Sotto Voce

This has been a busy week at work, so not enough time to blog. But, that doesn't mean I haven't had time to mutter things under my breath.


1. Mitt Romney's Bay Area fundraiser happened just up the hill from Free Will HQ, but sadly we were not able to attend the $50,000/head affair. I will definitely attend any $50/head fundraisers that Mitt might be holding in the coming months.


2. Good show on Romney's part to head over to the abandoned Solyndra factory, which is just a bridge away from last night's party. One wonders whether this was spur of the moment (tipsy billionaire partygoer: Hey, Mitt, you know that Solyndra factory is right across the San Mateo Bridge!) or if there was a little more planning involved. 


3. The main problem with the Facebook IPO was that everyone was sure that FB was a sure thing. They forget that Google faced a lot of pre-IPO skepticism over its prospects. They also forget that, 20 years ago, Apple was a niche company with a string of failed short-term CEO's and a $5/share stock price. Nothing happens overnight, sadly, even if we keep needing to be reminded of that. 


4. With all the abuse hurled at FB and Morgan Stanley, an overlooked aspect of the FB disaster was the complete breakdown in NASDAQ's trading system. I thought the whole raison d'etre for NASDAQ was that is was more tech-friendly, but it performed worse than the old ticker tape stock exchange. 


5. Come to think of it, there was an IPO a couple months ago by a company (its name escapes me) that designs computerized trading systems and...the system crashed.


6. Another big, unacknowledged loser from the FB IPO was Jerry Brown whose budget forecasts relied quite a bit on the one-time boost of a "pop" that was not to be. See what I mean about people  and sure things?


7. If you asked the Free Will Grandparents, they would likely tell that folks like Dolores Huerta helped to ruin California through their racially-tinged intimidation campaigns against state farmers. No doubt seeing the socialist Huerta receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom from a guy who says he "stole" Huerta's "Yes! We! Can!" slogan (but don't call Obama a socialist!) led to a lot of midnight grave-rolling.


8. Don't even get me started on Obama's "Polish Death Camps" remark. For one thing, I don't think I've ever heard such a phrase. (kinda like "White Hispanic"). "Nazi Death Camps" is the conventional shorthand and has worked well for decades, but I guess the Obamites wanted to get fancy.


9. If you haven't given Spotify a try, you should. There's limitless music available virtually for free, if you can handle sitting through the occasional ads. There's gotta be a catch...


10. The John Edwards verdict is breaking as I write this, and so far it looks like a hung verdict. Not surprising, as there are strong arguments for both guilt or acquittal. Still, if Edwards can get away with receiving a million dollars as a "gift" for non-campaign expenses, that seems like a bigger campaign finance loophole than anything you could point to in the Citizens United case. 


11. Speaking of the Supreme Court, it's hard to believe that in a few weeks we will know whether or not Obamacare will be upheld or struck down in whole or in part. No matter what happens, someone's not going to be happy.

Mellon Head: The NY Times Covers the John Edwards-Bunnie Mellon Story

The NY Times had a (not very big) story in today's paper about "Bunnie" Mellon, the billionaire dowager who gave John Edwards millions of dollars to hide his pregnant mistress during the 2008 campaign. As the story describes events that occurred 3-4 years ago, and comes 3 years after the National Enquirer ran Edwards to ground (after a solid year of being the sole media outlet outside of Kausfiles to cover the Edwards story at all), 18 months after Andrew Young's The Politician described the events in detail, and one year after I blogged about "Bunnie Money"...I'd say the Times is late to this story.

Mrs. Mellon, a Democrat in a world of Republicans, first met Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, through Mr. Huffman five years ago. She expressed an interest in Mr. Edwards because he reminded her of President John F. Kennedy, she told the decorator. And he arranged a first meeting, over tea, at her estate, Oak Spring Farms, in Upperville, Va.

Mr. Edwards ingratiated himself with Mrs. Mellon to the point where she gave him millions of dollars as well as a gold necklace as a good-luck charm for the campaign trail, according to a tell-all memoir by Andrew Young, Mr. Edwards’s former aide, who is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

In May 2007, when Mr. Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, told Mr. Edwards she was pregnant, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Young began looking for people who could give them money to help conceal the affair, the indictment said.

