Move Over John Edwards, The Enquirer Goes After Palin

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:03:05 PM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Wow, that didn't take long. The Washington Post reports the National Enquirer is alleging Gov. Sarah Palin had an extra-marital affair with a friend of her husbands. The McCain camp blasts the report.

But for John Edwards' affair turning out to be true, who would even give the National Enquirer a second thought?

Howard Kurtz writes:

The mainstream media might well have ignored the unsubstantiated allegation, as they did for eight months in the Edwards saga. But the McCain's team quick response in defending the Arizona senator's running mate had the effect, intentionally or otherwise, of giving the story more prominence.

Also read the part about how Levi didn't want McCain naming him publically as the father of her daughter's child.[More...]

The tabloid quotes an insider as saying that the governor wanted to announce that Bristol was expecting and had set a wedding date before McCain went public with his vice-presidential choice. But, the story says, the baby's father, high school student Levi Johnston, balked at the plan.

If the Enquirer is right, Gov. Palin wanted to tell the world about her 17 year old daughter's business before any rumor on any blog circulated. It makes her statement about disclosing it as a result of false rumors on the Internet a little fishy.

Whatever happened to the straight-talk express? Sounds like it left the station without Palin on board.

< Stretching the Truth | Obama's Response to Palin's Speech >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Move Over John Edwards, The Enquirer Goes After Palin | 57 comments (57 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Oh sh*t. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:07:53 PM EST

: Gennifer Flowers (none / 0) (#113)
by gaf on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 09:11:53 AM EST

It will have as much effect as Gennifer Flowers in 1992.

curiouser and curiouser (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Lil on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:08:09 PM EST

Thanks for keeping me sane, if not sober tonight. See you tomorrow.

that's one I hope is not true. Really hope not. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Christy1947 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:09:48 PM EST

Titter had an entry from HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by byteb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:13:32 PM EST

the other night saying that the Enquirer had information that would end Palin's career.
We shall see.

: "Twitter" (none / 0) (#17)
by byteb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST

my bad

the "straight talk express" (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by cpinva on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:15:34 PM EST

left the station in 2000, with no one on board, save a bunch of media rubes. sen. mccain (known in these parts as "sen. flip-flop"), a maverick in his own mind, and that of the (easily) conned media boyz, has been standing on that platform for years now, watching the trains roll in and out.

i'm not surprised at the less than enthusiastic response, attributed to young mr. johnston, i wouldn't want it splashed all over the front pages of the world's newspapers either, if i were him.

if the rumored affair turns out to be more than just a nasty rumor, this could be the shortest lived candidacy in US history.

Oh good grief. Where to start on this... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Angel on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:17:37 PM EST

I feel slimy talking about it just like I did with the Edwards thing. I was angry with Edwards because he affected the outcome of the nomination process. I don't really give a fig about the Republican ticket so they can eat their own.

I disassociate myself from this post (5.00 / 44) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:36 PM EST

See comment #17. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Angel on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:06 PM EST

I thought you were on sabattical! heh


: Oops. #16. My bad... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Angel on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:40 PM EST

Hats off to you BTD (5.00 / 9) (#34)
by Andy08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:37:14 PM EST

Good to see you (5.00 / 8) (#49)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:56:26 PM EST

You're missed


BTD- I have disagreed with you mainly your support (5.00 / 8) (#52)
by GeekLove08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST

of BO, but I have to say that I have admired your opposition to sexist and unfair attacks on Sarah Palin. Good for you.


BTD (none / 0) (#91)
by MichaelGale on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:23:25 AM EST

You continue with internet fame....your name is all over the blogs due to your sabatical.


I just read the Enquirer thing and it sounds like (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Angel on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:25:47 PM EST

rumors to me. Sounds like they were told something but haven't yet verified it. I can't believe this is worthy of a post.

Even though I'm now an (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:32:28 PM EST

Obama supporter, I REALLY hope this rumor about the affair is NOT true. Mrs Palin's sex life is something that has ZERO impact on me or anyone I know.


howard kurtz speaks (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST

... as a voice of the media establishment.

It'd seem that the traditional media isn't prepared to buy into Palin as a good candidate. This could well be the beginning of the end of the campaign.


the Washington Post reported it (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:23:32 AM EST

when it hits MSM, it's worth paying attention to. I follow the news. Had it just been in the Enquirer and the McCain camp not bothered to respond, I wouldn't have written about it.

Perhaps had the blogs not stayed silent on Edwards in 9/07 when the story hit, he would have dropped out before Iowa in 1/08 and the election might have turned out differently.

