John Edwards in Denver Today, Promoting Anti-Poverty Plan

John Edwards was in Denver today, promoting his anti-poverty plan.

The former senator has been traveling the country promoting an anti-poverty campaign called "Half In Ten," meaning the goal is to cut poverty in the U.S. in half within 10 years.

More on his appearance here. Video is here.

According to the National Enquirer, last night he was in Los Angeles where he ran into some sleazoid reporters. I hope the story isn't true, but it's beginning to make the rounds. Curious that the reporters included no photos or video footage. What are they saving it for? Or doesn't it exist?

Here's a more flattering pic of Rielle Hunter.

In any event, if the story becomes national news, at least he's found a way out of being asked to serve as Obama's VP candidate.

< McCain Blames Obama for Rising Gas Prices | McCain Competing For Attention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I won't click on that link. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:06:15 PM EST
    Can someone summarize the story?

    I'm happy to report that, as of 8:45 p.m. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:48:39 PM EST
    PDT, the L. A. Times is NOT reporting this.

    read it in one of the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:09:21 PM EST
    other blogs on Memeorandum or google search or check Gawker.

    Oh. (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:12:16 PM EST
    That again.

    I Can't Either (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:14:00 PM EST
    I will wait for more information instead. I don't really care about what kind of freaks they are in their personal life anyway.



    Ditto: UFOS, affairs - who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:34:35 AM EST
    Just as long as no taxpayer dollars were involved.

    Democrats won't care (none / 0) (#136)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:11:17 AM EST
    You are so right, democrats don't care about their politicians having affairs.  

    But will that still be ok if Edwards has a baby with this woman, as has been reported?  And does it matter that Edward's wife is dieing of breast cancer?   Those two things matter to me.  He shouldn't be doing this with his wife so sick.  jmo


    I don't buy their story. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by beachmom on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:15:33 PM EST
    From what I understand about it, the father is a former staffer.  And, as you say, no pics or videos.  Why not?  This sort of story does not interest me, and it does not appear to be true.  I'm not the biggest fan of JRE, but I'll defend him against such dirt.

    Sorry to say (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:45:17 PM EST
    the Enquirer has proved to be right on this kind of thing in recent years more often than not.  Remember Dick Morris?

    I do care about this because I care very much about Elizabeth, and because if it's true it ends his political career.  Also Mr. Purity would be unlikely to put him in as AG or Sec. of Labor or any other high-level appointive position.

    I wish somebody would invent a chastity belt for men.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:59:30 PM EST
    It might affect VP, but if an Enquirer story is all they've got, I don't see it being a big factor for AG or Sec Labor, and definitely not his political career longer term.  Esp. if Dems pick up the Senate seats they're projecting.

    Wasn't Cisneros driven out of politics because of (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:25:16 AM EST
    mistress and payments???

    I think it would make a big difference if this is true... I doubt he'd be in the running for anything if it were...


    You may be right if (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:03:42 AM EST
    it doesn't go beyond the Enquirer story, but I have a bad feeling about this.  Maybe our MSM has truly lost interest in the sex lives of politicians, but I don't have much faith in that.

    Of course women never cheat (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:05:09 AM EST
    Please.  For every man who cheats, there is a woman there "helping" him, unless he's gay.  I'm convinced we hold men to a much more obtuse standard when it comes to infidelity.  I honestly cannot see it affecting a female politician like it affects male pols.  I can't even see us being interested in a female politician's infidelity.

    I can't say (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:46:04 AM EST
    that I have heard of an elected major office female politician being caught cheating. I think those who dig into politicians personal lives seem more intent on proving female politicians to be lesbians. Imagine if Janet Reno or Condi Rice would have been caught in a tryst with some hapless man. The sighs of disappointment would be audible around the country.

    Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:14:21 AM EST
    No one would care if a woman was having an affair while in office?  

    I'd say that most democrats don't care if their pols are having affairs, since so many of them do.  But many people do care, especially if the pol has a very sick wife who everyone knows, and likes.  

    Poor Elizabeth won't live long.  Couldn't Edwards have waited to be a sleaze?  


    I don't buy it either. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Little Fish on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:30:05 PM EST
    Curious that the reporters included no photos or video footage.

