The point you're addressing in this column has to do with the question of Elizabeth Edwards campaigning for her husband as a better (than Hillary Clinton) advocate for women after she had knowledge (in the form of his alleged confession) of his affair.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not John Edwards would or would not be a better advocate for women, the real question from where I sit is whether or not the premise (Elizabeth Edwards knew of the affair and campaigned anyway) is likely to be true. I don't believe that it is.

John Edwards supposedly had a fit of conscience and confessed his infidelity to his wife well before there was any public hint of his affair or, at least so far as we know, a threat of exposure. Now I know that married men (and women too for that matter) do sometimes have such fits of conscience and do make such soul-cleansing confessions (which have the perverse effect of inflicting what may be unnecessary pain upon their spouses. Perhaps it would be better to simply cut off the affair, try to be a better husband/wife and just keep their mouth shut rather than assuage their guilt by confessing and inflicting such pain?) But really, how common is this sort of thing among the self-confessed self-absorbed egotist?

I think it is far more likely that John Edwards is lying through his teeth when he tells us that he had confessed to his wife and ended the affair before his presidential run got under way in earnest. I expect that Elizabeth Edwards campaigned for her husband not knowing or not believing he had been involved with Rielle Hunter. Had she known, I doubt she would have stood for his public lies and denials of the affair since she would well understand (perhaps better than he narcissistic husband who I am sorry to say had my support in the primaries) the bombshell political implications of this sordid tale when the truth finally and inevitably came to light.

If I could say anything today to John Edwards, it would be that his wife is too good for him. And to Elizabeth I would say the same.

Anyway, I too disagree with Marcus. It don't think it was creepy for Elizabeth Edwards to campaign for her husband after she learned the truth concerning his affair because I don't think she learned the truth until the campaign was over. Therefore, she didn't campaign for him after knowing which makes moots the point.

I don't get this article at all. Really. If there is some basis for it -- which is to say that if there is some evidence that HRC is not giving Barack Obama her undivided support -- damn if I know what it is?

Whaddaya want Joe, for Hillary to ask Monica for the loan of her presidential kneepads and take Barack into a back room (or better yet, the dais at the convention) to really show him how much she loves him?

Come on, Joe. This was the article of a clueless hack. You're better than that.

Perhaps if Conason had read this, he would have saved himself the embarrassment of writing and posting his article of today, or at least saved me the pain of reading it.

OK..Rick Warren is lying. Great. I never liked him anyway and the next time I read "A Purpose Driven Life" will be the first. But here's the question I have...

What does the fact that Barack Obama willingly walked into this say about Obama's judgment? I'd argue that it says plenty and none of it is good.

In going to Saddleback, Obama helped elevate not only Rick Warren (bad enough on its own) but also gave John McCain a prime time slot on national television before an inherently friendly audience and questioner in an event that which without Obama would never have been broadcast in the same way.

Judgment? Yeah, Obama has judgment. It's just poor.

Sorry, but those who are seeking to express their outrage with the argument that 'it just isn't safe' are off the mark. Had you rather wear garments that would soak up these boiling hot liquids and then hold them and all that heat against your skin to deepen the burn, or had you rather have the result of that accident run off of your bare skin quickly and take the heat with it?

Leave the 'it ain't safe' argument alone. Express the source of your true outrage, that being the idea that young pretty things will be using their young pretty parts on display to hawk coffee and get bigger tips.

I don't know if Bikini coffee will be opening in my neck of the woods, but if they do, I will likely drop in for a C-sized cup.

Seems more like garden variety politics to me.

Obama and his surrogates have hit out at McCain as too old, too angry and even suggested that the McCain campaign would (gasp!) tell people that Obama is black. ("I don't look like all those presidents on our dollar bills.") McCain is waging a campaign right back and hitting at Obama on areas where he feels there is a soft spot that can be exploited.

Like I said, it's politics. It's a contact sport. Obama will need to hit back...but drop the whole race angle that he used against the Clinton's because McCain and his campaign will throw it right back at 'em.

The trend lines in the polls are worrisome if you support Obama, heartening if you support McCain. But then there are old Dems like me who don't want either one and think that no matter who wins, the nation loses. We'll see. If I were forecasting, I'd say that McCain wins this fall. The bloom is off of the Obama rose.

I have to say that I think it's stupid and irrelevant.