Late Friday afternoon - after Obama left for vacation, and most of the world was paying attention to the opening of the Olympics - John Edwards finally admitted what had been rumored (and he had denied) for over a year...that he had been having an affair with a former campaign aid.

There are so many things you could comment on about this, but 3 really stand out to me:

1) The ego on this guy.  By his own admission (for what that's worth) he started up with this gal back in 2006...about the time he was starting up a presidential campaign.  In other words, he was running for president either just after - or while - messing around on his wife.  What can possibly be going through your mind?  What convinces you that "no, this won't be a problem"?

This is the same guy who, when Clinton got busted with Monica, said:

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

Sounds about right in his case too.

2) The hypocrisy of the media.  These guys knew about it for over a year, but went through all sorts of contortions in order to avoid discussing it...even after eye-witness accounts came out that backed up the National Enquirer's story.  The only reason they reported it was because he admitted it...and the only reason he admitted it was because he was going to be conspicuously absent from the Democrat's convention...which would only make people as "why?".

And the "he was no longer a candidate" thing doesn't fly.  This was a guy that, until insiders got word, was on the list of potential VP picks..and the list of potential cabinet and/or Supreme Court picks.  So there's no excuse for not checking it out.  Glenn Reynolds asks the excellent question: "What else are they not telling us for fear it will hurt the Democrats' prospects?"

This is the same media that rushed a much "thinner" rumor about John McCain to the front pages earlier this year.

3) What he "didn't" say.  Yes, he admitted to having "made a mistake".  But when did he stop "making mistakes"??  Meaning, was he "making a mistake" three weeks ago when he got cornered in a Beverly Hills hotel bathroom by National Enquirer reporters at 2:00am??  Not answering that question, since it's so obvious - or at least not denying it - pretty much confirms the obvious.  Which takes you back to point number 1.

Oh, and Hunter has now rejected taking a paternity test on the sixth month old baby...despite the fact that Edwards said he would.  Now there's a gal who know's what's good for her.

Somewhere Bill Clinton is probably chuckling to himself, ("what an amateur!").

*** 

Related:

• CBS's Harry Smith suggests Hunter "targeted" Edwards
• Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson believes Edwards cost Clinton the nomination
• Hunter didn't care for Edward's wife (Fox)

More: Sister Toldjah - Right Wing News - Michelle Malkin - Stop the ACLU - Wizbang - Hot Air

The presumptive democrat nominee just cannot seem to escape her own duality in policy, personality, and principle as of late!

On Tuesday, the Junior Senator from New York made statements to a crowd in Iowa that amounted to mockery of Barack Obama, in citing his life experience and time spent living abroad during his youth, as the source for his interest in international issues and part of his foreign relations “experience”.

Hillary commented that, “Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face".

While this “smack” was clearly far from the darkest depths of historical election-year low-blows, we DO have to remember the source of this volley!

Harkening back to just last Thursday night, Mrs. Clinton took a great deal of audacity... and “license” - pun intended... in accusing her two closest rivals of “mud slinging” during the Vegas Debate.  Her "mud slinging" charge was in response to their statements which were clearly issue-oriented and not personal in nature.

Ex-Senator Edwards had just brought up the well-documented issues of Iraq, social security, and drivers licenses where she has been unclear, at best, as to which way she actually believes.  In closing out his allotted time, he ended, “She says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged, that is corrupt."

It was at that time that she leveled the “M-Word” accusation.  She asserted, “I've just been personally attacked again! I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it's accurate..."  Edwards then offered, “There is nothing personal about this!”

Hillary Clinton has been consistently inconsistent during this run for the White House.  But, now it seems, not only does she want two sets of stands on any given issue – she also wants two sets of rules on any given day!

The presidential campaign's version of the "Breck Girl" strikes again.

WASHINGTON —  Democrat John Edwards is trying to get out of a hairy situation, reimbursing his presidential campaign $800 for two visits with a Beverly Hills stylist.

Two $400 cuts by stylist Joseph Torrenueva, who told The Associated Press that the former North Carolina senator is a longtime client, showed up on Edwards' campaign spending reports filed this weekend. Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said it never should have been there.

