if a man who's family history is ripe with deviant sex (i.e.: lesbian and orgy sex), drugs, and what not included her. If it did then Ms. Coulter can blow that pseudo-conservative image out the window and make a billion more bucks.

For the record 1

The John Edward campaign has made a big mistake by lowering down to Ann Coulters level to raise money. Instead of taking the high road or issuing a simple blow of her reference, they launch fundraising campaign to combat her words. The publicity campaign, which includes emails with a link to view the originating incident, fuels another thought. The thought that comes to mind ponders if is there a reason for the overreaction. Was Ann Coulter resorting to using gays as an insult or an implication? Either way this is a reciprocal hypocrisy.

For the record 2

I like most liberals believe in the freedom of speech. I do not believe Ann Coulter should be home in the kitchen burning dinner and keeping house. I also do not believe Ann Coulter is a true conservative. I do believe she is a profiteering capitalist leading the sheep to her bank account. I give kudos' to her success. I do believe that the infamous statement was more of a mishandled cheap shot at gays than at Edwards. For that, maybe Isaiah Washington might discreetly slip her the phone number of that rehab, he used.

For the record 3

I do not read Ann Coulter. I do not intend to read Ann Coulter. Moreover, if she would write the tell-all book about her time with young Bobby Gucci, I could care less. My point is so should John Edwards.