Absolutely, someone thought getting the Enquirer to the hotel at the time he was there (she lives in the area, so a hotel room should have been a red flag to him if she had threatened him).

re the endorsement well, Edwards endorsed Obama nonstop thruout the campaign simply by negatively attacking only Clinton's character and politics 24/7. Alone and with Obama.

But in above post I just meant what I said. She is saying that they want to resume their repair work (on family and marriage, right?) started in 2006.

But then just like that they put that on hold and campaigned for Dem nom again? That is a huge decision to make for them and the country.

WHY did they make that decision after all they had been thru just then? Did they ever think what they were doing politically? The consequences their actions could have?

It was a big surprise, his change of mind, since he had given a strong negative earlier because 'been there, done that' was his first answer and a firm 'no'...

Thinking back I remembered the emails a couple of us wrote each other on the night of New Hampshire, hoping upon hope that Hillary would lose badly so we wouldn't have to hear about her or about Bill in the general election.  I remember being so glad she placed below Edwards.

  In the other, fuzzy, shot, it is round and up closer to the chin and the sleeves seem a bit shorter.  Online it did not look like him but in the magazine it does.

  His answer was awful.  He either held a baby or not.

  Seems more as if it continues to be a serious relationship, as he didn't tell his wife he was going to meet her.  Meeting her with baby in the room and staying until 2:40am is too bizarre for blackmail though that's what I hoped it was at first.

  However, if he had promised it was over, that would account for his not telling her about this strange visit, during which he left the hotel together WITH her in view of doorman etc and they were gone a short bit -- and returned together.  It's all so weird.

  I'm mainly sorry that in our country, post-Republican-impeachment for a private affair inside the White House, which JFK had MANY of (and that's seriously documented by his own staff in books) has led to a situation where every candidate is supposed to be pure and I actually find it a bit unnatural to expect that.

  SADDER is that she was in remission at the time, he said, and thus it appears her cancer returned after she was told.  As one who has gone through cancer and the scariness of it and knowing how people are affected by stress even when healthy, it's all terrible.  That's where it counts.  BUT people's marital life should remain private.

  Me, even if he were a presidential candidate, I wouldn't care.  For me it doesn't go to 'character' but to normal human erring and it is just expected and normal in Europe.  As I said in another note, our worst presidents have been the ones who did not, from what we know, allow themselves that kind of outlet.  What a puritanical culture.

  I also think that if press sticks a microphone up to a candidate's face to insist on knowing whether or not they've had affairs with others, they should not answer - it's not our business.  It's not a requirement for the office to be pure.  If they asked Obama and he had something in his background, why should we even care ???

Two things that won't go away.... did he use campaign funds? and .. what are the results of the DNA test?  Doesn't matter if he isn't the parent... it won't go away until that is answered.