So, what does it mean if I am an excellent armchair Jeopardy player and I like the KQ morning show?

I must be terribly conflicted.

LAMBERT: At long last! The exception that proves the rule!

Henry Cisneros, Eliot Spitzer, Jim McGreavey, (potential murder) Gary Condit, Bill Clinton, and one of the greats - Mel Reynolds.

You always seem to forget about these guys.

Yea, so Edwards had a great plan for this or that. Everything he ever said was plagiarized from Paul Wellstone. The guys a creep. Oh but he had a great health care plan.

LAMBERT: Oh, did I forget about Spitzer and Clinton? I should have mentioned them. And in the context of offering themselves up for a network interview how did the others do? I mean for better or worse?

I can't give the media a pass on this one. The New York Times went after McCain with the Vicki Iseman story back in February. Either the Times showed bias in this case, or they have laid off so many people that they missed this story. Rumors had floated for a while on Edwards and we are to believe the Enquirer scooped the Times? Nope, the Times turned and looked away.

It's ironic that in the same place you talk about the media showing restraint you then throw the Suskind rumors out there (yes, rumors). Suskind is trying to sell books. I heard him interviewed and he has refused to turn over the "smoking gun" tapes he has. If he is about something more than pure smoke, then he should release the tapes.

I know you hate Bush, but allow Edwards to have his day here, he worked hard for it. Plenty of time to go back and pile on Bush.

LAMBERT: The McCain-Iseman thing still baffles me. I can't believe the Times dropped that without having some kind of bona fide. As for Suskind, he's got a pedigree that has stood the test of time. I think his "One Percent Doctrine" is the quintessential book on Bush-Cheney.

I didn't think Edwards did all that well Friday night. As was pointed out by a couple of different columnists over the weekend, the one decent thing he DID do was not prop his wife next to him.

Jon Stewart had a couple of bad clips Monday; the one about having an affair while the missus was in remission will become as historic as "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", methinks.

In the end, people are going to believe or focus on what they choose. Bertram Jr. will soon be railing in this thread about liberal moral relativism--even though it exists everywhere, in every bias-sphere on the planet.

One interesting item Bonnie Fuller--a Huff Po blogger--brought up over the weekend, was how Elizabeth Edwards could have supported her husband's run for Veep with the knowledge of this affair in hand:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-fuller/elizabeth-edwards-drank-h_b_117938.html

I think Edwards will will get a second act, but as a part of doing successful foundation or single issue work; I can't imagine his political half-life would be ready for national or state exposure any time in the next four years or so.

Meanwhile...any news on where Cindy McCain ended up in the Ms. Buffalo Chip rankings? "Enquiring" minds should have picked up a little more on that one. A beer heiress, bananas and bikers... will the male species ever evolve?

LAMBERT: I think you're right that whatever role Edwards might have in any administration is at least a few years -- of rehabilitation -- off. And my point is that his public mea culpa was only comparatively superior to others.

Even though I seem to be one of the guys in the front row saying I don't care about Edwards' sexual exploits, I tend to think his chances to become AG in an Obama Administration are kaput. No new President needs to spoil the honeymoon with even a whiff of scandal. Like you, I've concluded there may be more here that continues to damage Edwards' credibility. Obama doesn't need to get caught in that.

As I intimated yesterday, I think Edwards will need to spend a couple years rehabbing his tarnished reputation before he returns in any meaningful capacity.

LAMBERT: Agreed.

Say, Bri, might I remind you that Edward's wife (veritably sainted by your people), has terminal cancer?

This fact, much ballyooed previously, now seems to be mysteriously eluding you apologist types.

Huh.

I mean, heh.

LAMBERT: Oh yeah, I don't think anybody mentioned that.

I know it is part of the liberal belief, that Saddam did not try buying yellow cake (partially refined uranium)

If so, then there is a problem. A million pounds of yellow cake were taken out of Iraq and sent to the US after Saddam was no longer a threat. No one seems to know exactly how this much could be garnered considering the liberal claims that Sadaam never went anyplace for his yellow cake.

By the way, the yellow cake is necessary for weapons and it can also be combined with ordinary explosives to provide a doomsday weapon capable of making an area inhabitable for decades.

