John Edwards is a CFR member.. he will do their bidding under the guise as a dem... don't be fooled.

I believe that while John Edwards opposes same sex marriage he wants equal rights and tax status for same sex couples.

He is a worse lier than john edwards.

I love the guy, I'm reading his book; but I think (like I suspect he does) that he can do more outside of government than inside it.

He also, like Hillary and John Edwards, has an enormous amount of baggage from the last couple of decades. The Democrats would be much better served with a fresh face, namely Barack Obama.

oh my shit. I thought for SURE those women were talking about an Obama or John Edwards or something but no they're CLAYMATES!!! bughuhhhhh shudder/barf.

The Story behind John McCain's Myspace disaster
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/27/john-mccains-myspace-page-hacked/
and
John Edwards response to the Hair grooming clip.
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Edwards-YouTube-is-Very-Good-for-Democracy

http://digg.com/politics/Companies_to_pull_ads_from_Coulter_s_Web_site because of her comments on John Edwards

After the popularity of James Rnadi exposing James Hydrick (http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-exposes-James-Hydrick-telekinesis--2), I thought people might be interested in this. Although it's not as confrontational as the one with James Hydrick, with no direct communicational between Randi and the two protagonists, but you do get to know James Randi more and the kind of person he is.

James Randi has now raised his awards to one million dollars and has taken a more offensive approach as well as more rules on his screening process. He plans to publicly challenge several proclaimed psychics this April to come forth and prove themselves, including Uri Geller, James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward. For those interested.

http://skepdic.com/randi.html
http://www.randi.org

" Well he's just announcing his exploratory committee not a run and while I like the guy, I don't know if he's electable. Everyone seems to ignore the elephant in the room here, does anyone really think the ignorance belt states will allow a black man to be president? Or a woman? John Edwards is gaining a lot of steam just off his good looks and electability. It's ugly and un-american to think a black man couldn't be pres, but thanks to the hicks it's reality."

I sort of felt that way prior to Allen's spectacular self destruction during the '06 election cycle. If a fat white man can be thrown out of office for being racist in Virginia, than a charismatic skinny black man can waltz into the oval office.

Well he's just announcing his exploratory committee not a run and while I like the guy, I don't know if he's electable. Everyone seems to ignore the elephant in the room here, does anyone really think the ignorance belt states will allow a black man to be president? Or a woman? John Edwards is gaining a lot of steam just off his good looks and electability. It's ugly and un-american to think a black man couldn't be pres, but thanks to the hicks it's reality.

My prediction for the 2008 election: It won't be John Edwards.

*discard

"providing some source links would be most welcome and circumspect, wumpus"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.member.html

Forget the link...thats my bad.

Here you are straight from the horse's mouth.

"I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as POLITICAL spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism. But when anyone enters the POLITICAL arena of ideas they forfeit the right to be challenged on their participation and message.

I have not met Mr. Fox, do not know him. I have admired his work in film and TV and his appearances on Letterman were howlers. I have nothing personal against him. But I believe his implication that only Democrats want to cure disease(s) is irresponsible (as I believed about John Edwards assuring voters Christopher Reeve would walk if only John Kerry were elected). I think this is ultimately cruel and gives people who suffer these terrible afflictions false hope.

As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results. Michael's TV spots mislead and misinform on this. (You might ask him about the gene therapy research at a Chicago hospital which has produced encouraging results on Parkinson's patients. A VIRUS is inserted in the gene, which is then inserted in the brain. The Michael J. Fox Foundations has committed $1.9 million to further research on this...story from earlier this month.)

I did NOT mock or make fun of Mr. Fox. I have seen him many times on TV but never have I seen him as he appears in the ads. I read from his own book that he will not take his medications before certain appearances (Senate, 1999) in order to illustrate the ravages of Parkinson's, which I understand and applaud. So the concept of manipulating meds has been stated by Mr. Fox, which is what caused me to question his appearance in his ads.

He is stumping for Democrats, in the political arena, and is therefore open to analysis and criticism as we all are. His suffering is NOT fair game and I am sorry if people drew that conclusion about my comments, but I believe this happens precisely because NO criticism of victims is ever allowed, at all, which as I say is the Democrat strategy in putting them forward."