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.
I don't think the mainstream media can sit on this story for too much longer. Sooner or later this thing is going to pop and Edwards is going to have to address it. Although I hate it when people make it a Republican or Democrat issue. I mean c'mon John McCain left his disfigured wife after coming back from being a POW and hooked up with a much younger woman who is now his wife. I don't see people jumping up and making an issue out of that even though that's pretty screwed up too. I know the clips of the pre-presidential campaign that Rielle and Edwards worked on together had disappeared off the internet for a while. It seems they're back up but who knows how long, with Edwards experience as a trial lawyer I wouldn't be surprised to see them taken down again in a few days.
John Edwards - Webisode 1
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/politics/edwards-webisode-1-plane-truths.html
John Edwards - Webisode 2
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/politics/john-edwards-missing-webisode.html
John Edwards - Webisode 3
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/politics/missing-edwards-webisode-3-plight-of-uganda.html
John Edwards - Webisode 4
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/politics/missing-edwards-webisode-4-plugs.html
Posted by: Robert Paul | July 29, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Egads! Another democrat pawn of the trial lawers association caught doing something reprehensible? Next thing you will tell us he is up to his ears in money from asbestos plaintiffs' scumba...err, I mean lawyers!
Alas, this story once again proves the NY times, CNN, The Boston Globe, the WA Post and the LA rag are worthless rags whose circulations, like their relevance, are in a death spiral. The Enquirer proves to be their better. We will next be subjected to that abject moron apologist Keith "I'll quote books I've never read and could never understand " Olbermann, yet another of the legion of opinionated yet hopelessly uninformed media.
Posted by: Veritas | July 29, 2008 at 04:20 PM
John Edwards is a contemptable hypocrite. This is not a surprise to those of us in NC. Ask the MD Ob,s and his channeling of an unborn childs protestations about caesarian sections. John Edwards could not be elected to the city council of Chapel Hill, much less to state office. Go for it Obama, the two of you would be quite a team.
Posted by: Tilghman | July 29, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Has anyone noticed the National Enquirer website has been offline for at least the last 48 hours? Hard for them to post photos or video (proof) if they're being hacked, isn't it.
Posted by: Christopher Carter | July 29, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Edwards can end this nightmare by coming out and vehemently deny the story AND subject himself to a DNA paternaty test.
Posted by: franco | July 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM
No wonder John Edwards believes there are 2 Americas...he has 2 families!!!
Posted by: ford | July 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I don't believe it's only Democrats, it's most men, whether Democrate or Republican! Anyway, I feel terrible for his beautiful wife,Elizabeth. The woman is sick, I think people need to think about how this woman with breast cancer is feeling right now. I don't think anyone should say anything bad about her. My father cheated on my mother 14 years ago and my mom is still heartbroken. It tore our family apart! I can't imagine how his children are going to feel like they weren't "good enough" for their dad. I still feel like that to this day! I hope Elizabeth is able to get through this and is strong enough to leave him. I hope she finds a hot young guy to soften the blow!
Posted by: Julia | July 29, 2008 at 06:46 AM
Oh give it up folks, this is not a democratic or republican thing. It happens all over. It's a Male thing. Hmmm I wonder why male bashing is such a growing trend? This guy is toast. You don't cheat on your wife who while fighting breast cancer campaigns non stop for you. You are are a bottom feeder!
Posted by: sid | July 29, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Trust me, the Enquirer likely has the goods on tape on Edwards. They are playing "cat & mouse" with him with leaks. Despite what one may think (or not) about Edwards, it is indisputable that he is a very successful (wealthy) trial lawyer. The Enquirer knows that. They are trying to "goad" him into a flat out in print/on tape denial where they can then whip into a frothy lather the public interest in this story by "busting" him wide open. Edwards, as a very clever trial knows that. He ain't biting....yet. They will puree him a bit more with leaks trying to disturb his emotional sensibilities so much that he loses intellectual control of his own strategy with these. Shameful any way one looks at as families' lives are in play here.
Posted by: sarah | July 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM
I hope that it's not true, because I cannot imagine that Elizabeth Edwards must deal with this on top of everything else she is facing. If it IS true, his conduct is contemptible. Clinton at least ended his affair before anyone knew about it.
Posted by: Dinerlee | July 28, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Watch the vids Rielle made about JE here:
Posted by: Ronnie | July 27, 2008 at 11:16 PM
What I love most here is how all of you --all HONORABLE men, I'm sure-- don't just believe it, but you WANT to believe it. What a lovely time to be an American. We'll see tomorrow if this "story" actually breaks. I'll wait for the evidence, not some wishful thinking on the part of all you, uh, honorable folk.
Posted by: Franklee | July 27, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I will take a Democrats "Love child" over the present administrations
invasion of Iraq which killed thousands,Funny how GWB doe's not
get much bad press for NOT waiting just three months for the
United Nations to go in there.
Ah shucks,sex sells better than a phony war which has cost us
620 billion dollars and growing.
