John Edwards' mug shot released

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/15/john-edwards-mug-shot-released/?&hpt=hp_c2

he smiles even in the mug shot... lol. nothing to say really. just thought... so john.

Our not-so-dear John.

Slimy evil pod.

So there. I said it.

John Edwards warned about the closing of American factories and the devastation that is free trade.

He warned about what was going on in the mortgage industry before Obama knew what hit him.

I am convinced that if John Edwards were president, our economy would be on the upswing and our trading partners and big business would be showing the American people some respect.

He was the only Democratic candidate for president with anything approaching a degree in business. He majored in textile manufacturing management or something similar. I don't think Obama has a clue about economic issues. I suspect he never thought much about economics before running for office.

Obama's performance in office reflects his ignorance in this area. I hope he just doesn't ruin the chances of the Democratic Party way into the future.

at least he seemed to care about the ordinary people. Now though he just makes me so mad.

on the economy sounded great (and I was leaning towards supporting him for awhile, because of them), I don't think he ever really gave a damn about the poor, but was just exploiting that angle. After the 2004 election he got a job that paid a huge salary working for a hedge fund that invested in subprime mortgages.

And boinking that flake Reille Hunter while running for President *and* while his wife was suffering from terminal cancer proved to me that he's a moral slagheap with horrendous judgment.

And no, our economy would not be better off with him in the White House. Thank God or whoever that he never made it there -- but if he'd been nominated we'd now be stuck with McCain and Palin and we'd really be in a bad way.

I hope they throw his phony, sleazy ass in Leavenworth.

Edwards came from a small, mill town.

Obama is the one I do not trust at this point. He was persuaded that all he had to do was bail out the banks. He did that. Never mind that so many ordinary Americans lost their homes due to sleazy mortgage brokers and banks and the crooks on Wall Street. Never mind that even more Americans have lost their jobs or can't find jobs thanks to the cheating. Obama just sloughs it all off his shoulder as he does all criticism.

Meanwhile, Bernanke and Geithner do the bidding of the banks, and Obama feels important because he can bomb Libya without the approval of Congress. Does he seriously think that Republicans would ever vote against military involvement in an oil-rich country?

It's a sense of self-importance. They all have it. Edwards at least understood some economics. Obama understands no economics whatsoever. And the whole country is suffering for that fact.

He is extending additional work visas when Americans are out of jobs. And he wants to sign trade agreements when we need to be selling overseas, not buying there.

and probably would be if Hedge Fund Johnny had won the primaries and his sleazoid affair had been revealed. If you think things are bad now, just imagine how screwed we'd be under McCain/Palin. And given Hedge Fund Johnny's actual voting record as opposed to the smoke he was blowing up our skirts, I have no doubt that even if he had become President he'd have gone full DLC and nothing would be any better than it is now.

progressive earlier than Obama's.

and if he'd actually become President (assuming he could keep his zipper up) the actual results would have been no different, or maybe worse. He'd be dealing with the same intransigent bunch of Republicans who wouldn't let any policy that smelled even faintly progressive get anywhere. And considering his prior employment with a hedge fund that invested in subprime mortgages, why would you expect his economic policies to be any different from Tim Geithner's?

And it was her husband's support of NAFTA and deregulation that put us where we are today.

I think Edwards could have lost. He had a few deer in the headlights moments in the primary debates and I can't think of any time that showed that he could have projected the calm leadership that Obama did when the economy started to tank. That was very likely the moment when McCain actually lost.

Edwards would not have had the Senate seat to use as Obama did in getting a place in the meeting to craft a solution. The Democrats, in a very good move, had Obama present their ideas - rather than the likely committee chair (Baucus, Finance or Dodd, Banking. ) This let people see him as a calm, serious, intelligent leader vs McCain who was hard to follow he was dithering so fast.

Edwards was VERY vulnerable on completely changing every position he ever had. Kerry brilliantly used that same quality in McCain separating the "Senator McCain", who many Democrats, the media and many independents liked, and "candidate McCain". If Edwards were the candidate this would been dangerous to use - as it is a toss up whether McCain or Edwards flipped the most. (If that were contested, the "heroic" McCain would have beated "trial lawyer" Edwards. What people forget is that Edwards was NEVER the frontrunner for the nomination - meaning he never faced the onslaught of attacks that always come.

I agree completely with you that we have no idea what Edwards really believed or would do. He saw that the openning was on the left - and the man who said he did not remember if his first vote was for McGovern or Nixon - suddenly was to the left of everyone - even though his Senate record looked like Evan Bayh's.

aware of the housing mortgage crisis well before others. He was talking about it long before the others were. I think he learned a lot after the loss in 2004. And in spite of his dishonesty with Elizabeth, I think they were soulmates when it came to politics.

You know, Gore Vidal told the story that Eleanor Roosevelt once told him that Franklin Roosevelt treated her very badly. And we know he did. He is purported to have had a long affair with another woman. But, Eleanor was his inspiration when it came to a lot of his best policies. So, you see, marriage is not just about sex. Sometimes it is about working together in the world -- to make the world a better place.