"The bill was sent to the campaign. It was inadvertently paid," Schultz said. "John Edwards will be reimbursing the campaign."

Edwards is also the subject of a popular YouTube spoof poking fun at his youthful good looks. The video shows the candidate combing his tresses to the dubbed-in tune of "I Feel Pretty."

You can check out the video on YouTube here.  Nobody this vain needs to be president.

It ain’t easy being Hillary.  As far as the general public is concerned, she’s the single most divisive major political figure in the Democrat party; while the various liberal constituencies that constitute the Democrat’s party base worry that she’s not liberal enough.  Some who consider her too far to the right on the war issue even took to heckling her at a recent speech to the Democrat National Committee.

Poor Hillary.  It’s not as though she’s brought any of these problems on herself.  First, there was her clumsy entrance onto the national political stage in 1992 with that famous reference to “not staying home and baking cookies” or “standing by her man like Tammy Wynette” in vague reference to Bubba’s past indiscretions.

Then there was the attempted nationalized health-care debacle, questionable profits in cattle futures, missing law firm billing records that suddenly materialize in plain sight, suspicious suicides on the part of close friends, Whitewater, and then of course those continued “indiscretions” on the part of her husband.

But after enduring all that she finally got the payoff and made it to the big game in her own right – even if she had to move to another state to do it.  All the while, she’s been biding her time, waiting for the right moment to taker her shot at what she thought should have been hers all along – the White House.

The ground was prepared.  Her US Senate campaigns in New York were used as vehicles to build the national fundraising base she would need, as well as to hire the staffers and consultants that would be needed in preparation of a White House bid once re-election was secured in 2006.  All the boxes were checked.  Nomination seemed like a fait accompli.  She could take her time and make a fashionably late grand entrance when ready.

But some funny things happened on the way to the coronation.  The radical base of the Democrat party grew more empowered, and the more empowered they became, the more they demanded of the woman who would have their support – so much so that many of them see her as their last choice for a presidential nominee.

Her primary strength among Democrats at large had been her perceived electability, but a January Gallup poll shows that doubts about her ability to win that have been taking their toll.  When asked if they were voting for presidential nominees today whom they would vote for, thirty-four percent said they would definitely vote for her.  Fifty-two percent said they “might consider” her, while fourteen percent said “definitely not”.  Among the two-thirds that weren’t “definitely” for her, the number one reason given was that they didn’t think she could win.

Then there was John Edwards, free from the constraints of the Senate and even freer to be a bomb thrower.  He’s constantly creating situations that needed or even demanded her response, uncomfortably causing her to put herself on the record when she would rather not do so.  In short, Edwards has kept giving the far left of the party more reasons to be unhappy with her.

Then, to make matters worse, along came the new media darling Barak Obama.  Like the kid who transfers from another school and becomes instantly popular, Obama began to steal much of the oxygen she was used to having all to herself.  Even the young generation is getting in on the act, turning his “Million for Obama” Facebook campaign into a political Internet phenomenon.  To add insult to injury, the new kid is barely two years removed from being a mere state senator, the national political equivalent of grade school.

Even Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg – previously reliable Clinton financiers – have jumped on the Obama bandwagon, recently hosting a $2,300 per plate fundraiser for him.  George Soros sent Obama a check as soon as he formed his exploratory committee.  And worst of all, Barbara Streisand herself is no longer in the bag.  Babs recently announced that she would be hedging her bets, so to speak, by contributing to Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

And in the aftermath of the Democrat’s takeover of Congress, in walked Nancy Pelosi to steal the role of the lead woman in the Democratic orbit, removing some of the novelty associated with having a woman in such a major role on the national stage.  So what’s left for Hillary?

Suddenly, two things she could normally count on, being the primary subject of the media’s adulation and the primary beneficiary of big campaign bucks from the Hollywood elite, are no longer sure things.

And now, here she is, forced to play a game of political hopscotch with John Edwards and Barak Obama.  Forced to actually campaign for support that should have been hers by right.

Poor, poor Hillary.