    I agree.  In this day and age there's always photos/video.

    Elizabeth was in Chicago
    last night taping a segment with Lance Armstrong for the Stand Up To Cancer campaign. She looks well. :) Livestrong Elizabeth!

    Who (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:34:40 PM EST

    None of our business. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM EST

    In the hierarchy of things I care about (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    this is Number 2,856,443,051.

    It's Number 2,856,443,052 for me. ;) (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    WTF? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    I'm sorry, I'm confused Jeralyn - you're sourcing the National Enquirer?  You hope the story isn't true?  Why bother?  What's the point?  Disappointed.

    Simple calculus (none / 0) (#21)
    by politicsofinsanity on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM EST
     Obama's primary criteria is economic for the VP spot rather than foreign policy. Guess who is at the top on economic issues?  Guess who polls extremely well? Its a pretty simple calculus of why.

    There are no photos, no video, nada. In an age of papparazi and the alleged incident took place in Lose Angeles no less.  In the internet age, they know you can swiftboat with a lie that people want to believe.

    They can take photos with tiny cameras any where. My friend owns one of these cameras. So why none here?

    Because the story isn't true.  It's about ending his chance at the VP slot through gossip.  Again, sometimes you just got to fill in the missing variables yourself.


    I have no hope on whether the story is true (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:00:35 PM EST
    I hope we never discuss it again.

    It is not our business in any way.

    What Matters (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Petey on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:18:32 PM EST
    It matters whether or not it's true.  If it's true, then Edwards has no place on a national Democratic ticket, or in any other political job in any way connected with electoral politics.

    It also matters who runs the National Enquirer, the only "publication" who has run this story.  And the National Enquirer is run by Roger Altman and Ron Burkle.


    Is there some type of (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:21:51 PM EST
    brain-fogging substance emitting from computers tonight?

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST
    It's being reported elsewhere (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:29:49 AM EST
    and whether true or not, it's news that is spreading, see New York Magazine for starters, it's on the front page. If it spreads further, it could mean Obama won't offer him the VP spot. That makes it relevant.

    I think the story is very suspicious as I said due to lack of photos, but the Enquirer did break the Rush Limbaugh drug story.  They could be holding the photos for their print edition (I think it's a weekly -- we'll see.)

    I hope you all click through the links I gave to Edward's poverty speech today. That was the first subject of the post and the one I used for the title.


    I did (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:27:22 AM EST
    and am happy to discuss that.

    Something about the article and JE's statements about his anti-poverty program sounds to me as if he is no longer working toward VP (if he ever was).  I can't quite put my finger on why though.  Maybe it's his upfront and repeated use of the word 'poverty' in his initiative -- 'poverty' seems to be a dirty word among Democrats this campaign season (and for quite a while).  It's sort of become an elephant-in-the-room word.

    Very glad to see child-care subsidies included (both in JE's initiative and in the reporting of it).


    2007 (none / 0) (#80)
    by Petey on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:51:45 AM EST
    FWIW, Edwards spent all of 2007 constantly talking about poverty...

    Here's a pretty good story on the essence of it...


    the natl enquirer (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by swiss473 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:33:27 AM EST
    also broke the jesse jackson love child story that turned out to be true

    they were right on the money about jamie lynn spears being pregnant, had the spoilers about the sopranos finale, and a bunch of other stories

    in this story they actually named the reporters, gave times, dates, details, doesn't sound like they're just throwing this out there


    Revlance (none / 0) (#65)
    by Petey on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:13:26 AM EST
    "whether true or not, it's news that is spreading, see New York Magazine for starters, it's on the front page. If it spreads further, it could mean Obama won't offer him the VP spot. That makes it relevant."

    It's also relevant where the story is coming from.

    And unlike the veracity of the story itself, the veracity of the fact that it's coming from Roger Altman is not in doubt.


    The swiftboating of kerry was also spread (none / 0) (#83)
    by politicsofinsanity on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:18:50 AM EST
    on the basis that everyone is doing it.

    And you should have left it at that (none / 0) (#117)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    "I hope you all click through the links I gave to Edward's poverty speech today. That was the first subject of the post and the one I used for the title. "

    Enquirer broke OJ and Dick Morris too (none / 0) (#138)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:17:27 AM EST
    It seems other media think this story is true.  I suspect they were trying to keep it quiet, maybe to protect Elizabeth, or John, or both.  