LAMBERT: Bleuler, Bleuler, Bleuler ... Don't go bertram on me. A "million pounds ... "? "Sent to the United States ... " WHERE is that coming from?

Doubling down on tire pressure. And you're the 'smart' ones huh.

"Obama's claim we could save as much oil as we'd ever get from drilling if we kept our tires properly inflated. It didn't matter a bit that this is common knowledge, accepted practice, valid, true, factual and verifiable."

This is none of those things.

LAMBERT: I'm all ears ...

As far as your favorite cultural yardstick goes – knuckleheads and the KQ morning show - I really have my doubts that Barnard’s listenership is as monolithically conservative as you like to believe. If the Obama / Clinton race was instructive about anything, its that there’s still a lot of people with hay in their shoes that maintain loyalty to the Democrats. I’m sure the ones in MN listen the KQ morning show. I know plenty. I also would wager there’s a lot of sensitive, anxious, weeny uptown liberals that listen.

LAMBERT: By "a lot" do you mean more than two but less than five?

Exactly – Edwards could set up a foundation or think tank to rehabilitate his image. But that would require a bit more serious, philosophical, and generous consideration of his ersonal wealth than he’s shown so far.

The fact that he was invested in a hedge fund that traded in sub prime mortgages notwithstanding…can you explain to me why a bona fide progressive was invested in a hedge fund at all? I thought progressives were for responsible growth, steady, serious, long term socially responsible investing?

LAMBERT: I won't pretend to know what Edwards was really doing with that Fortress crowd. Obviously they paid him some good jing and their employees made healthy contributions to his campaign. For the record he says he wasn't an investor and was unaware of their sub-prime positions ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html.

The point is, Lambeau, YOU are leaving it out!

LAMBERT: You mean like this ...

"The wisdom of crowds on Clinton-Lewinsky was that hanky-panky had nothing to do with the job Clinton was doing as president, which the public clearly liked. Here, Edwards has a tougher dilemma, considering the sympathy and affection the public has for his cancer-stricken wife. This thing, if true, could send him back to North Carolina for good."

I don't really expect you to read these things before braying from the back row. But it could save wear and tear on your keyboard.

I'm talking about today's "that's in the rearview mirror", post mea culpa, let's just leave that part out" technique.

In all the SORDID depravity of "Your Guy" and Rielle / Lisa, the cancer-stricken wife is REALLY the piece de resistance, wouldn't you agree?

Which is what I am calling you on.

LAMBERT: My idea of "sordid depravity" tends to involve death, maiming and fraud on a colossal scale ... not a fling with a blonde.

Not mention that 108 has also very accurately called out your rather "selective memory" today....

LAMBERT: I'm sure 108 is comforted to know you and he have so much in common .

“I won't pretend to know what Edwards was really doing with that Fortress crowd.”

I’ll take a stab at it. It was a reasonably low effort job provided by people he was clubby with, people who valued his connections and reputation. It provided a good income that was subject to very favorable tax treatment. The kind of favorable tax treatment that Edwards decried on the campaign trail.

How about an easier challenge. Find one of his ‘2 Americas’ planks that wasn’t contradicted by his own personal actions.

LAMBERT: Which of the above was illegal? Politicians clubbing with fat cats? I'm guessing Edwards' Fortress pals were pretty clear about his ideas on revising the tax code, and the fact he acknowledged the association, explained it to the satisfaction of his press corps and kept on beating the drums for a dramatic overhaul tellks you ... what? What do have that proves your assertion this was all cynical BS? Just that that is what you prefer to think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102145.html

On tire pressure, Obama’s claim is essentially that the 3% increase in mileage you get from properly inflated tires can offset actually recovering the US coastal oil that may make up 3% of the worlds reserves.

Now:

1: You aren’t going to gain 3% in gasoline efficiencies by somehow ensuring the US auto fleet is properly inflated.

2: There’s no way to determine what the US coastal reserves are, except to reasonably assume they’re likely very large.

These are two nuggets that are not linkable, it’s just monumentally stupid. Its wistful, precious, junior high, pie in the sky ignorant.

