Why would Silky’s campaign have been so keen on buying up footage that supposedly wasn’t interesting enough to make it off the cutting-room floor in the first place?

Remember Pamela and Tommy? Kim Kardashian and Ray J? Paris Hilton and whatever his name was?

Did the really make up for lost time, or are they just now releasing what they’ve known for awhile? The mere fact that we have to question that should spell the end of the Times.

“It’s really beginning to look like Obama operative Baron was eager to keep Edwards in the campaign as long as possible.

Enquiring minds (and Hillary supporters) want to know why.”

Is Madam Hunter from Chicago?

What else is new?

Did Edwards’ campaign launder payments to his mistress?

Yeah, but it’s okay–Jesse Jackson signed off on it.

Enquiring minds (and Hillary supporters) want to know why.”

Mark the Great. Yessir, Mark, they do. Or to put the question more directly, What did Senator Obama know, and when did he know it? This looks as if the Edwards campaign was involved in this business, and one has to wonder when the feds will taken an interest.

It sure does seem that way, as the connection between Edwards, campaign finance chair Fred Baron, and the lawyers for Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young become public. Remember last year, when Hunter and Young independently claimed that Young was the……

But do you think the Pres. will do this? Heck no. He’s still stuck on his disgusting “New Tone” method of doing business w/dems. Our justice dept is only used to prosecute Republicans. dem’s are exempt. DD

Exit question via Byron York: When, precisely, did the Times decide this non-story was a story?

When Edwards’ continued presence in Democratic Party politics threatened to become a major embarrassment and a threat to the party’s hopes in the November election.

The Times and others on the left already are angry that their populist champion turned out to be every bit the fraud that Republicans and conservatives said he was for the past decade. The fact that Edwards (and Elizabeth) appeared to be crafting their alibi/defense in order to remain players on the national political scene freed up the Times to unleash that anger on Edwards, because they could justify it as helping to protect Obama and Democrats going into the DNC convention and the fall campaign.

Very interesting.