National Enquirer alleges John Edwards affair; blogosphere readies salt shaker
Barack Obama's VP shortlist might have gotten shorter: The National Enquirer yesterday published a story claiming it had caught John Edwards meeting with an alleged mistress and illegitimate child. Then again, the Enquirer hasn't been able to produce quotes, photos or even eyewitness accounts. And the mainstream media seems to be ignoring it, for the most part.
TalkLeft, among others, hopes it isn't true. And thus far, the claims don't seem to have hurt Edwards politically — although the Corner has something worth noting:
...after first seeming to take himself out of the running, he put himself back in the race two weeks ago, telling NPR, "I'm prepared to seriously consider anything, anything [Obama] asks me to do for our country."
But yesterday — the day the Enquirer story went live — the Rocky Mountain News reported, "former Sen. John Edwards told a Denver audience Tuesday that now he's plunged into a new kind of campaign, 'to end poverty as we know it in a generation.'"
Wonkette, in its own way, expresses exhaustion at the thought of another Edwards story:
The important question is not “Why is John Edwards cheating on his wife who had cancer?” We know that answer: He’s a Democratic politician. They have affairs with ladies. The important question is “Why do we have to hear about this again now?”
The answer is “Because a tabloid caught him with the mistress and the baby at a hotel!” A love child? Jesus! Bill Clinton must feel a million years old tonight. Joe Klein, too.
Pajamas Media plays savvier-than-thou:
Oh, one last thing, for those of you who say it’s The National Enquirer, how do we know it’s true? I suggest you Google the “National Enquirer and OJ Simpson.” They broke most of the important stories on that case. In general, these days they’re vastly more reliable than The New York Times.
But Outside the Beltway interrupts, "Indeed, the Enquirer breaks legitimate scandals all the time. But they run with all manner of nonsense too — they just don’t care so long as they sell papers." It goes on:
Edwards has been widely touted for another run as vice president, although I can’t see why he’d want to go through that again, especially with his wife in ill health. Certainly, those facts would make the scandal worse, if true. Frankly, I hope it isn’t.
Ditto.
Any reporter willing to do the legwork could have broken this. Any reporter in the LA area could confirm it.
The hotel video surveillance system has the entire episode on tape.
Posted by: Mondoreb | July 23, 2008 at 01:16 PM
I guess you're right. Democratic politicians have affairs with ladies. Republican politicians have them with men.
Posted by: roccosmom | July 23, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Why should it matter? McCain is a repeat adulterer who left the wife that looked after his 3 children while he was a POW for 5 years for a younger, wealtheir woman...Cindy McCain. Cindy who later went on to embezzeling from her own non-profit to support her prescription painkiller addiction. Not to mention, she adopted a special needs child w/o consulting John while she was a pill addict. I think that story is far worse.
Posted by: mr bojangles | July 23, 2008 at 01:49 PM
I recall hearing the LA Times had this story last year, but decided to sit on it.
Any truth to that, LA Times?
Posted by: TakeFive | July 23, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Remember the Enquirer and Rush? Broke that story,too. And the actual story says Edwards turned tail and ran, rather than answer the reporter's questions.
Love Wonkette--Dems have affairs with ladies? Even as their wives fight for their lives? Nice to know.
Posted by: Rachel Cohen | July 23, 2008 at 01:57 PM
Love Child? Sounds more like his baby mama wanted to keep the cash flowing. (Hope the kid is better looking than the baby momma). Either way, slydawg Edwards now has official street creds by being a baby daddy-What a typical democrat/republican power hungry rules don't apply putz.
Posted by: Otto Focus | July 23, 2008 at 01:59 PM
You only have to read Edwards' non-denial denial today to know it's true.
At least Bill Clinton came out with a forceful denial: "I did not have sex with that woman."
Of course, he was lying.
Posted by: Jimmy Riddle | July 23, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Of course it's true.! This is a guy who won a big judgement from a company by "channeling" a dead girl...literally speaking to the jury like he was the girl. If he's capable of using a dead child to line his own pockets why would he not use his political ad woman for sex? And, yes, you libs this is a story even if you don't want to hear about it.
Posted by: ringo | July 23, 2008 at 02:02 PM
If this is true (and now that it's emerging for the second time it appears likely), then we should consider that John Edwards' political career is in a tailspin - as if we didn't know that already!
Posted by: Steve | July 23, 2008 at 02:07 PM
The tragedy in these situations is the price the family has to pay for the husband's infidelity. If it is true about his "love child", and it looks as if it is, I feel sorry for Edwards' wife and children. How do you explain to your children that you are cheating on Mom. I'm not an Edwards fan and I don't care for his politics, but I hate to see the innocents in his family subject to public scrutiny.