Posted by: Mr. 1776 | July 27, 2008 at 08:30 PM
For me, it's always the hypocrisy that stands out. The contrast between the public personna of the loving husband and father on the campaign trail when the guy is sneaking around hotels late at night. I think any woman who wants a loving, faithful husband should make sure she marries a guy who doesn't want to be President-of anything. It seems like its always the politicians-the corporate CEOS-the big financiers-the Hollywood producers etc. that think they are God's gift to women. And there seems to be an endless supply of stupid women who fawn all over them. I happen to think there's a big connection between men who lie to their wives and the problems we have today with corporate ethics, financial scandals, and yes, even the mess in Iraq. If you can lie to the people you are closest to, then by golly, it just gets easier to lie to everybody else, too.
Posted by: Deb517 | July 27, 2008 at 07:38 PM
The only thing more pathetic than John Edwards' s behavior-he with the wife who is dying of cancer- is the denials of the truthfulness of this story. That people on this thread deny the story is inconsequential, however.
That the Times failed to cover the story has consequences of a major kind. It helps explain why readers and advertisers are bailing out of the paper rapidly. I hope all the employees are looking for other jobs.
Try the New York Times.
Posted by: cosimdm | July 27, 2008 at 06:56 PM
I guess there really are two Americas, and Edwards lives in one while slumming it in the other.
Posted by: don | July 27, 2008 at 06:21 PM
Please keep in mind that The Enquirer has paid millions of dollars in libel settlements over the years: Liz Taylor, Carol Burnett, Shirley Jones, Hicholas Cage, Kate Hudson, J Lo and others have all been paid. Enquirer is not a newspaper. It alternates between alien babies and political scandal. If Edwards was holding the hotel door shut and then had to leave past a number of reporters, don't you think someone would have gtten a photo? Let's see the photos.
Posted by: LynnSmith | July 27, 2008 at 05:47 PM
I have to laugh. I just read a comment from some individual who criticized the National Inquirer - he or she said that it didn't have the high standards ? of the NY Times, the LA Times, Wash. Post,
CNN, etc. HA HA HA Give me a break! The NY Times has had writers who have been fired for taking other reporters material and writing it as their own. CBS had Dan Rather try to take a false document about President Bush and make it look like it was real. He should be in jail. At least, if he did that to me, he'd be sporting a fat lip and a black eye. Don't give me that crap. Chris matthews spews untruths every night. High Standards? You got to be kidding? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Posted by: Rich | July 27, 2008 at 05:27 PM
It's funny how this "Hillary for Obama's VP" thing worked it's way into this thread. As if she (or Edwards for that matter) were ever in the running for that.
No way, not a chance.
Posted by: seattlecon | July 27, 2008 at 04:44 PM
American politicians..... yu gotta luv 'em!
Posted by: Rudy Namtil | July 27, 2008 at 03:46 PM
From Slate.com
LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don't-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email Times bloggers received from editor Tony Pierce. [I've excised the recipient list and omitted Pierce's email address]:
From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
To: [XXX]
Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask
Keep rockin,
Tony
That will certainly calm paranoia about the Mainstream Media (MSM) suppressing the Edwards scandal. ...
P.S.: Is the Times' edict a) part of a double-standard that favors Democrats (and disfavors Republicans like Rep. Vito Fossella and John McCain)? Or does it b) simply reflect an outmoded Gatekeeper Model of journalism in which not informing readers of certain sensitive allegations is as important as informing them--as if readers are too simple-minded to weigh charges that are not proven, as if they aren't going to find out about such controversies anyway? I'd say it's a mixture of both (a) and (b). This was a sensational scandal the LAT and other MSM papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate, and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again. ...
P.P.S.: The Times apparently failed to get word of the ban to one of its bloggers in time to prevent her from shocking readers by saying she hoped the allegations against Edwards weren't true. ... 2:55 A.M. link
Posted by: reposado | July 27, 2008 at 01:36 PM
The LA Times again has proved that it is nothing more than an instrument of leftist politics. Their attempt to stop bloggers from discussing the Edward's affair is an attempt to eliminate free speech. The LA Times publishes only articles and investigations that agree with their point of view. It is no wonder that the Times is losing subcribers at a rate faster than the speed of light.
Posted by: Jim | July 27, 2008 at 12:37 PM
The Enquire is more credible than the LA Times. Admit it Times, you are in the tank for liberal democrats. disgusting and shameful
Posted by: OCVOICE | July 27, 2008 at 10:17 AM
If Edwards was a conservative, the Washington Compost, NY Slimes, et al would have the story on page 1.
Posted by: Tom Gildea | July 27, 2008 at 08:07 AM
Let's look at some facts:
President Roosevelt affair with his female driver, wife an avowed lesbian communist. DEMOCRAT
President Kennedy - multiple afairs, hookers andmafioso whores snuck into the White House DEMOCRAT
Senator Kennedy - murdered his mistress, ran away, denied everything. DEMOCRAT
president Clinton (title does not warrant capitalization) Adulter, liar, purjuier ec etc etc. DEMOCRAT
Studd caught with little boys. DEMOCRAT
Frank caught with his male lover running prostitution ring. DEMOCAT
The party which favors, murdering children (abortion), slavery (welfare), pedophilia (homosexual rights), purjury (CLINTON).
Unfortunaely I could go on forever but suffice to say Democrats are simply evil personnified.
How could anyone who believes in Christianity or any real religion claim to be a DEMOCRAT?
Posted by: Gary Boettner | July 27, 2008 at 04:43 AM