As are your comments which always try and bring up Hillary into every conversation.

Like the faux comments at talk left- you miss the point. The point isn't whether or not clinton personally endorsed this. its that this person's support of clinton is their motive for the smear campaign.   it is possible and likely that this supporter made his decision to do this on his own due to the really minor buzz that edwards was a potential vp choice. it doesn't matter. the reality is that i am sick of this politics of smear.

is trumping national security especially since Everyone is adopting Obama's policies on Iraq and Afghanistan.

who are the economy candidates clinton and edwards.

Edwards got 7% in West Virginia 3 months after dropping out.

the timing of this story just as Edwards put himself back in contention doesn't seem like mere coincidence....

exactly merely raising that their might be motivation and timing benefits to raising this story now for HRC as VP while destroying any remote chance edwards had..

They know it doesn't. I 've come to the conclusion there are a lot of nasty people online and in politics in general on the so called left/progressive side who are up there with Karl Rove.  at least in mindset. although, of course, no power. they simply come up with some spin or out and out  lie about what's being said and they run with it ad nauseum. the goal is to make people with clear minds defensive and thus cloud what is being said. blogs used to be free for all madness, but there were less numbers of out and out political hacks around simply trying to spin and set up talking points. now if you go to some sites (and I include some of obama's suport in this-- ie, some fo the outlandish diaries over at daily kos about losing the election if you didnt support obama on fisa ) it's nothing but talking points.  that's the reality of resources like this.while htey are new they can achieve a new more open conversation. once they age, they are taken over by the very forces that you want to change.

the name of the person involved is Clinton Supporter.  That's his name, has nothing to do with Clinton.  

For the record, the diary isn't blaming Clinton at all.

Really?  Check the diary tags.  And then the diary title.  And then read the diary again.

so you are saying that say Rupert Murdock doesn't control and influence fox news?

in AMI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Me dia%2C_Inc.

and Altman is Co-CEO of evercore

http://www.evercore.com/Team/index.php?c harVal=65-72

work on your reading comprehension skills. or better yet go to a therapist where they can deal with your emotional need to lie about what others have written simply because it scares you that the name clinton was even mentioned without regard to how the name was mentioned. seriously after the numerous posts above that not only clarify what the diarist wrote ,b ut totally denies what youa re claiiming the diarist meant- it takes  agreat deal of emotional issues to post this crap again and again just to change the subject into your simplistic version fo reality.

The irony of course is that he states his intent, but then you go onto claim but that's not his intent. The additional irony is that his point is that motive for the clinton supporter Enquirer was to some how help clinton (not that clinton was involved- just the supporters motive), and you do the same by lying about what the diarist intent is because you somehow think pointing out motivation of a supporter is attacking clinton. do you see the difference between you and her or the enquirer owner and her or do you think you area ll some kind of super organism with one brain?

He may, or may not, be an idiot.  You are definitely an asshole.

Is asking a legitimate question (without necessarily believing the worst possible answer) the same thing as an attack?  It can be, but it need not be.

If there's evidence then let's hear it.  If there isn't, then let's mock the original source.  Don't ad hominem attack him.

Excuse me, what about the story of Laura Bush hitting Bush because he was drunk???  Is that true??

the NE was successfully sued by Carol Burnett in 1981.  They have settled other suits.

carole burnett most famous but even the current crew at the rage have been wrong, most recently with Cameron Diaz.

and yes the enquirer used to publish bat-boy human hybrids, space aliens and bigfoot now they focus more on celebrity stuff....

that extends the shelf of the story