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.

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?

AKA Smith, I would never play you, but I appreciate your participation on this thread and Joe Conason's. And Klytus, too. I think we've seen some Clinton and Obama supporters in these threads learn to understand and respect one another, and that makes me happy.

Klytus, I'm curious: Is the problem that you don't believe I admire the various things I say I admire about Obama? You want me to get right to pummelling him? Can't you accept both things are true -- I admire what he thinks he's doing, but I can also think he's wrong?

The projection, it hurts!

OK, Klytus, I understand. I'll stop replying. You're heckling and looking for approval from your buddies, not having a conversation. Good to know. Good luck with everything, Klytus.

walter_map, is the McCain camp paying you to slur women with sexist comments on Salon? I should think things through and not rely so much on my women's intuition? Is this 1958? Jeez, some of you guys are really funny. Really funny.

I just can't help it: Thadeus Crumb, you're funny too. Joe's story was our cover the minute it came in. It stayed up another day. It's still in the "most letters" widget. Do you really think Hillary Clinton is pulling our strings? That's funny.

Women relying on their "intuition" and not their smarts is one of the oldest sexist slurs in the book, walter_map. If you need it explained to you, you're part of the problem. You and your crowd of hecklers damage Obama daily.

Of course I've said repeatedly I'm voting for Obama, not McCain. Thanks for the threat, too.

walter_map, I apologize for saying you worked for the McCain campaign. That insulted you, as well as the McCain campaign.

Thanks, XH! Uncle Fester, yes, the irony of the "cone of silence" is pretty funny -- was Rick Warren counting on that? That we knew it couldn't work?! Was it super-duper post-modern irony?

You're right about November, we won't fully know how it worked out until then, but it still bugs me that I feel like Obama was played.

Also, what Christian would use the term "sour grapes" to answer a reasonable question about whether the terms of the agreement about the event were kept. That's from Aesop's Fables, first of all, not the Bible! Hello! And also: My favorite answer from Obama that night (sue me) was when he talked about his mother being disappointed when he wasn't kind to others. I know his mother supposedly wasn't a practicing Christian, but that's the way I was raised too: the measure of your moral value is being kind to others. Doing unto others, but really more than that. Doing more than you'd expect them to do unto you.

Seeing Rick Warren be such a sore winner, after all the acclaim he's gotten from this event? If God put me in charge, I'd say definitively: Nope. Not a Christian.

But she didn't.

oldschoolscribe, I think you're on to something -- more than something, a lot. I had the same reaction to a lot of the stagecraft, especially (shallow me) the way McCain looked.

Uncle Fester, you're wise, but I'm not sure you're right on this one.

Thanks, cellardoor3, that's how that commandment was translated to me (bearing false witness equals lying), but...what do I know?

Gideonstorch, thank you, I don't think any of it's that simple, either, and I regret the way Warren is boiling it down. It's clearly about him, not about Obama or McCain.

Wow, what a mess.

I just want to say thanks, saman65.