[smonk]

I have to excerpt this from the LA Times, AND it's a registration site on top of that, but TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS. The LA Times is playin' hardball. Basically, it accuses Edwards of being an empty suit. DELICIOUS.

[EggsAckley]

Short of giving the LA Slimes a hit, I'll take your word for it. And offer.....HUZZAH! At least SOMEONE there is getting it.

[aardvark1]

the experience he does have is marked by intellectual slovenliness and opportunism.

Why should we expect anything else from a man with his resume?

[hobson]

Uh oh. The campaign has begun: Today Show Shocker: Skeptical Couric Questions Edwards; Laura Bush Treated Respectfully

****rushing out to buy popcorn****

[Puddleglum]

Any generic logins out there for la slimes?

[TomGuy]

LA Times, scathing.

This morning, Perky Katie was scathing.

[Who isn't speaking at the Convention? Hell hath no fury like Hillary scorned. Are her minions and useful-media-idiots helping her clear the path to 2008?]

[Dante3]

I just saw on CNN Edwards screetch to a crowd that Kerry will stand up to you all as he did to the men in Vietnam. I had to switch it off.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Edwards' ties to the trial lawyers trumps Cheney's connection to Halliburton.

Lawyers look to milk the government for big pay days!!

Edwards will cost America dearly.

[sarasota]

Two pro-Bush pieces in two days...what's going on out there in LaLa land? Ron Silver was on O'Reilly last night doing a pro-Bush piece...is the Hollywood Conservative crowd finally getting a set?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Say slovenliness ten times real fast. The perfect Edwards tongue twister.

[arthurus]

How is it that the L.A. Times is sticking it to a Democrat?

[G.Mason]

It's begining to look like the L.A. Simes, and alphabet media are about to aid and abet Hilarity Clintoon.

By helping the john & john traveling circussss show go over the cliff in November is about the only way she'll get a shot in 2008.

I'm getting into my tin foil uniform now.

[gubamyster]

Yesterday's LAT's editorial wasn't very good for Kerry/Edwards either:

Kerry-Edwards Stonewall

If not murder, John F. Kerry and John Edwards have accused President Bush of something close to criminally negligent homicide in Iraq. "They were wrong and soldiers died because they were wrong," Kerry said of the Bush administration over the weekend.

--SNIP--

The trouble is, both Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted yes on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. And now they refuse to say whether they would have supported the resolution if they had known what they know today. Both say they can't be bothered with "hypothetical questions."

But whether it is a hypothetical question depends on how you phrase it. Do they regret these votes? Were their votes a mistake? These are not hypothetical questions. And they are questions the Democratic candidates for president and vice president cannot duck if they wish to attack Bush on Iraq in such morally charged language.

[traumer]

"is eight years older than Jack Kennedy... "

But you're not JFK, mister !

[Paul_B]

In sum, the LAT's prob is that Edwards is not Dean. They're damning him from the hard, "Bush lied" left. But practically speaking, at least they're damning him. It shows the Dem ticket hasn't an intellectual/moral leg to stand on.

[wattsmag2]

John-(Boy) Edwards

known far and wide for "intellectual slovenliness and opportunism."

[mvpel]

Edwards, he said on CBS' "60 Minutes," "is eight years older than Jack Kennedy was when he became president."

And we got the Cuban Missile Crisis out of that presidency, as I recall.

[WOSG]

"The LA Times is playin' hardball. Basically, it accuses Edwards of being an empty suit."

well, they may be a liberal paper, but I grant they can grasp the obvious quite well!

[maica]

Yeah, but they can only endorse Ralph Nader now.

[dano1]

"Not only was Edwards unaware, half a year after the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history, what he'd been told on the subject, but he apparently didn't even believe it was his job to look into it." L.A. Times