About the same time, it said, Mrs. Mellon wrote a note to Mr. Young, saying: “I was sitting alone in a grim mood — furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut. But it inspired me — from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me. ... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.”

At that point, the indictment said, Mrs. Mellon had already contributed the maximum permitted by law — $2,300 — to Mr. Edwards’s campaign.

Over the next eight months, the indictment said, Mrs. Mellon sent checks for Mr. Edwards through Mr. Huffman totaling $725,000, “falsely” referring in memo lines to things like “chairs,” “antique Charleston table” and “bookcase.” (Mr. Huffman refused to discuss this aspect of the case.)

Forget campaign finance violations, when is the trustee of the Mellon Trust going to sue Edwards for elder abuse?

In the wake of Edwards's indictment, John at Powerline and Steven Hayward have written that prosecuting Edwards was prosecutorial overkill, and not supported by federal election law. There's nothing illegal about a one party giving another $6 million to hide their mistress, goes the reasoning. All I can say is, read The Politician. Mellon was giving Edwards millions of dollars for his campaign, not for his mistress. (I doubt she had any idea Rhielle Hunter existed). Her money was being laundered through Edwards's campaign, either by Young or the late Fred Baron. At some point reading The Politician you start to wonder, hey, how is that people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have to justify really penny-ante "violations" like whether the right RNC office saved the right Neiman Marcus receipts, while John Edwards can use hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single source to hide his pregnant mistress from the media? Well, Mellon's money was a gift! Of course! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this before? Well, no one's thought of it before because that would eviscerate the campaign finance laws.

I'll join with anyone out there who says the present system for financing elections is an incumbent protection racket that has done nothing to keep $$ out of politics. But, the laws are on the books and Edwards is subject to them, same as evil Republicans (whose campaign "violations" are usually reported on the weekend before elections, rather than years after the fact).

Alas, Babylon: Governator Fathered Secret Love Child

Now that Arnold Schwarzenegger is out of office, I guess the truth can be told: he fathered a child with a member of the household staff (shades of DSK). Cue "The Fornicator" jokes:

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that he fathered a child with a member of his household staff, a revelation that apparently prompted wife Maria Shriver to leave the couple's home before they announced their separation last week.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver jointly announced May 9 that they were splitting up after 25 years of marriage. Yet, Shriver moved out of the family's Brentwood mansion earlier in the year after Schwarzenegger acknowledged the child is his, The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.

"After leaving the governor's office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago," Schwarzenegger told the Times in a statement that also was sent to The Associated Press early Tuesday. "I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry.

The love child was born 10 years ago, which predated his disappointed term as governor. Turns out that the one thing he managed to accomplish during his seven years in Sacramento was keeping the lid on such an explosive story. The LA Times must kicking themselves today. They were writing these lame screaming headlines about "groping," while Arnold's secret child was going about his/her business right under their noses.

The "staffer," btw, continued to work for the Schwarzeneggers until January of this year when she retired. She also claimed that her husband was the "real" father, which means another family is breaking up today.

Schwarzenegger's term as governor was a disaster for the state and the GOP because he campaigned as a fiscal conservative and governed as a profligate member of the bi-partisan party of government. Now he's provided the left with yet another entry on the sarcastic "Party of Family Values" list. Thanks a heap.

UPDATE: Althouse is skeptical that Maria Shriver could not have known about Ah-nuld' affair and child until now. Hey, maybe they live in a really big house.

UPDATE 2: I've been hearing/seeing a lot of Edwards/Ah-nuld comparisons out there. I'll bet most people probably think John Edwards is "smarter" than Schwarzenegger, but (1) at least the Governator didn't bear a love child during one of his campaigns* and (2) Schwarzenegger managed, against all odds, to keep an explosive story like this hidden until he could reveal it at a time of his choosing, that time apparently being after the end of his political career when he wanted to get his wife out of his hair. Cold? You bet. But not dumb.

*yeah, yeah. That we know of...

Let The Punishment Fit The Crime: Should John Edwards Be Indicted?

