Via the Washington Post (Howard Kurtz and Lois Romano) we now learn that,

Fred Baron, a Texas lawyer who was the finance chairman of Edwards's two presidential campaigns, in 2004 and this year, said in an interview that he has been sending unspecified sums of money to Hunter without informing Edwards. The payments helped Hunter relocate from North Carolina to a $3 million Santa Barbara home and helped Andrew Young -- a former Edwards aide who claims to be the baby's father -- move into a $4 million home in the same city. Edwards said he was unaware that money was being funneled to his former aides.

(my emphasis)

The obligatory question: Why,if not to buy her silence on behalf of his long time boss, was Baron sending this "unspecified" sum to Hunter?

The National Enquirer was more specific than WAPO in regards to the amount in their August 4th story:

NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation has uncovered John Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter – the mother of his “love child” – has been secretly receiv­ing $15,000 a month as part of an elaborate cover-up orchestrated by the former presidential contender.

Several things lead me to believe that Rielle Hunter's baby is John Edwards':

1) Edwards implied that his "friends" or aides, not himself, might have given Hunter money while falsely believing that Edwards was the father.
But...does that make sense to you? Would anyone love Edwards so much to go as far as to pay someone large sums of money for her silence?

2) That National Enquirer picture in which someone who appears to be Edwards holds a baby in his arms in a hotel room.

3) Edwards' denial was not accompanied by paternity test results.

If I had to bet money, I'd bet the baby is his.

If the media is so pro-McCain, why are so little of their viewers swayed to vote Republican? If the media hates Obama, who do their viewers prefer him over McCain?
Only Fox News is an exception.

A new Rasmussen survey has found that:

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.

Also,

Seventy percent (70%) of those who watch CBS’ Katie Couric every day plan to vote for Obama, as do 71% of the daily viewers of ABC’s Charles Gibson and 67% of those watching NBC’s Brian Williams.

Stop whining.

In yesterday's "Best of the Web" column, Wall Street Journal's James Taranto drew attention to an ESPN article in which PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem is quoted making outrageously racist comments about the African American living Golf legend, Tiger Woods: These are the remarks:

PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem saw Tiger Woods for the first time since his season-ending surgery, and reported Sunday that the No. 1-ranked golfer was his usual self, except for being about 10 pounds lighter and walking with a slight limp.

"He lost 12 or 13 pounds after surgery, gained a few back," Finchem said. "He looks kind of thin."

Unbelievable. In the 21th century there are still prejudiced savages such as Finchem roaming this earth.

This seems to be a continuation of the pattern started by Wall Street Journal columnist Amy Chozik, who in an August 1st article used the racially charged epithet "skinny" while wondering whether Obama's weight might be a liability in a nation where many are overwheight.

Upon reading the article, Slate Magazine's Tim Noah expressed his belief that "skinny" is a racist term which actually means "black", and that no physical criticism of Obama should ever be published:

While most voters don't base their decision on physical appearance alone, a candidate's height, weight and overall look can play a big role in what Americans perceive as "presidential," says Thomas "Mack" McLarty, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.

Throw in the calories involved in a modern-day presidential campaign -- often compared to a beauty pageant and a competitive eating contest rolled into one -- and presidential candidates have an added challenge.

I hereby call upon PGA Tournament officials to immediately find a replacement for Finchem.

Or so alleges National Enquirer:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebrity/65258

I don't believe anyone would be so reckless to post such photograph of a politician of this caliber without it being genuine, but we'll see.

Meanwhile, progressive writer Kevin Drum says he would be surprised if the MSM doesn't finally pick up the story:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014239.php

On Monday during "Countdown" (see transcript), TV host Keith Olbermann marveled at the presence of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the now famous "celeb" ad released by John McCain's campaign.

According to Olbermann's (and Bob Herbert's) theory, the tower, being stiff and long and all, represented a "phallic" figure-- in other words, a penis, which was intended to tell us how badly Obama wants to screw Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

The problem: The object to which Olbermann refers was NOT the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but a structure located at the site of Obama's Berlin speech.

That's not all. Olbermann also claimed to have seen the Washington Monument in the ad in question, which is flat-out false. The Washington Monument is not in the ad either.

OLBERMANN (8/4/08): It seems like the celebrity ad continues to echo and Bob Herbert of the New York Times was on this network pointing out something—I don`t know that anybody noticed before—this morning: That not only in that McCain ad were there two underdressed blondes mixed with the black guy in the ad, but there are also images of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument, and the Victory Column in Berlin, as Bob Herbert put it, "phallic symbols"—three phallic symbols, two blondes and Barack Obama.

Granted, Herbert started it all in his appearance earlier that same day in "Morning Joe", but he does not strike me as arrogant. Herbert is clueless, not arrogant. Keith is both, hence my decision to make him center of this diary. Furthermore, as progressive media critic Bob Somerby observed today:

"He’d (Olbermann) had twelve hours to check his facts—but he still was repeating these world-class blunders..."

Spare us the BS next time, Keith, and start justifying the ginormous salary MSNBC pays you. Watching the video was all it took for you to have avoided making an ass of yourself. Too late now.

Politifact.com, named best newspaper website in 2007 by the Newspaper Association of America (beating the Washington Post), just analyzed Obama's recent shift on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and called it what it is: A full flop.

In short, Obama said in early July this year that these reserves should only  be used in case of an emergency:

“I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point,” Obama said in a press conference in St. Louis on July 7. “...The strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let’s say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market. We wouldn’t just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that’s what the strategic oil reserve has to be for.”

Since then, no emergency has occured, and gas prices are even cheaper now than they were during Obama's July comments.

Here's the verdict:

Back on July 7, Obama set the bar at “genuine emergency,” and then cited an example of a catastrophic disruption in supply. Obama is now describing the high price of gas as a crisis and a threat to national security. But we fail to see how that’s any different than was the case a month ago — when the price of gas was 24 cents a gallon higher — when Obama dismissed it.

We rate Obama’s proposal a Full Flop.

A story not reported here yet is the one by McClatchy Newspapers revealing that the birth certificate belonging to Rielle Hunter's son, who has been said to be John Edwards' and Hunter's love child, lists no one as the child's father.

Slate Magazine's Mickey Kaus  complained today that the media is seeking to protect Elizabeth Edwards--who has cancer--from the devastating news that would be the confirmation of the National Enquirer story, in which the magazine claimed to have caught John Edwards in a Beverly Hills hotel with Hunter.

A security guard on duty at the time of the alleged story confirmed having protected a scared Edwards from curious reporters.

What do you guys think? Should the major media outlets pursue an investigation of the matter?

It may come as a surprise to those who accused John McCain of racism for featuring celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an anti-Obama ad, but the Illinois Senator himself is aware that Hilton is widely known not for simply handing out BJ's, but for being all over the place.

As CNN reported, Obama compared his tremendous media presence to that of Paris:

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," then Senator-elect Obama said at a Gridiron dinner in December, 2004. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Is Obama then a self-hating racist?

Absolutely not. He cracked a funny joke about his popularity, yet the double standard dictates that John McCain, who used a similar comparison, is some sort of race-baiter who accuses Obama of having a "taste" for white women, in the words of a blogger whose name I need not mention because I already did so a couple of days ago.

Yes, the "celeb" ad was dumb, and did not address the issues that affect Americans or the world nowadays; but racist it was not.

...test