Posted by: Jeff Saeli | July 23, 2008 at 02:18 PM
How about some attribution?? Who is responsible for this drivel? He cheats because he's a Democratic politician?? Assuming he cheated, a huge leap based on the evidence thus far, didn't ol' Newt Gingrich essentially abandon his wife for a young minky? And what about Rudy "ball-cancer" Giuliani? What a jack ass this writer is and what a preposterous joke the Los Angeles Times has become.
Posted by: Zombie | July 23, 2008 at 02:29 PM
Let's keep in mind that THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER - not ABC, not CNN, not The Washington Post or any other respected news source - broke this "story."
The Enquirer has the same about of credibility as Drudge or FOX News.
Posted by: Nick | July 23, 2008 at 02:43 PM
None of the articles I have read or seen have any EVIDENCE to back this up. If they have photos or videos of this, why are they not showing it? Its a pack of lies.
Posted by: janine | July 23, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Nice.. "He’s a Democratic politician. They have affairs with ladies."
Yeah.. but republicans just pick guys up in airport restrooms.. or get rentboys in filthy book stores, or have their prostitutes orderd through call girls.
Hell.. who needs to have an affair with a lady?!
Posted by: AverageBentley | July 23, 2008 at 03:20 PM
I'm guessing the Inquirer has pictures and will publish them when they feel the time is right. The Inquirer wouldn't knowingly publish lies about Edwards, an attorney who I'm sure wouldn't have any problem suing if the article, or previous article, was false.
Posted by: Mick | July 23, 2008 at 03:29 PM
he Inquirer wouldn't knowingly publish lies.....
Now thats a joke. Of course they would. They wouldn't care if they got sued, its great publicity.
Posted by: Janine | July 23, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Only in America would garbage like this be considered news.
Posted by: Tom in Californa | July 23, 2008 at 03:54 PM
"The Enquirer has the same about of credibility as Drudge or FOX News."
I hate to bust your chops Nick but Drudge broke the "blue dress" story on Bill
Posted by: GottaRun | July 23, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Ever since NE lost a few libel cases, NE started giving their stories a lot of vetting. Often they couch sentences with qualifiers precisely to prevent lawsuits. Perhaps the NE story is misleading or not telling the whole story, but I find their accounts very credible (albeit tasteless).
Posted by: Robert Nagle | July 23, 2008 at 04:34 PM
When men have these affairs I'm wondering why they never think about their families until they are caught. Then they are ashamed and sorry. I feel sorry for the family. I feel sorry Elizabeth Edwards that she has to now deal with this in addition to cancer. I pray she has God in her life she's gonna need him if its true. The media is gonna have a field day.
Posted by: Meka | July 23, 2008 at 05:23 PM
This is horribly upsetting. And I supported the guy right up to the time he dropped out of the race. His wife's cancer metasticized to her bones...it will be a very painful death. And yet she spent all that time out campaigning for him despite the horrid medical treatments she must be undergoing.
Why couldn't he keep it zipped? Or at least used the services of a discreet high-class call girl ring, and there are plenty of those in L.A.
Elizabeth no doubt hasn't the strength to sue for divorce and get half the dirtbag's money. Then again, what good are millions of dollars when you're going to die SOON? On the third hand, she could put it in trust for their two sons who are under age 10. Their dad is no doubt going to keep reproducing.
Posted by: DirtBagRadarOn | July 23, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Drudge broke Monica Lewinski story. National Enquirer broke Edwards last year. They are hardcore whereas CNN, ABC, Washington Post are in bed with all politicos!
Posted by: patty | July 23, 2008 at 05:30 PM
I have spent most of my life in public life, including holding elective offices. I am a male, and husbands cheating on thgeir wives is not a new story.
I have been surprised before by guys who cheated on their wonderful wives--whom they apparently loved madly.
But I was shocked by this story. I supported him twice for President, enthusiastically so. Integrity was part of the reason. Frankly, it did not occur to me that John Edwards would cheat on his wonderful wife. And maybe it isn't true.
If the story turns out to be factual, I guess it proves that no matter how intelligent we are, sometimes our desires overcomes our good judgment as well as our hearts.
Frankly, I hope the Enquirer is totally off the mark with this story.
Posted by: RPhillips | July 23, 2008 at 05:52 PM
The reason it isnt being picked up is surprise, he's a liberal democrat.
if youre concerned about the source of the story, consider former Ambassador Andrew Young, an edwards aide has admitted it and still it's not a story.
Posted by: Tim 88 | July 23, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Why would the Enquirer go after this VERY successful slip-and-fall lawyer, unless it has the goods?
I'm waiting for the "Sorry-if-this-offends-you" apology that usually follows a Democrat's peccadillos.
Posted by: c'est moi | July 23, 2008 at 06:18 PM