Word on the street is that John Edwards may be indicted for campaign finance violations relating to his alleged use of campaign funds to buy off and hide the pregnant Rielle Hunter. Mickey Kaus, who was virtually alone among the media in writing about Edwards's mistress, thinks that would not be a just result:

Everything John Edwards did–every breath he took–for four years was designed to get him elected president, after all. His antipoverty work was designed to make him look good. The payoffs to Rielle Hunter were designed to make him look good (by preventing him from looking bad). If the latter is a campaign expense, and has to be paid for with funds subject to individual limits, why not the former? And don’t say it’s because the former is a good thing and the latter is a bad thing. Criminal law isn’t supposed to be a blanket warrant to punish things we think are bad.

If you’re going to enact a criminal law which requires such squirrelly distinctions–including an absurd attempt to figure out what part of a politician’s life isn’t related to getting him or her elected–the only way to save it, it seems to me, is to cut people a lot of slack when it comes to applying it. That’s especially true when it comes to laws regulating the core democratic practice of running for office. Otherwise you wind up with what lawyers like to call a “chilling effect”–chilling in that it will prevent candidates from doing lots of things that should be legal, chilling in that it will deter non-insiders from running. …

All I know about Edwards's efforts to bankroll his mistress come from former Edwards aide Andrew Young's book The Politician. Young spends quite a bit of time describing his and Edwards's meetings with rich liberals who donated enthusiastically to Mr. Two-Americas. Hootie & The Blowfish, for example, were big Edwards supporters.

But, their biggest donor was Bunnie Mellon, a ninety-something dowager billionaire who was enthralled with Edwards. (you can practically hear her say, "Such a nice young man!") Mellon gave Edwards literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, laundered through Young and others, no questions asked. It was this money that funded a year-long cross country tour of spas and luxury hotels by Hunter, Young, Young's wife and their children; a tour that ended with a Santa Barbara sojourn in a rented mansion with Young's kids going to a pricey private schools. All of this paid for with "Bunnie money." Mellon, in case you were wondering, earned her pile the old fashioned way: she married an heir to the Mellon banking fortune. Mellon, Edwards and Young apparently liked to joke about how the Republican Mr. Mellon's money was going to support progressive causes. Haw! Haw!

Now, at some point reading The Politician you start to wonder, hey, how is that people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have to justify really penny-ante "violations" like whether the right RNC office saved the right Neiman Marcus receipts, while John Edwards can use hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single source to hide his pregnant mistress from the media? Well, Mellon's money was a gift! Of course! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this before?

Anyway, if this isn't the clearest possible example of how campaign finance laws are little more than an incumbent protection racket, I don't know what else there is. Back in Ye Olden Days (pre-1974) people like Bunnie Mellon could bankroll someone's campaign without going through all of these dodges. Supposedly this was a corrupt system, but I don't see how you can read the Edwards/Mellon tale and not conclude that the current one is even worse. Pre-1974, a would be politician would need to impress some deep pockets with his intelligence, skills and confidence. Now, there's much more a premium in being a glib salesman.

As for Edwards, I'm still waiting for someone - isn't there some kind of Mellon Trust trustee out there? - to sue him for elder abuse, which would be much more fitting for what he did during his "fund raising" visits to Bunnie Mellon.

Candidate, Interrupted: Mark Dayton and his Enablers

Powerline looks at this year's Democratic primary race for governor of Minnesota, where the front-runner looks to be former Senator Mark Dayton, the heir to the Dayton's retail fortune whose brief Senate career was memorable for the time in 2004 when he evacuated his DC office. In the very latest example of the "what if this were a Republican?" level of MSM coverage, it appears that Dayton's very real flaws are going unreported, even as they are open secrets among the Minnesota elite: Dayton's Millions

At a charity auction in 1994 or so I won the opportunity to have Dayton take me and a friend to lunch at the Minneapolis Club. The lunch occurred toward the end of Dayton's tenure as the Minnesota state auditor. At lunch we argued politics and found nothing on which to agree. The lunch was extremely unpleasant because Dayton seemed to be unable to disagree agreeably. Dayton nevertheless put me on his Christmas card list for roughly the next five years.

Over those five years Dayton used his Christmas cards to discuss the dissolution of his two marriages, his entry into rehabilitation for alcoholism and related therapy issues. His psychiatric challenges were no secret to the many people on Dayton's Christmas card list, including virtual strangers like me.