    Edwards is toast.  I feel so bad for Elizabeth who has always been a class act.  :(


    probably hillary rigged (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by sancho on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:41:05 AM EST
    the DNC "selection not election" of Obama so that when stories like this come out, it will be easier for obama supporters to argue it was her fault.

    if you've got any new revelations about vince foster, petey, please let us know.

    the edwards rumor has been around. it wont go away. jeralyn is right: he wont be vp.

    Crazy (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Miri on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:14:11 AM EST
    Just a few weeks ago National Enquirer had a screaming headline about "Clintons mistress". If Clintons controlled the Enquirer do you think they would publish this?

    You guys are starting to sound like Kossacks who believe Evil Hillary controls the universe.

    I Doubt It is True At All (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by bmc on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:48:48 AM EST
    I am seriously disappointed to see that it has now become fodder for discussion on TalkLeft. By pointing to it, the meme grows. By linking to the National Enquirer in order to question it, you're just feeding the beast, much as the corporate media did for the swiftboat liars who got free press via "discussions about the story" on Kerry.

    Editorial filter is apparently an antiquated concept here now, much as it was for the corporate media during the swiftboat debacle.

    Last time I looked at this thread, last night, (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST
    there were maybe 10 comments.  Checked in this morning and it's up to 107?  And the bulk of them seem to be from someone determined to make this about Clinton trying to knock Edwards out of VP contention.  What's next, Petey?  Has Clinton buddy Altman been tasked by the Clintons to systematically eliminate all of the contenders for the VP spot, so she is the last credible possibility left standing?  Wow - I guess we should keep an eye out to see stories on Nunn, Sibelius, Bayh, McCaskill, Schweitzer, etc.  The New Yorker will be able to do a really bang-up cover of Clinton standing amidst the fallen, smoking gun at her side and Roger Altman's pic over the Oval Office fireplace...

    Look behind every newspaper and other media outlet and you are going to find some interesting connections that could have you dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy theories, but most of the time, the biggest motivator to investing in anything is the possibility of making money.  Lots of it.

    If there is any truth to the Edwards story, all I can say is that, once again, there goes another man who allowed the little head to take over for the big one, and who had an ego so huge he believed he could get away with it.  

    As for you, Petey, repeating the same "evidence" over and over and over again does not prove anything - except that you have the makings of a champion blog-clogger.

    Here's the thing- this site's primary focus (none / 0) (#123)
    by politicsofinsanity on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    is and was Clinton. The story was run by a company who is owned by a CLinton surrogate. The places where the story is being spread is in the NY media. Clinton personally may not have any contact with this, but her surrogates do. It's simply wrong to say that there is no basis for this concern given you are reading this story here now on Talk Left. That alone should tell you something. I expect my comment to be deleted because that's what people here do.

    Excuse me - this blog's primary focus (none / 0) (#124)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    is NOT Clinton; while it has branched into political discussion through the primary and forward, it is primarily a LAW blog; this would be apparent by the number of posts that discuss all matter of legal issues, and the site's long history of legal-issues blogging and the awards it has received as the best law blog.. I am reading this on TalkLeft because John Edwards was in Denver, Colorado - and TalkLeft is based there.  

    Someone who has a connection to Clinton has - through a corporation - an ownership interest in the Enquirer, but numerous links and quotes have been provided that say that Altman has no editorial input.  Again: no editorial input.  

    You seem to want us to believe that as long as someone has, at any moment, and for any length of time, been associated with, acted as a surrogate for, or been connected within six degrees of any candidate, that that person is forevermore connected to the candidate and anything said or done, bought or sold, by that person can be raised as proof that the candidate in question is "involved."

    This is as clear an example of the "politics of insanity" as I have seen lately, and so I now understand why that is the name you post under.

    Get a freakin' grip.


    Now you are being disingenous (none / 0) (#125)
    by politicsofinsanity on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. For example, that this is just a law blog is itself clearly not logically accurate as a definition of what the site is because the very front page post in which we are responding isn't about the law. When you can't even admit to the basics that means a conversation isn't possible.

    you are wearing out your welcome here (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    fast. Either change your tone, stop the insults, don't chatter or go to another site. I'm not going to spend time monitoring the fights you start here.