LAMBERT: OK. You prove that properly inflating tires won't produce the 3% increase. Obama;s numbers come from -- well just about every agency who has ever studied this. Obviously you can't guarantee 800 million properly inflated tires. But Obama's point -- ridiculed by your team -- is that everyday, normal conservation measures can reduce demand IMMEDIATELY -- whereas your pie-in-the-sky, hole-in-the-Gulf scenarios are unknown and -- at best -- will take 9 to 10 years to produce any change in the market. The latter being a point the proudly ignorant to prefer to believe isn't true.

There you go again! Permissiveness by reduction.

"... not a fling with a blonde".

How about "an ongoing affair with a ("wacky", "new agey", "ex coke wh---", choose one) campaign worker while his wife, whom he trotted out shamelessly previously, was suffering from cancer"?

Facts, Bri, facts.

Are we to now confirming that our man in the Ray Bans - Lambeau,(note French affectation),is on board with Obama's Jr. High predilections posing as energy policy?

Its not that it’s illegal. I don’t expect that he’s a brazen lawbreaker in much sense. Oh, maybe the part where he gave Rielle a make work job paid out of his campaign, and perhaps he’s avoiding child support. My point is he’s a fraud, and his fraudulence has extended to every part of the political life he’s led over the last 15 years. There’s not a single thing on which he’s credible, perhaps most of all his policy positions. There’s not one reason a progressive should have ever taken him seriously. It’s all been a self aggrandizement campaign.

Some sincerity could be displayed by noting one instance where’s he’s declined to take advantage of tax law and instead arranged his financial life more in concert with his ‘2 America’s’ platform.

LAMBERT: "He's a fraud ... [and it has] extended to every part of the political life he's led ... ."

That is what the copy desk would call a "sweeping, unsupported assertion."

Oh, this is getting better all the time:

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/08/rielle-hunters.html

I’m sure underinflated tires do cause inefficienciess of 3%. But ensuring tire inflation is not a meaningful energy policy position. Providing energy is, be it gasoline or whatever. The energy required to power a national fleet of alternatively powered cars can’t be provided in ten years, so its drill or nothing. Which of course, is actually the end game here. There aren’t going to be seasonal trips to the north shore on ‘nothing’, Brian.

LAMBERT: As we're seeing, the root of high prices is as much a weak dollar (from excess debt) as insufficient supply. (Supplies are currently adequate.) Again -- and I am growing weary of the silliness of your argument -- the point is that basic, garden variety conservation, something the current administration and its various proponents have never been able to spit out, much less enthusiastically encourage -- delivers immediate returns. Likewise, Obama and his supporters are entirely clear that inflating tires is hardly the end point of an energy plan -- as those who argue the proudly ignorant position are attempting to assert in their usual, dull-witted fashion. But conservation does work and must be receive the full-throated supported of the White House simultaneous with encouraging new sources. Bottom line: Do you guys actually have any ideas, or is your whole day spent screaming "fraud"?

As a proud proponent of "Your Guy", I am sure you'll find this of interest:

“…rather ironic that John Edwards was at a New York Sheraton for a luncheon on 6/7/07 to receive a “Father of the Year” award given out by “The National Father’s Day Committee”. I know that it has been reported that Rielle Hunter had been living at the time of this luncheon in the New York City vicinity and it is interesting that, assuming her child Frances Quinn was a full-term baby, that the date Rielle conceived would have been right around 6/7/07.”

The million pounds figure is from the below quote.

"...The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions...."

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

LAMBERT: But Bleuler, if you are inferring that this material was a basis for invading Iraq, I think you at least have to add this from the same story ...

"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Iran signals no plans to stop its nuclear regime

Tuwaitha [the location of the yellowcake] and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

And this ... "While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast."

I wouldn't want to think you were selling the idea that this some heretofore unknown stash enhanced in anyway since 1991 and not well documented by UN inspectors.

(yawn) This is like reading the transcript of an interview with a coupla' residents of Jonestown just before happy hour.

I'd say your column's title was never more apropos:

http://www.slate.com/id/2196758/

So I guess in the case of this "Bleuler" character, worse than the "proudly ignorant," it's the sin of the unashamedly dishonest and dissembling.