The Star Tribune reported in its news story this past December: "People who have worked closely with Dayton or within the [Minnesota Democratic Party] said they have long known the former senator struggled with mental health issues." Later the story adds: "Opponents -- and even some supporters -- have long whispered of his possible struggle with mental illness."

Well, thanks. Where, one might ask, was the Star Tribune during Dayton's Senate campaign? It wouldn't have taken much digging to report this story during the 2000 Senate campaign.

It also wouldn't have take much digging to report the story during Dayton's six-year term in office, when Dayton provided the Star Tribune with many occasions that made the story relevant. The Star Tribune's December story noted, for example: "Dayton said neither his depression nor his alcoholism affected his political decisions, including those to close his Senate office in 2004 when he -- and no one else -- perceived Washington to be at an immediate risk for terrorism."

In other words, once Dayton himself sought to defuse the issues regarding his fitness for office by raising them with a friendly columnist, the Star Tribune jumped right on the case. The Star Tribune's performance on these basic issues regarding Dayton's fitness for office has been weak, along with that of the rest of the Minnesota media.

Of course if Dayton were Republican, we would know only two things about him: (1) he's rich (2) he's a crazy drunk. But, that's the funny thing about politics in the US. If you are a Democrat, and you prove yourself to be a reliable vote in favor of progressive policies, then your flaws will be hidden from view, while those of your opponents will be broadcast from the rooftops. I mean, if you are, say, running for Senate from Illinois, your opponent's ideological allies will think nothing of suing in California to open up your divorce records and then broadcasting them far and wide. Didn't John Kerry get divorced? And Ted Kennedy? And Chris Dodd? Funny, how no one has thought to do this to them.

It gets worse. Powerline points to an interesting analysis by their colleague Mitch Berg, who has taken a careful look at campaign finance disclosures for a couple obscure yet well-funded advocacy groups that have taken to running scurrilous ads against Minnesota Republicans. Turns out that the major (as in millions of $$) source of funds come from associates and family relations of Mark Dayton

So “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” is essentially a front for a group of unions and, to the tune of millions over the past four years, Mark Dayton’s family, friends and ex-wife.

They are paying millions of dollars to advertise – and hiding it from casual view behind two layers of astroturf.

Mark Dayton is trying to buy the election, but he’s taking great pains to make sure you don’t know about it.

Again, imagine if this were a Republican. We really don't have to. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? They were attacked by virtually every MSM outlet with a White House pass, with muckrakers poring over their campaign finance reports looking for Rovian fingerprints. Or, how about Sarah Palin and the "ethics complaints" that have been serially filed against her? They are loudly trumpeted on the filing date, while their dismissals go out on little cat feet.

Even better is the amazing tale of John Edwards and Bunnie Mellon, which is told in Andrew Young's The Politician. The 95 year old Mellon simply gave Edwards $6 million for his campaign, most of which he used to pay for the strenuous efforts he took to hide his pregnant mistress. Now, you might be thinking, hey, I thought the limit on individual donors was $5,000! Hah! That's the limit for hayseeds from Alaska who carefully save their receipts from Neimans (and still get accused of "stealing" clothes). If you are Mr. Two Americas, that $6 million is a "gift" that no one - not the media or the FEC - need worry about. Lucky break. If Edwards is really lucky, no one will accuse him of elder abuse, which would certainly happen if Mellon had direct heirs, which she doesn't.

It's a fallen world, and finding fatally flawed people in politics is as easy as finding ants at a picnic. But, if you mouth the right platitudes about social justice and equality, your flaws will remain a private matter, unless you self-destruct so wildly that even your powerful father can't help you. A former member of the Ku Klux Klan will find his past (heh heh) white washed, so long as he votes the right way, while Republicans will receive no forgiveness for the most innocent steps across the media's racial tripwire. A man who killed a woman while driving drunk will be the Lion of the Senate, while a Republican with a 30 year old DUI will suddenly face wall-to-wall press scrutiny the week before an election. And, best of all, a billionaire can head the Democratic ticket in 2004 (along with his multi-millionaire trial lawyer running mate) and then castigate his opponents as being "rich" even though he has enough net worth to buy and sell them 20 times over. I could go on all day, but you get the idea.

Americans often wonder how so many flawed people end up in politics. The fact is that many of them go there seeking protection. So long as they vote the right way, that protection is always available.