    Politics of Insanity is (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:04:10 PM EST
    being suspended for posting falsehoods.

    John Edwards Poverty Plan... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    links must be in html format (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:05:09 PM EST
    please, you know this.

    It just makes me so sad for his wife Elizabeth (4.00 / 4) (#3)
    by athyrio on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    and the kids. I hope too it isn't true but have a sinking feeling it is.

    Same here. (none / 0) (#9)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    When something like that came up during the campaign  I thought it was "most likely" not true and ignored it. Had it been true wouldn't the reporters gone after it 24/7? Didn't the story pretty much sink like a stone?

    Unfortunately, just because it is talked about in the National Enquirer Again doesn't make it not true.

    We will see.


    This tells me it's not true (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    Edwards went out of the hotel briefly with Rielle, they were observed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and then went back to her room, where he stayed until attempting to sneak out of the hotel unseen at 2:40 a.m. (PST).

    They claim they've been following this story, "knew" he was supposedly meeting her and they didn't have a camera?! And none of their cell phones did either? And really now, "love child"?! Where have we heard that before {rolls eyes}


    I feel the same (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:27:51 AM EST
    I will assume it's NOT true since there is currently no evidence.

    But, like you, the main emotions I get from this are fear and sadness for the sake of Elizabeth and their kids if it does turn out to be true.


    Me too (none / 0) (#139)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:19:03 AM EST
    I first read this story when he was still in (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:27:30 PM EST
    It was at the beginning of the year I believe. My 85 year old neighbor loves these rags. So they are usually 2-3 wks old when she gives them to me. At that time the story was that the woman was pregnant with his love child but they were all insisting it was one of the advisor's child. I did not remember it happening in Los Angeles though and of course, that rag is long gone. Nothing seemed to come of it at the time but he had not dropped out either.

    Gee politicsofinsanity (none / 0) (#108)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:06:24 AM EST
    Your first day here and you act like I was dishing Edwards and you are rating ones. Not a nice way to start out. I was a Edwards supporter until he dropped out. I was a Edwards supporter when this first hit the radar 6 months ago. I read it and hoped it was just garbage.Most likely it is, but the Enquirer has been known to take down a candidate before. Remember Gary Hart and the Monkey Business? I was just making a personal observation that this story has been around awhile. I am not perfect and I do not expect everyone, including my candidate, to be perfect. BTW, please read the first story from over 6 months ago to see how the second story evolved.

    I lurked here for months (none / 0) (#122)
    by politicsofinsanity on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    So you may want to come up with a better response. I also don't care that you were a former Edwards supporter.  It's your evidence standards that's the problem. Please don't tell me what to do or assume that I haven't. The difference is I am skeptical, but not cynical.

    OK, so now I'm reading the story... (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:44:11 AM EST
    Who got the bucks to reveal this?  

    Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards

    Rielle is a possible choice... but who is this male friend?  Male friend could be in this for the BUCKS!  

    Both parties denied the NATIONAL ENQUIRER report and a close friend of Edwards' came forward and said he was the father of Rielle's baby. But sources told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER a far different story - they revealed that Edwards was engineering a massive cover up of his shocking infidelity.

    Sources came forward after that story appeared and told The NATIONAL ENQUIRER that Edwards and Rielle had met secretly several times, so that he could see his baby and continue his relationship with Rielle.

    "Sources" means there is more than one source, so obviously this is underground known information.  

    Meanwhile, Rielle had reserved rooms 246 and 252 under the name of the friend who had accompanied her from Santa Barbara, Bob McGovern.

    Bob McGovern?  Bob sounds like he's making some money here...  LOL!  

    We reported that Rielle, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier last year, was more than six months pregnant - and we reported that she told a close confidante that Edwards was the father of her baby!

    Edwards denied the affair and that he was the father, and in a bizarre twist, a close friend of his, Andrew Young, said he was the father. Young, 41, was married at the time with three children. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned he still is married.

