Faulkner Jr., I agree with you. I still get sucked into the psychodrama of why he would risk running for president knowing how easily this could be uncovered. And, as I said before, if it comes out that his finance folks paid her off in any way, well, I would be beyond disappointed. My daughter, 18, supported him. Maybe we should resign ourselves to the fact that supporting politicians means our money might go to pay off their mistresses, but I ain't there yet.

Parson Jim, you're at least as boring as you think I am. Do you ever give it a rest, take a different tack?

Christopher Carrington, I really can't thank you enough for continuing to click when, in fact, I bite. I bite, you click; we all have our roles.

I have eased off my outrage on the affair, but I think the money angle is still going to bite Edwards (so to speak). The photos of him on his way to declare his candidacy, after he seemed to say the affair was over; the Rielle friend who says the romance started earlier than he says (and thus he hired her with campaign funds after the affair began)...these are the things that will linger, even if I personally find a way to "forgive" his human frailty (not that he needs me to.) And his campaign chair admitting he funded her move and gave her a gang of money, without Edwards knowing, is the real story right now.

My attitude about workplace affairs has always been: it's none of my business, until my boss hires someone really unqualified for a job we desperately need done well. We've all seen that, haven't we? It...bites. Maybe Hunter's webisodes were awesome, and it was campaign prudes who killed them, but I've seen no evidence of that.

So: I'm really more inclined to reach out to those who think I'm slighting the story -- AKA Smith -- than those who think I'm overly moralizing. My insight today, because my name was called into it, was: I'm not going to criticize Elizabeth Edwards, and once I read that great Open post, I realized: It may have been way more horrific for John Edwards than I can get my relatively sheltered mind around, too.

But the money matters. And it guarantees this will remain a story, like it or not.

Interesting reply, d_k.

For those who asked: Open Salon writers have the copyright to their work.

LeC/MB: I am waiting for Klytus to join us at Open Salon and bring us longer rhymes!

It's moving faster, again. Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, Lisa, we know...we're working on it. And that's a good idea re: a separate feed for new members -- at least during this flood of new members!

Thanks for your patience.

Yes, we're being hammered by traffic and we're working hard on site performance -- d_k, we did lots of performance testing. But ain't nothing like the real thing, baby...

Thanks for your feedback everyone, and for your concern about Salon. Open Salon is not going to replace it, it's a new site. Please give it a read; I think the quality of the writing will win you over.

little lord Baltimore, your post is filled with unfair accusations and things I never said. Your memory of my Reverend Wright coverage is faulty. In the following five posts on Wright:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/03/18/obama_speech/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/03/22/obama_speech_video/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/27/wright_moyers/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/28/wright_narcissism/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/29/obama_wright/

I never once said, or "openly insinuated, without reference or citiation, that Rev. Wright was anti-semitic and anti-Israel and that therefore Obama was going to have a huge problem with Jewish voters." Never once. I did not claim "for weeks after the controversy had largely played out that this was still a huge issue." I dropped it after Obama's Philadelphia speech (except for an occasional reference), and yes, I returned to it again when Rev. Wright again made it a huge issue. Obama returned to it again, too. I dropped it, again, after Obama distanced himself from Wright. I never once, let alone "repeatedly implied that Rev. Wright and Farrakhan were similarly disturbed and dangerous." I never insisted that "Obama answer for every word that Rev. Wright might or might not have said." I absolutely deny that I "repeated the very racist practice of insisting that African Americans are responsible for the comments and opinions of anyone else who is also African American that whites feel threatened by." Obama himself knew he had to answer for the divisive words of his pastor; would that he'd realized it sooner. I was right about Rev. Wright; I didn't make him an issue, he did that to himself.

And for the record, Hillary Clinton did not argue that Martin Luther King was "less important" to the civil rights struggle than Lyndon Johnson, only that "it took a president" to make civil rights legislation law.

I will grant you at least one thing: I do wish we'd asked a woman of color to write more about the twin tensions of race and gender in the election. That was a missed opportunity.

Thanks for the feedback, domini. The Russia-Georgia story was just as prominent as the Edwards link and it went up early -- those four headlines, with small art, to the right of the main cover story are what we call skyboxes. It was up longer. And we have Anna Badhken in Iraq again for us. We try. But this story is at the intersection of politics, family life and culture that has always been Salon's sweet spot.