The Politician: A Book Review

THE POLITICIAN

By Andrew Young

I read The Politician so you don't have to. I hope you appreciate it.

This is the amazing story of the rise and fall of John Edwards from someone who was with him at virtually every step on the way up and then on the way down. You may have heard that Edwards had an affair with a blowzy blond, got her pregnant and then spent the 2008 presidential campaign hiding her from the press (most of which happily looked the other way). That's a big part of this book, but only in the second half. There's also plenty of information about Edwards' meteoric rise to power (his Senate run was his first campaign), his lightning-in-a-bottle 2004 presidential campaign, and subsequent 2004 vice presidential run. There's also plenty of info about the Edwards' genuine family tragedy, the death of one of their kids, which the Edwards never really recovered from, and which inspired his political career.

Of course, the real action starts when Rielle Hunter hits the scene about half way through the book. If Edwards had simply had a one-night stand with her, I'm sure she would remain obscure and Edwards may have become Attorney General. But, Edwards actively pursued the relationship and - at least as it appears through Young's eyes - had a real love affair with Hunter. It wasn't even that big a secret. One of the most amazing moments the book comes when Edwards brings Hunter back to his house (his wife was on a book tour) where she spent the night, hung out with two of Edwards' kids(!), hung out with some of Edwards' friends, and (apparently)had hot sexxx in Edwards' marital bed. There's also a dramatic moment (also early in their relationship) when Rielle and Elizabeth run into each other at a fund raiser. I actually gasped when this happened.

Some might say Edwards was reckless. I say he just didn't give a hoot. His relationship with Hunter began after his wife's cancer diagnosis. While many people might be put off by this, the fact is that there are plenty of middle aged men out there who check out of their marriage vows after their wife receives cancer (or any terminal disease) diagnosis. What Edwards did was unique in the history of recent political sex scandals, but is not unique in the war between the sexes. That's not to excuse his behavior - and getting his girlfriend pregnant was monumentally stupid - only to say that there are a lot of people who have followed this path.

In addition to chronicling the Rielle-Edwards relationship, Young also gives us a glance into high level Democratic politics. This is actually the most interesting part of the book precisely because it is so inadvertent. Young, through Edwards, is able to sit in the room with high rolling Democratic donors (like Hootie and the Blowfish!) whom guys like Edwards tap to fund their careers. The vast wealth Edwards is exposed to should put the lie to the notion that Dems are some sort of Party of the Common Man. In fact, they are the party of what even Edwards calls the "really rich." (before meeting a donor, Edwards would ask "Are they rich like me, or really rich?")

For a political book, there is surprisingly little politics. Oh, there's plenty of talk about strategy and tactics, but there's little about policy. Young, for his part, is politically shallow; he's one of those guys who thinks we need universal health care because his daughter had to wait a couple hours for a procedure. He also whines about George Bush's tax cuts for "millionaires," which "squandered the surplus." Young had obviously been watching too much Crossfire. There's a lot of talk about Edwards' "two Americas" speech, but we never know what he plans to do once in office. He and Young spend a lot of time on the road together, but there is a notable lack of spitballing solutions to the problems that Edwards claims to see in American society.

The most bizarre part of the book is, of course, the months that Young and his family spent on the lam with the pregnant Rielle. They stayed in a revolving series of luxury resorts before landing in Santa Barbara where little Quinn (b/c she's Edwards' fifth child. What, you thought Rielle was stupid?) was born. The trip was bankrolled by Edwards' lawyer buddies who were funneling money from "Bunny" Mellon, a billionaire dowager who gave Edwards six million dollars for his campaign.

As Mellon was 95 years old and much of this money ended up with Rielle, I think you could make a very good case for fraud and elder abuse against Edwards and his cohorts, not to mention campaign finance violations. I mean, how is it OK that someone gives John Edwards six million dollars for his presidential run, which he uses to bankroll his mistress, while Sarah Palin is saving receipts from Neiman Marcus (and still gets accused of "stealing" from the GOP campaign)? Oh, wait, I forgot. Edwards is a Democrat and Palin's a Republican. 'Nuff said.