    LOL!  My take on this whole thing?  Edwards has a love child and I think the story is true.  There are too many "sources" as opposed to "source" (the National Enquirer would distinguish between the two).  

    Boo hiss, John Edwards!  I thought you would be better than this!!!!  

    Too funny! (none / 0) (#141)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:53:28 AM EST
    Someone rated this a one?  What's YOUR source?  Do you know that the story isn't true?  Why aren't you at the National Enquirer (cuz this could mean big bucks for you!)  

    Seriously, one or more people is getting paid with this story.  That has to be the reason the National Enquirer got it to begin with.  And it has "sources" written all over it so it's not like they made it up out of thin air.  

    Back in the '80s, the National Enquirer paid one person I knew $20K to talk -- that was pretty good money back then.  I don't know what they pay now but I'd assume, for a good story, they would pay a competitive amount.  

    It seems like all sorts of people are talking in this story -- so the info isn't coming from just one person.  


    For whatever reasons, my original posts (none / 0) (#142)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:00:34 AM EST
    were all deleted but, it's important to note that the National Enquirer is not above paying for information which most newspapers and media won't do.  Because of that, the National Enquirer gets a lot of stories that others don't get.  The simple reason is that $$$$$$ talk.  

    Much of what they report is true.  They have been sued for libel in the past and lost, so they don't make those mistakes anymore but they do get a lot of nitty-gritty dirty material because they are paying for it.  


    Please don't be true. (none / 0) (#8)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    Has anyone come out with a denial?

    Has anyone asked Edwards for a statement yet? (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:06:07 PM EST
    Has anyone mentioned it on TV at all? FOX, for instance?

    Haven't heard a thing about him for weeks.

    If the story is true I agree w. Jeralyn. Dreams of VP are over for him.


    politicsofinsanity! (none / 0) (#54)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:34:33 AM EST
    Anything wrong with my question?

    Please tell!


    it's like going up to him an asking him (none / 0) (#86)
    by politicsofinsanity on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:28:48 AM EST
    for a statement bout when he did he stop beating his wife or a more appropo situation is where kerry kept having to defend against (which is what you are asking) the lies of the swiftboaters. First is to ask the paper to prove its claims rather than require someone to disprove unproven claims.

    You are wrong ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:54:43 AM EST
    Actually my question was prompted by the denial
    question above by OrangeFur which is a natural thing to wonder about considering the circumstances.

    btw. your explanations make no sense to me at all

    Not only are you projecting stuff onto my post that isn't there

    but celebrities and pols have to defend themselves all the time ALL THE TIME against unproven claims - something Kerry was constantly asked to do by media folks, too but which he didn't do enough of btw. and it cost him - no matter  what the story was.

    Who asked the newspapers and TV pundits to prove their lies, innuendos and unproven claims re Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the past? Nobody. The were hauled in front of the law instead until their innocence was proven costing millions of taxpayers money.

    And they are not the only ones who had to defend their own innocence in public and courts for the entertainment of TV pundits.


    Follow the Accusations to the Source (none / 0) (#100)
    by Petey on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:08:46 AM EST
    "Who asked the newspapers and TV pundits to prove their lies, innuendos and unproven claims re Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the past? Nobody. The were hauled in front of the law instead until their innocence was proven costing millions of taxpayers money."


    And where were those accusations coming from?  Who was in charge of the Arkansas Project that was fueling those campaigns.

    You can't make sense out of this stuff unless you bother to figure out where the accusations are coming from.  The '90's Clinton accusations were coming from a right-wing cabal.  And the '07-'08 Edwards accusations are coming from Team Clinton.


    OK Petey, we get it (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChrisO on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    You're clearly playing the "if you repeat it enough it seems true" game. Every paper in the country is owned by somebody. Being part of an investment fund that owns 20 percent of a publishing company hardly translates to editorial control. If you want to keep saying that you believe the Clintons or their associates are behind this, fine. But statements like "the '07-'08 Edwards accusations are coming from Team Clinton" have in no way been established. What you're doing is actually a cheap debating trick. Try to create a scenario where Roger Altman's involvement with the Enquirer is proof that the Clintons are responsible for the Edwards story. Then present your "proof" of Altman's ownership,as if that in any way proves the underlying assertion. To say that's a leap of logic is being kind.

