Late Friday afternoon - after Obama left for vacation, and most of the world was paying attention to the opening of the Olympics - John Edwards finally admitted what had been rumored (and he had denied) for over a year...that he had been having an affair with a former campaign aid.

There are so many things you could comment on about this, but 3 really stand out to me:

1) The ego on this guy.  By his own admission (for what that's worth) he started up with this gal back in 2006...about the time he was starting up a presidential campaign.  In other words, he was running for president either just after - or while - messing around on his wife.  What can possibly be going through your mind?  What convinces you that "no, this won't be a problem"?

This is the same guy who, when Clinton got busted with Monica, said:

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

Sounds about right in his case too.

2) The hypocrisy of the media.  These guys knew about it for over a year, but went through all sorts of contortions in order to avoid discussing it...even after eye-witness accounts came out that backed up the National Enquirer's story.  The only reason they reported it was because he admitted it...and the only reason he admitted it was because he was going to be conspicuously absent from the Democrat's convention...which would only make people as "why?".

And the "he was no longer a candidate" thing doesn't fly.  This was a guy that, until insiders got word, was on the list of potential VP picks..and the list of potential cabinet and/or Supreme Court picks.  So there's no excuse for not checking it out.  Glenn Reynolds asks the excellent question: "What else are they not telling us for fear it will hurt the Democrats' prospects?"

This is the same media that rushed a much "thinner" rumor about John McCain to the front pages earlier this year.

3) What he "didn't" say.  Yes, he admitted to having "made a mistake".  But when did he stop "making mistakes"??  Meaning, was he "making a mistake" three weeks ago when he got cornered in a Beverly Hills hotel bathroom by National Enquirer reporters at 2:00am??  Not answering that question, since it's so obvious - or at least not denying it - pretty much confirms the obvious.  Which takes you back to point number 1.

Oh, and Hunter has now rejected taking a paternity test on the sixth month old baby...despite the fact that Edwards said he would.  Now there's a gal who know's what's good for her.

Somewhere Bill Clinton is probably chuckling to himself, ("what an amateur!").

*** 

Related:

• CBS's Harry Smith suggests Hunter "targeted" Edwards
• Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson believes Edwards cost Clinton the nomination
• Hunter didn't care for Edward's wife (Fox)

More: Sister Toldjah - Right Wing News - Michelle Malkin - Stop the ACLU - Wizbang - Hot Air

From the "Believe it or not" category, liberal NY Times columnist Bob Herbert is criticizing John McCain's ad with Britney and Paris because it contains two images of, what he sees as, phallic symbols.

The "symbols" in question?  The Victory Memorial in downtown Berlin...which was clearly visible in the crowd background shot of Barry's big speech.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning, Herbert asked: "Why are the Victory Column, or the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the Washington Monument in this Ad," ..."Why are those two phallic symbols in this ad?"

Herbert claims it's all a big plot to get voters worked up over inter-racial couples.  I would say Bob's losing it...but I don't think he ever really had "it".

Click here to see the video of this idiot.

Guess which media organization is the most trusted name in news.  Could it be the network whose advertising bills itself as "The most trusted name in news", (that being CNN)?  Nope.  According to the latest national poll to measure such sentiment, it's Fox News.  In a walk.

The poll conducted by Sacred Heart University, found that the most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).

No word on whether or not CNN will change it's slogan and advertising.

Charles Krauthammer opines on NASA's astronauts/alchohol scandal.  I'll have to say when I read it yesterday morning, I laughed enough to spit up some of coffee on myself.  And he makes a great point...

Have you ever been to the shuttle launch pad? Have you ever seen that beautiful and preposterous thing the astronauts ride? Imagine it's you sitting on top of a 12-story winged tube bolted to a gigantic canister filled with 2 million liters of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Then picture your own buddies -- the "closeout crew" -- who met you at the pad, fastened your emergency chute, strapped you into your launch seat, sealed the hatch and waved smiling to you through the window. Having left you lashed to what is the largest bomb on planet Earth, they then proceed 200 feet down the elevator and drive not one, not two, but three miles away to watch as the button is pressed that lights the candle that ignites the fuel that blows you into space.

Three miles! That's how far they calculate they must go to be beyond the radius of incineration should anything go awry on the launch pad on which, I remind you, these insanely brave people are sitting. Would you not want to be a bit soused? Would you be all aflutter if you discovered that a couple of astronauts -- out of dozens -- were mildly so? I dare say that if the standards of today's fussy flight surgeons had been applied to pilots showing up for morning duty in the Battle of Britain, the signs in Piccadilly would today be in German.

Exactly.  Can you imagine for just a moment what the world would be like today if we had today's modern media during World War II, (along with what currently passes for standards and practices, and fixation on making anything into a scandal).  Think of the things that we all know about now, via personal stories that came out of the war...things that went on that, if magnified by today's modern media, would have ended careers, and removed incredibly valuable people from our country's service...perhaps changing the war.  Or any other war for that matter.

We're going from a testosterone driven nation of explorers and innovators to a nation of self-questioning, second-guessing, wimps.  And the media's leading the parade.

The liberals have coalesced around their latest cause - attacking Fox News.  Specifically, targeting companies, (both national and local), that advertise on the cable network. 

Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against FOX News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. ...

The groups seem particularly angry at FOX's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.

He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.

FOX said JetBlue has since asked that its name be removed from the DailyKos.com Web site.

MoveOn.org is campaigning against FOX because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "(Conservative radio talk show host) Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air — he admits his point of view. FOX doesn't."

Is it just me, or does this remind anyone of the attitude the liberals had when Limbaugh first went national back in the late '80's?  It seems to me that their anger stems from the fact that we now have another medium where liberal thought does not enjoy a virtual monopoly. 

How dare someone have a news network that brings people on to talk about both sides of an issue, (other than having a conservative outnumbered by at least 3 to 1 if they did so).  You can hear them whine know, "make it stop...they're questioning our ideology!"  All I can say is welcome to just a little taste of the world conservatives have been living in since the dawn of television.

I think the real bottom line here is that these groups see something like this as an opportunity to raise money and build their mailing lists.  Get the moonbats worked up enough to sign those petitions and send in their money!