Captain's Quarters -

Once a shyster lawyer, always a shyster lawyer.

And such is the life of a "personal injury" lawyer. Under normal circumstances in the courtroom he can slander at will without being held accountable. And make millions doing so. And having plenty of jurors that like his hair agree with his nonsense.

Tort reform please, and thanks John for making the case for tort reform.

Thank you, Captain. You've said it all (as did the Post in its unanswered question to Edwards).

Anyone who sets themselves up as a moralist of this type better be prepared to show by their pure actions that they don't live in a glass house.

A lawyer, a hypocrite, and a presidential candidate, John, that's three strikes, you are out.

Edwards is a lying, thieving, unaccomplished, unqualified, amoral, incompetent, corrupt, stupid, worthless, foppish, gelded buffoon.

Which sums up every other Democrat politician.

When will one of the Democrats separate themselves from the jackassery herd?

"You can't Swift Boat an empty suit."
Mark Steyn

So, in the space of about a week, we have:

One dem presidential wannabe, Barack Obama, threaten to invade Pakistan, and;

Another dem presidential wannabe, John Edwards, commit an act of hypocrisy that is glaring even by the low, low standards of American politics.

If this keeps up, the Hilldabeast is going to start looking like George Washington (shudder).

I take real comfort from the knowledge that every Presidential candidate in the Democratic Party comes from a governing body with a 4% approval rating...

Of course, accepting most of your contributions from other lawyers is just A-OK because lawyers are all upstanding citizens.

Edwards hasn't been relevant to the 08 election since the Amanda Marcotte fiasco. He's more dead in the water than the nutroots' most rabid fantasies of John McCain's "crumbling campaign".

When the only relevant stories about your campaign display how irrelevant your campaign truly is, it's time to withdraw.

Hillary's rapidly running out of veep choices. Somebody should have Kos suggest Al Gore, so that the failure of the Dems in 08 would be complete.

I am not defending Edwards, But.

Isn't there a distinction between accepting Murdoch’s money for personal campaign vs. getting paid for personal labor/goods?

Mama Cannoli always told me if you can't say something nice ...

Mr. Edwards really does have nice hair. It's clean. It reflects so many hues -- amber, alizarin crimson, emerald green, a deep chestnut brown. If he was a horse he would have a beautiful, dappled coat.

The part of Edwards' hair seems to spring from his scalp with the vigor of a much younger man. And his perfect hair crest flows in one great rhythm across his forehead in a gravity-mocking, razor-sharp wedge. It's as if his hair is saying "Hah! Gravity. I think not." It's almost musical, really -- his flying hair wedge proudly dancing across his smooth forehead before splashing against his left temple like a wave mixing with seafoam, feathering its golden bristles ... There aren't enough metaphors to describe the beauty of Mr. Edwards' hair.

Oops, my bad, I said Lawyer, meant to say liar, sorry.

The blogger and his merry sychophants are fools. Do you really not understand the difference between being paid for your work and receiving a donation for you campaign? Captain, you are intellectually dishonest.

"The blogger and his merry sychophants are fools."

Might wanna be a *little* more careful before casting those aspersions, DavyChuck.

http://tinyurl.com/2f2t6g

Here's what John "The Hair" Edwards actually had to say:

---

Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives.

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.

He challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign said it would return less than $1,000 in donations from three Fox employees — a worker at a local Fox station in Florida and two staffers from Fox Cable Networks — even though they are not executives.

---

The Democrats are supposed to stop pretending to be friends with EEEEVIL Fox News and Murdoch; as The Hair says (same article):

"We have to stand up to him. It's time to put a stop to this."

Yes, except for that taking $800K from him, and then waffling about what you're doing with the money.

It's called "lying" and "hypocrisy", DC. Check it out.

Oh, and here's your own petard back. Seems you were hoist upon it.

I tend to disagree with the Captain here---I have no sympathy for Edwards; he deserves plenty of criticism. On many things. But not for this. Reason: yes, he got $ from Murdoch. But for a book for which he contracted. He's criticizing, not $ per se, but _donations_ other candidates received. Not the same thing. You can read more at my blog, here:

http://fundamentalsandfalsehoods.blogspot.com/2007/08/john-edwards-unfairly-getting-ripped.html

Edwards is rich but Fred Thompson borrowed a pickup truck to drive to campaign events to make him look like regular guy

it would be nice to move past this type of silliness and debate policy again

Edwards has learned the game of politics well. He is attempting to cut off the source of campaign funds to his opponents and to stir up discontent between his opponents and their supporters as to place himself in a better position.

He's trying to use the "Fox is Too Conservative, return the donations!" rhetoric to embarrass his competitors in the DNC and get them in trouble with their netroot base by claiming that they are in Murdoch's pocket because of the contributions they have received. If he can convince his opponents to return the contributions, he will gain a slight advantage in his available campaign funds. If they do not, he will be able to claim that the other candidates are not "true" Democrats and are closet conservatives as only a conservative would collect campaign contributions from other conservatives. This may allow him to gain supporters by drawing some away from the other candidates.

For Edwards, this can be a win/win situation but only time will tell if it will have any real effect in his campaign.

If you write a book you earned the money.

If the money was donated then you didn't earn it.

2 completely different things here, and no, it doesn't make him a hypocrite (in this instance anyway).

It does`nt matter whether the money he took was in the form of a campaign contribution or not. He gladly took money from his "hated enemy" to advance himself, but tells others not to. He is indeed a hypocrite.

"Edwards has transformed himself from an ambulance chaser to a substanceless suit, and now to a classless hypocrite"

OK, I give up. What's the difference?

Elizabeth Edwards sez, "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman, and we can't make him serious."