    You remind me of the right wingers who conduct their online "investgations" and present every mundane fact as a smoking gun.

    And by the way, the Enquirer has a reputation for actually being accurate with their stories. You don't think they keep a squadron of libel lawyers on retainer? I don't respect what they do, but they're not an "alien babies" rag. What they do is very carefully parse their language. If they report that an actress's friends are concerned that she's anorexic, all they have to establish is that her friends are concerned, not that she's an anorexic. In this case, they are making very declarative statements. It doesn't make them true, but ironically their assertions have a lot more behind them than yours do.


    P.S. Who asked TV pundits and newspapers (none / 0) (#101)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:10:35 AM EST
    - and we are talking Washington Post and NYTImes here -

    to prove all those lies they told about Al Gore during campaign 2000? All those those lies that Huffington, Rich, Dowd, et al, came up with and constantly repeated - lies that put W into the White House?


    Instead the liberal pundits (and co-opted bloggers as well) repeated them over and over.

    Bob Somersby wrote the book about it and the DailyHowler archives are priceless. It's all there  for everyone's education.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#55)
    by nell on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:39:54 AM EST
    it is the National Enquirer. Sometimes they are right, but I choose not to take their word for it until it is proven correct.

    Isn't this the same tabloid that has published stories about a certain male who claims who engaged in various activities with Barack Obama in a limousine?

    I don't believe this story any more than I believed that story. I need to see pictures and videos before making any assumptions.

    But, in either case, John Edwards' private life does not have any bearing on whether or not he can do the job as VP. I think he would be a foolish pick for other reasons (2 time non-winner, could not pull NC in 2004, little to no foreign policy experience, etc)...

    Personally, if John Edwards (none / 0) (#72)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:38:32 AM EST
    wants a love child in each of the 50 states, I say more power to him (provided he pays his child support). My issue is that I adore Elizabeth. If this drivel is true and she divorces him I would have no issue running him out of dodge. If she takes the Hillary Clinton route to acceptance/forgiveness, I would grumble and find an additional unattractive nickname for him.

    Edit (none / 0) (#88)
    by Petey on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:35:06 AM EST
    "the March 2007 tabloid story"

    Edit: the March 2004 tabloid story...

    First let me say that I hate the expression (none / 0) (#94)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:45:53 AM EST
    "Clinton machine" because it implies that Bill and Hillary are an inhuman mechanism rather than separate though married living organisms. Second, there is no more evidence that Hillary had anything to do with this than there is that John Edwards recently had an affair with Rielle Hunter.

    I sincerely believe (none / 0) (#99)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:05:54 AM EST
    that we should withhold judgment. Is it really our job on this blog to puzzle out what we think happened based on scraps and then decide? Especially for Elizabeth's sake... this is just wrong.

    From what I read (none / 0) (#103)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:23:07 AM EST
    the story is true.  I wish I couldn't say that but I read the story the way it was written and I believe it is totally true.  (I wasn't paying as much attention to the content of the story as I was to the way the story was sourced.  They have more than one source, so I think the story is true.)  

    reads it? But not because you want to believe mind you, but because of the way it was written. Okay. Got it. Done here I think.

    Seriously... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:20:30 AM EST
    That provided me with a much-needed laugh on two fronts. Yes, when men cheat on their wives, it's the fault of the mistress not the cheating man! Also, married female politicians are just as unfaithful as male ones! We know this because we just want it to be true so badly. LOL.

    Helen Chenoweth (R-Id) (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:14:01 AM EST
    Does the late Ms Chenoweth  count as a major politician? Probably not. But...

    Chenoweth-Hage was a critic of President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal and was one of the first to call for his resignation over the affair, although she admitted that she had carried on a six-year illicit romance with rancher Vernon Ravenscrof

    Sure, she counts (none / 0) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:25:29 AM EST
    Thanks for your n=1.

    Petey and Rottenart (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    are suspended for chattering, see comment rules.

    Because they act like they're santimonius (none / 0) (#140)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:25:06 AM EST
    So pure, always holding hands with their wives, talking about how wonderful their wives are, how happily married they are.  No one likes to be lied to.  

    Edwards is just another phony politician.  Why would we expect anything else?