Following on the leaks to the New York Daily News, Brand X has a full excerpt of the new book by Elizabeth Edwards, where she writes about her reaction to her husband, John, and his affair with Rielle Hunter. Edwards doesn’t name Hunter, describing her only as a “female videographer,” and says that although the former senator admitted the affair long before it became public knowledge, he wasn’t as truthful as he could have been. She writes:

Like most wives — or husbands — in my position, I wanted to believe his involvement with this woman had been as little as possible. A single night, another opportunity, but that was it and he had wanted away from her.... It turned out that a single time was not all it was. More than a year later, I learned that he had allowed [the woman] into our lives and had not, even when he knew better, made her leave us alone. I tried to get him to explain, but he did not know himself why he had allowed it to happen. In months of talking with him, I have come to understand his liaison with this woman, if I have, not as a substitute for me. Those with any fame or notoriety or power attract people for good reasons and bad. Some want to contribute and some want to take something away for themselves. They flatter and entreat, and it is engaging, even addictive. They look at our lives, which from the outside in particular are pictures of joy and plenty, and they want it for themselves.

The lingering question for months has been whether the Edwards are still together. The answer, it seems, is yes. Elizabeth addresses it vaguely in the book. (“There is still a great deal of sorting through to do,” she writes. “We both understand that there are no guarantees, but the road ahead looks clear enough, although from here it looks long.”) But that answer wouldn’t do for Oprah, who asks Edwards point blank in an interview set to air Thursday if she is still "in love with" her husband. “That’s a complicated question,” Edwards says, according to a transcript of the interview obtained by the Associated Press. Edwards tells Oprah she has “no idea” if her husband is the father of Hunter’s baby. Asked if their marriage is “day by day,” Edwards was slightly more hopeful than that. “Neither one of us is out the door so I guess it's day by day, but maybe it's month by month," she says.

There are very few things that political reporters relish more than a spot of Kennedy family intrigue. Your Gaggler is no exception, which is why I rushed to the Vanity Fair website as soon as I found out that those lucky ducks had an excerpt of Edward Klein's forthcoming book "Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died". While it's not particularly saucy - which is to be expected given the ailing Senator's age and health - Klein got some fabulous scoopage on Caroline Kennedy's decision to withdraw her name for consideration for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Remember all the speculation about what precise event prompted the dropout? Well, Klein has some answers.

Caroline is a favorite of Teddy's, and it was his desire to see her assume the family's political mantle. Klein quotes an anonymous adviser as saying, "He felt it was very important to have a Kennedy in the Senate after he was gone, and when Hillary [Clinton] announced she was leaving the Senate to become secretary of state, Ted thought that Caroline should take her seat. He put it to Caroline almost like a last wish, and Caroline felt that she couldn’t let her uncle Teddy down." Caroline was miffed that Governor Paterson didn't immediately succumb to the romance of the Kennedy family name, Klein reports, and she called powerful DC friends to kvetch. Klein writes "This was a side of Caroline that few people had ever seen, or even suspected. According to one veteran lawyer who spoke with her, Caroline sounded like the old Bobby Kennedy—loud, harsh, and grating." Whoa. She apparently felt humiliated that her pedigree along with her professional creds weren't enough to automatically seal the deal. But she pursued the seat regardless, that is, until her family intervened. (MORE AFTER THE JUMP.)

Mark Leibovich profiles Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in the NYT today. It's an interesting study of the pragmatism of the White House (specifically Rahm Emmanuel) and the refreshing openness of LaHood himself. He tells Leibovich "I don’t think they picked me because they thought I’d be that great a transportation person," adding there were three reasons he was selection: bipartisanship, friendship and Congressional ties. The friendship piece refers to Emmanuel, a close friend of LaHood who openly wanted him in the Administration in some capacity. Obama told LaHood as much. Their closeness makes LaHood effective in this role, which he appears to have no particular passion for. He can pick up the phone anytime, and enlist the White House head honcho's help in combating obstructionists.

So far, the "bipartisan thing" hasn't really borne fruit. LaHood's long list of GOP pals hasn't done the White House that much good, at least where votes are concerned. Leibovich reports that LaHood considers his inability to garner Republican votes for the stimulus package "a personal failure" but that some GOPers on the Hill believe his presence in the cabinet has fostered goodwill. Your Gaggler thinks the jury is still out on that one: The GOP doesn't appear any more inclined to support the President's initiatives than it did during stimulus negotiations. If anything, as the SCOTUS fight approaches and the energy debate winds its way through the Hill, antagonism seems to be rising.

Your Gaggler thought it interesting though that LaHood seemed to have so little zeal for his portfolio. While Transportation might seem an agency of lesser importance, and thus easily given to Republican as a gesture of goodwill, transport is a critical part of the stimulus package, important to U.S. energy consumption and a favorite of the Vice President. But should Democrats hope his enthusiasm grows? Um, it depends:

When asked if he could foresee disagreeing with the administration on anything, Mr. LaHood shrugged, and eventually shook his head. “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue,” he said. “I’m not going to sit around agonizing. The answer is, probably not.”

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Prince Charles channels Obama
The British prince is far from being a tech savvy leader like Barack Obama, so to push his passionate cause -- environmental conservation -- he's been hiring the American web aces that helped get the American president elected. (Time)

Is the recession suffocating innovation?
U.S. thinkers haven't stopped coming up with new ideas for gizmos or marvels, but tight credit and business cutbacks have slowed the pace of bringing the latest American innovations to fruition. (AP)

Among conservatives, many are aimless
More voters now say they are conservatives than say they are Republicans, which one columnist says is a great starting point for a party pondering how to rebuild. (Wall Street Journal)

Obama's former pals may block the playground
Even though Obama appears to have a sizable mandate of votes in the senate, his former colleagues who are more centrist have begun pushing back on the size and price of the president's proposals. (NPR)

Special French talents
Just like a hangover, one way to get through a tough recession is to eat and sleep it off. A new study shows that the French excel at both activities more than any other country in the world. (AP)