The portrait of Edwards that emerges is, of course, unflattering. But, the people who should really be embarrassed are all of those left-liberals who bought his act and thought he was some kind of noble progressive. Edwards had four things going for him: he was rich; he was good looking; he had a great (for a liberal) stump speech; and he was from the South. That's it. Before he entered the Senate he had no political career to speak of. Four years later he was on the 2004 presidential ticket. If it seemed too good to be true, it probably was; but everyone wanted to believe that he was the latest good looking liberal politician to come out of nowhere and win the presidency. There is no sign whatsoever in any part of this book as to what kind of president he would have been (besides a philandering one). All of those sophisticated leftists who donated money to Edwards, volunteered for him, - and then convinced themselves that these crazy stories about a pregnant mistress hiding out in Santa Barbara were not true - should be doubly embarrassed, but they were able to drown their sorrows in Barack Obama, so it's all good.

Edwards and his few remaining supporters have declared this book to be trash. It is in that it describes a lot of trashy behavior by everyone in the Edwards camp, including Young and St. Elizabeth. But, it's also a fascinating portrait of how someone can rise in American politics, and how quickly they can fall.

I've Been A Bastard All My Life

John Edwards finally admits what some of us knew from the beginning: "I never meant one word of it."

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has finally come forward to admit that he fathered a child with a videographer he hired before his second White House bid. "It was wrong for me to ever deny she was my daughter," he said Thursday.

Edwards confirmed this in a statement released to The Associated Press, after initially denying that he'd fathered a child during an affair with campaign aide Rielle Hunter.

"I am Quinn's father," the former senator declared in his statement, as the second birthday of Frances Quinn Hunter approaches.

Part of me feels a little sorry for his supporters, but not much. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that their campaign donations were going to support his second family, and further the cover-up. But, there was plenty of circumstantial - not to mention direct! - evidence that Edwards was a slippery pol who used hoary sentiment about the "Two Americas" to exploit the social justice crowd for his personal political and financial gain. Trial lawyers, unions, and poverty advocates; they all fell for him like a ton of bricks.

Neither Edwards, nor his supporters, provide any sort of net benefit to American society. They really deserved one another.

St. Elizabeth's

The new Heilmann/Helprin book about the 2008 presidential campaign is already tripping people up. Most of the coverage is focusing on Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, and the Clintons. But, there's apparently plenty of good stuff in there. One thing that will undoubtedly be lost in the shuffle: Elizabeth Edwards is not the saintly suffering wife we have been led to believe: An Exerpt From "Game Change"

No one in the Edwardses’ political circle felt anything less than complete sympathy for Elizabeth’s plight. And yet the romance between her and the electorate struck them as ironic nonetheless—because their own relationships with her were so unpleasant that they felt like battered spouses. The nearly universal assessment among them was that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing.

With her husband, she could be intensely affectionate or brutally dismissive. At times subtly, at times blatantly, she was forever letting John know that she regarded him as her intellectual inferior. She called her spouse a “hick” in front of other people and derided his parents as rednecks. One time, when a friend asked if John had read a certain book, Elizabeth burst out laughing. “Oh, he doesn’t read books,” she said. “I’m the one who reads books.”

During the 2004 race, Elizabeth badgered and berated John’s advisers around the clock. She called Nick Baldick, his campaign manager, an idiot. She accused David Axelrod, his (and later Obama’s) media consultant, of lying to her and insisted that he be stripped of the responsibility for making the campaign’s TV ads. She would stay up late scouring the Web, pulling down negative stories and blog items about her husband, forwarding them with vicious messages to the communications team. She routinely unleashed profanity-laced tirades on conference calls. “Why the fuck do you think I’d want to go sit outside a Wal-Mart and hand out leaflets?” she snarled at the schedulers.

Why the f***, indeed? There's 10 pages of this stuff - a comprehensive inside view of the implosion of John Edwards' personal and political life. Highly entertaining, both from a schadenfreude perspective and from the sheer spectacle of it all.

Of course, as long as Edwards was the least bit viable as a candidate, this information was impossible to come by, even though most of the Democratic establishment was apparently clued in, as was the respectable media. For months, only The National Enquirer and Mickey Kaus would discuss this story, and Kaus used it mostly as a vehicle to refine his concept of the undernews. (btw, I seem to recall that Kaus discussed rumors of another hush-hush affair involving the wife of a candidate that "everyone" knew about. H&H say it was Cindy McCain).