But who's "Bleuler" think he's fooling beyond himself and his fellow fringe-dwelling mainliners of neoconned koolaid? How do these people look back on the past eight years and not feel the urge to repair to an isolated cave, take a vow of silence and ritually beat themselves with nettles?

One Percent Doctrine looks like an interesting read. I'll add it to the list, wasn't aware of that book.

LAMBERT: The Saudi visit to Crawford says it all.

I don't understand what Mr. 108 has against conservation? Why assume that providing Americans an ever increasing amount of fuel is non-negotiable? Behaviors change out of necessity. If your income is cut by 20% do you decrease your savings/retirement plan or do you curb your spending?

LAMBERT: Judging by the decrease in oil consumption we've seen since the first of the year, we could get considerably more than 3% out of a concerted campaign encouraging conservation.

I'm not against conservation. Nor are conservatives. Its on the table. The SUV is dead, its won't be given regulatory protection by Republicans in the future. Republicans will support higher CAFE standards and R & D for efficient vehicles.

Its the same principle as health care. Energy can't be allowed to consume so much expense that it destroys the economy. Unless of course, you want to live in that neo-stasi like world where we're rationing travel, and applying to the DMV for passes for our vacations to the North Shore, and waiting anxiously by the mailbox to se that theyve been approved...

LAMBERT: So if your Republican heroes will (someday) be FOR all these common sense measures, why have they been resisting them so vigorously for so long?

From the looks of it, 108 and bertram jr had a bit too much time on their hands yesterday. Say, you generous of spirit conservative yappers, I will again note that Edwards cheating on his cancer-stricken wife takes a page from the morally repugnant playbook of John McCain (wife who raised his kids while he was a POW summarily thrown under the bus after JM met the young, rich and blonde automaton), Rudy Giuilani (lets wife Donna Hanover know in news conference that they are separating) and Newt Gingrich (advises wife of divorce while she's in hospital post- uterine cancer surgery). Let's see, that's two presidential candidates and one Speaker of the House.

Cut out the moral superiority bullshit. There are more than enough scumbags on both sides. But as I've suggested far too many times, so what? There is simply no empirical evidence linking the quality of one's moral character to job performance in the White House. If there were, we'd all still be talking about the greatness of Calvin Coolidge.

LAMBERT: The part I love is how both 108 and bertram confirmed my argument that a sex scandal pretty well blows any other kind of scandal out of the water.

So, to summarize - filling our tires is legitimate energy policy...and Edwards is sill "your guy".

Super!

LAMBERT: So what you're saying is, "I neither read nor think."

Well, I certainly think I’m generous of spirit.

That’s not it Brian. Rather, I'm highlighting the proud ignorance it takes to have been a John Edwards supporter. Talk about kool aid analogies. The man has been serving it, and people have been drinking.

I'm a literalist. I have not been in the habit of challenging your opinions about Iraq, but it’s not the same kind of scandal. It hasn’t gone poor enough to swing over the large group of people it would take to end the war. As far as Bush fraudulence, there’s that - but there’s a spot on LBJ parallel that explains how this could come about.

LAMBERT: Iraq "hasn't gone poor enough to swing over the large group of people it would take to end the war"? For some time now the issue -- reflected in low public approval for both Bush and the Democrats' inability to stifle Bush -- is whether majority will is being honored. Maybe you take Dick Cheney's attitude and respond with a, "So?"

As for Edwards -- again -- it doesn't necessarily follow that his policy proposals, detailed and vetted by all sorts of credible experts, are "fraudulent", just because he had an affair.

Hi Brian,

THis isn't really apart of this post, but did you happen to catch Anne Korin's speech on cspan? She is a foreign oil/OPEC guru. The speech is on you tube broken up into 6 or 7 parts....but it is definitely worth it. I dig smart chicks. If you have some time, check it out. Becky

LAMBERT: Cool. I'll give it a look.

Edwards isn't running, Bertram, Jr.

But you know who is, John McCain. Now, is John McCain not the same man who took up with the beer bottling heiress, Cindy Lou Hensley in 1979 when he and his first wife, Carol, the one who carried on while he was a POW, raised the kids, suffered alone in the wake of a devastating car accident that left her on crutches and four inches shorter than in her days as a swimsuit model, were still married?