I think that John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards would have made a great team in the White House. It's really sad for the country the way it worked out. John Edwards made a huge mistake getting involved with Rielle Hunter. It's very sad, and not just for Elizabeth and John Edwards and their children.

The justification - the US financial system and likely the world's could be seriously crippled.

I really do not know how much economics would be required in a textile manufacturing management degree. If any economics is required it would likely be the basic course and one course in microeconomics. It would not make him any more an expert on economics than Obama or Hillary Clinton.

You could look at his Senate record, but you would see that he voted for a bad bankruptcy bill and had a record similar to fellow DLC Senator, Evan Bayh. We really do NOT know what John Edwards really believed. His 2008 campaign was totally at odds with his entire political career.

The fact is the President, or a Senator or Congressman, cannot be an expert on each thing he needs to make decisions on. At all three levels, they rely on staff and experts (reporting to them as President, testifying before their committees as legislators) This is not to say that they do not learn - FAR more than that they would in an entry level economics class, while doing their job. For the President, the skills he needs are to be able to select a very good team. I think that Obama should have had more diversity in opinion on his team, but the people were/are competent. The President needs his team to independently from each other give their recommendations with views on the pros and cons of alternative actions. It is his job to make the final decision.

There are some structural economic problems that predated the collapse in 2008 that have become more glaring because of it. Most are the result of the globalization of the economy and the labor force. While trade deals might have aggravated this, the problem would exist even without them. If you think about it, the problem is that the ability (with or without trade deals) to outsource labor - whether manufacturing, programming and any intellectual activity that can be done remotely, call centers etc, you move the dynamic between companies and workers into uncharted waters. Think of why unions and guilds before them worked. They allowed the workers to unite and demand a higher share of profit go to labor and less to capital. Because there was not a big enough poll of replacements (and/or training a whole new force) made firing all of them uneconomic. Through the 1900s, you see laws trying to alter the balance of power - with some legislation bolstering unions and others (Taft/Hartley) constraining them arguing they were too powerful. (The odd thing about the current wave of anti-union acts is that unions are very weak now versus the past.)

Daily Kos had a nice article yesterday, with a graph that shows dramatically the fact that the percent for labor has drastically fallen since the 1980s. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/15/985247/-Workers-share-of-national-income-fails-to-recover-after-21st-Century-recessions?detail=hide&via=blog_1 That chart explaining the rapidly growing income gap - and it also explains the slow rise in demand as the recession ended. Most of the people in the country could not afford to buy as they did coming out of earlier recessions. I don't know how this trend can be reversed, but repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest might be a minor start.

But, think of this in conjunction with the Ryan plan to eliminate taxes on capital gains. That means both that a decreasing share of the country's income will be taxed and it accelerates the trend in the chart (if done after taxes are paid).

(Disclosure - IU gave me degrees in Math and Economics in 1972. I got a job mostly using the math degree and later going further in math. I do not consider that I have any profession expertise in economics at this point. )

for her filming of Edwards. Though overpriced for an amateur videographer, there is some justification for the campaign to get informal JRE footage - but how does that help the Poverty Center's goals?

After the 2008 primaries were over, "coincidentally" the center fizzled, and it turned out that it never had done much for poverty in the first place. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/08/hbc-90003382

Edwards is a big fat phony.

sorry they were ever associated with it. They seemed to mostly be a holding tank to pay the people who were writing the Edwards' platform.

That was a comment in one of the Mellon articles that after he lost, he wanted her to fund him with something like $50 million to do an international poverty effort. I think that he wanted to do this - even if the motivation was his own ego gratification.

As for meeting Rielle, he just would have ended up sliding around on top of some other bimbo.

I still can't believe anybody ever fell for his act.

I don't think she's to blame in that sense.

Would you buy a used car from this man? }(

Yeah, I'd buy a used car from him. What Edwards lied about was his personal life and that has nothing to do with me. The person I wouldn't buy a used car from is Obama. Unlike Edwards he's lied about just about everything he campaigned on and most of that impacts me a great deal. I don't trust him and for good reason.

to the smarmy... when this came out, didnt surprise me at all. not after seeing so much in 2004. still, i would have voted for him over hillary or obama. ended up chosing obama. i knew hillary and obama would be about the same, but without clinton, maybe more chance with obama.

anyway....

no, i would not trust in the sale of a car.

There is no legal case against Edwards, period.

DOJ going after Edwards is the last fucking straw, and yet another new low.

come out. when dems really needed to win, he selfishly and arrogantly thought only of self.

so really

dont care

he can pay the price for his stupid, whatever that may be

that is the extent. if it does it for you....

It's the "don't care" that I found funny.

Hair Day. LOL!

Looks like a Sears ad.

No doubt I'll be on the front of the Raleigh News & Observer.. . They print the front in color soooo.... Blue tie! To match my lovely eyes!

and orange is out of the question

even though orange seemed to be a color of choice - I think last summer, which surprised me as it is not that good a color for most people.

He just played one on TV.

He was solid DLC, and all his populist talk was just that, talk.

His actions never matched any of the rhetoric he spouted.