We've all gotten used to the double standard that transforms the peccadilloes of GOP back benchers like David Vitter and John Ensign into symbols of the Culture of Corruption, while those of Democrats receive the sort of discretion usually reserved for papal elections. But, the pre-scandal hagiography around Edwards was simply absurd. Edwards presented himself as the perfect West Wing candidate: handsome, intelligent, progressive, "son of a workin' man,"and with a great (for liberals) message with the "Two Americas" speech. His sainted wife was part of the package. And, it was all bull****; laughably so, in fact. But, until the Enquirer pulled off the near-impossible feat of publishing a picture of Edwards actually holding his love child, everyone was happy with playing along with the Edwards fantasy, rather than reporting the ugly reality.

The Gestation Time for the American Sucker

Obscure, regional politico John Edwards is in trouble for misusing campaign funds for some reason: Edwards Confirms Inquiry Into Finances

The two-time Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged Sunday that investigators are assessing how he spent his campaign funds -- a subject that could carry his extramarital affair from the tabloids to the courtroom. Edwards' political action committee paid more than $100,000 for video production to the firm of the woman with whom Edwards had an affair.

You would think that a story involving the former vice presidential and presidential candidate of a major political party fathering a child with his mistress while his wife died slowly from breast cancer would rate a little more attention. You would think the press would be curious about an effort to cover up the existence of the mistress and child by shuttling the "family" around the country during the presidential campaign before they landed in Beverly Hills, with an earnest campaign staffer playing the role of the "real" boyfriend and father. (No one seems to remember this detail anymore). You would also think that a wealthy lawyer, who ran a populist campiagn in which he professed to be concerned for the poor and powerless would be treated as the cynical opportunist that he was revealed to be, and that such professions of concern from the Dollarcrats who run the so-called Part of the Common Man would similiarly be suspect. You would think so, but it's not.

The tawdriness that lay at the heart of one of the Left's favored sons has been wiped clean from the notebooks of the nation's stenographers, and the scandal reduced to little more than a matter of "technical violations" of campaign finance laws by a guy (Fred Baron) who is conveniently dead.

If it makes anyone feel better, the rumor and innuendo suggests that Edwards was benefiting from the largesse of his wealthy friends, rather than using $20 donations from small donors to pay off his mistress.

While Edwards focused his comment on campaign funds, he also had a range of other fundraising organizations -- including two nonprofits and a poverty center at his alma mater -- that have come under scrutiny.

Chief among them was the PAC that paid Rielle Hunter's company for several months in 2006 for Web videos that documented Edwards' travels and advocacy in the months leading up to his 2008 presidential campaign. The committee also paid her firm an additional $14,086.50 on April 1, 2007.

Edwards acknowledged the affair with Hunter last year, months after dropping his presidential bid.

At the time of the 2007 payment, the PAC only had $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. That day, according to the records, Edwards' presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034.61 for what is
listed as a ''furniture purchase.''

Willfully converting money from a political action committee for personal use is a federal crime.

The furniture money was one of just five contributions to the political action committee between April 1 to June 30, 2007. The other four were on June 30, the last day of the reporting period, including a $3,000 contribution from the wife of Edwards' finance chairman, Fred Baron.

One of the oddities of the 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination was how Edwards could never gain traction, despite his being the party's golden boy and VP nominee just one cycle earlier. Obama and Hillary drew a lot of attention away from him, of course; but, still, he had a populist message that should have naturally worked on Democratic primary voters. It certainly worked for people like Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown. But, Edwards could never get anywhere.

In restrospect, there must have been insiders among the Dems' big donors and policy elite who knew exactly what was going on, and stayed away from Edwards, even while maintaining the famed Left wing omerta that protects Democratic politicians from scandalous revelations that would have landed the most obscure Republican on the front page of the NY Times as a symbol of the "culture of corruption."

The GOP has a lot of self-imposed problems right now, but surely it is also a problem that it must face this sort of permanent headwind of media double standards. (and surely it is a business problem for the media that it seems to go out of its way to avoid reporting an entertaining "Stop the Presses" sort of stories like this one because it invovles one of their favored candidates. If anything, Edwards getting a well-deserved "full Monica" during the campaign would have sold a lot of papers!)