Thrown over for a younger, richer and prettier woman, Carol McCain continue to support her philandering husband's political career in the decades that followed I guess she was able to separate his private sexual betrayals and his positions on political issues. As for the affair, she didn't chock it up to anything more profound than middle-aged male weakness: "I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

I'd be much more inclined to take my cues on matters of private personal failings from Carol McCain and Elizabeth Edwards than the likes of you and 108.

Yes indeed Son of the River, the list of Republican sexual crimes and misdemeanors is quite long beginning at the top of the ticket and going all the way down to minor state and country officials. This list includes keeping multiple wives, paying prostitutes and trading old stock for trophy wives, soliciting sex in airports and seducing young men with drugs and booze, hetro and homosexual trysts, internet solicitation, child molestation and on and on and on...

Despite their pleas of being the party of Family values their actions are anything but. As much as the conservatives want to smear Democrats, they have no case for party purity and being the righteous role models for virtue and honesty. And if you want a list, be prepared for a long one.

So bertram, jr. -- who is failing to speak the obvious lies of omission?

LAMBERT: Most often it's a mistake to engage bertram directly. Albeit one I commit often.

Maybe we should let a right-wing conservative blow-hard explain the John Edward's affair. From the August 12th broadcast by Rush Limbaugh:

""We know -- we've been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That's part of the puff pieces on them that we've seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go." Limbaugh later added, "It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk."

And then, is you failed to follow his logic, he provided a blunt conservatives logical overview and summary:

"...my theory that I just explained to you about why -- you know, what could have John Edwards' motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk."

It never occurred to me to look at the affair using Rush's theory. Let's call it the Nagging Wife Theory.

LAMBERT: Rush is currently on what? Wife #4? Or have they split up?

Lambo: …is whether majority will is being honored. Maybe you take Dick Cheney's attitude and respond with a, "So?"Maybe

Actually, I take Nancy Pelosi’s attitude and respond with a, “So?” But the anti-war crowd has always been somewhat short of a majority.

Lambo: it doesn't necessarily follow that [Edwards] policy proposals, detailed and vetted by all sorts of credible experts, are "fraudulent", just because he had an affair.

I don’t argue that. I argue there’s nothing to show he’s had a significant dedication to anything he’s ever proposed as evidenced by numerous first America rich guy privileges he’s abused (the haircuts, Baron’s jet, the hedge fund, his mansion, his tax filings). The affair and hush money just confirms what a pig he is. I don’t know how he passed muster with you people.

LAMBERT: I can't dispute that he has handed his critics everything they could ever hope for in terms of ammo for attacking him. But my point with the two posts is to concede that I did like what I was hearing from him -- what he SAYS is valid no matter if he wasn't the guy to pull it off -- and to assert that to the "proudly ignorant" these highly subjective character/values issues never seem to wade into the truly grand and gross abuses of blood and treasure that truly do make a different in all of our lives.

Not that I'm complaining, you understand, because you're reaffirming that point for me.

"the haircuts"? Seriously, the haircuts? Who cares what the guy pays for a haircut? Whose interests, exactly, would it advance if he got his bobs at a Cheap Cuts? Talk about empty complaints...

Maybe all the past wives of Rush were opening their mouths too much... OR urrr... not enough?

LAMBERT: The thought creeps me out.

See how even handed I am? I think this is OK: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

The rates are OK, they’re within the parameters of the modern tax argument, so a guy like me is not offended. Even Paul Krugman was worried about the rate levels set in the pre-flip Obama plan. It expands estate protection (oh no!)

Unfortunately for you fellows it concedes a few lingering arguments. You only get one shot at a tax hike, and Obama is saying here 39.6 (the Clinton level) is as high as you can go on the top rate. I know practical Democrats were hoping for say 50% and the ‘progressives’ were hoping for 80-90%. The article also makes the heresy of noting in the Reagan years capital gains taxes were too high.

LAMBERT: It'll come as no surprise to you to know that I regard Wall St. Journal editorials as an extremely accurate reverse barometer for common sense. I can't think of another group of people so divorced from street level reality. And while you're at it toss me the name of a couple "progressives" arguing for 80-90, or even 50% upper tax rate?

Bri - that was written by O's current economic advisors. Thats the actual Obama plan.