I'm not going to harp on it but I will follow the msm coverage of it if it becomes a story.


: It was the mainstream media who remained (none / 0) (#94)
by bridget on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:41:43 AM EST

silent about John Edwards - the impact of the bloggers would have been minimal.
Because if stuff isn't yakked about on TV, it just isn't happening.
The liberal bloggers gladly remained silent along with the mainstream media. After all it was Edwards.
So lets see. The Washington Post and everyone else kept mum about Edwards' affair in typical "helping out one of our own good old boys" fashion. For eight months or more.
I suggest
The mainstream media outlets along with the blogs who love them should be fair now and give Ms Palin eight months lovely silence, too. That should put her safely into the White House without having to go thru any sort of brouhaha if voted in by the American people.
Because What's good for the goose ... etc. etc.
Fwiw: I Have not the slightest idea what is going on with Rep VP Palin. So far I have read nothing about her private life and know nothing. I bet I know less about her than anybody else on the net and on this blog for sure.
Just thought this point had to me made because the mainstream media conspiracy re Edwards affair was irresponsible and a total disgrace.

The National Enquirer is an Unreliable (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Exeter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:28:16 PM EST

source of news. They have printed outrageous lies about Carol Burnett, Elizabeth Smart, Cameron Diaz, and many others. Yeah, they were right about Edwards, but they have been wrong so many times before that they are simply not credible.

It is disgusting that the MSM media saw fit to repeat this EVEN BEFORE IT WAS PRINTED.

they were right about many (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:25:38 AM EST

details of OJ and they were right about Rush Limbaugh and his drug problem. Mostly they are unreliable. But with Edwards, they were right. I can't totally discount them any more. But again, I'm writing about it because WaPo did and this site writes about what is in the MSM>


: I don't begrudge you for mentioning (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by Exeter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:32:49 AM EST

the msm coverage. Once its in the news, its an issue in the campaign.

: What criteria (none / 0) (#122)
by christinep on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:13:14 PM EST

When to reprint or cite the Enquirer is perplexing. Do we cite all stories relating to current political candidates emanating from the Enquirer. (By "we," I also include the MSM.) I don't pretend to know the answer. I do know when such stories are used to further opinions about a person I/you/we don't support that the matter is particularly troublesome. If it turns out to be merely gossip & innuendo, and we are intentionally spreading the story for whatever purpose, well.... With each day in this campaign, the cartoon Pogo keeps coming to mind and, repeating yet again: "We have met the enemy and they is us." The terrain is challenging for all of us.

but maybe proof of the btd (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by sancho on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:35:14 AM EST

media darling theory.and i admit i have doubted it.


The most important things to pay attention (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Grace on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:22:48 AM EST

to in National Enquirer stories is the sourcing.

If they attribute a "fact" to a couple of sources, then it probably is a fact. If one of them is a "named" source, that's even better.

If it's unattributed or has no named sources or only one unnamed source, take it with a grain of salt... or even less.


Yeah! Irresponsible and Unreliable! (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:38:57 AM EST

Far better that we should rely on seasoned, reputable journalists like Chicago Sun-Times columnist Bob Novack, Time's Mike Allen,former New York Times correspondent Judith Miller, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the late NBC Washingtin Bureau Chief Tim Russer -- oops!

My apologies. I was reading the prosecution's witness list from the Scooter Libby trial.


I agree that the enquirer is (none / 0) (#112)
by kenosharick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM EST

not credible in the least- the MSM printing this gossip gives more credence to the theory that they are almost totally behind Obama and will do anything to help him win.


Sources (5.00 / 6) (#37)
by coast on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:41:18 PM EST

Are we really looking to grocery store rags for political coverage? If they hadn't responded, it would have been seen as if the campaign was hiding something.

The MSM has just lost it. MSNBC sourced Politico.com as the basis for more questions on Palin. Olbermann reads an AP story critical of Palin and says it "dovetails" with his assessment, yet last week he said the writer of an AP piece critical of Obama needed to find a new profession.

I want the debates to start soon so we can actually talk about the actual issues.

Oh no. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by TomStewart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:47:03 PM EST

The Dems really didn't need this. Palin is shaky enough on the issues, the Obama didn't need this, and no matter what, the Obama campaign will be blamed and smeared with it.

Not good, not good at all.

If voters are so stoopid (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:54:45 PM EST

as to blame Obama for stories in the Enquirer, or to blame him that bloggers and media types salivate at the prospect of sex scandals.

Yes. If we are really so stoopid as to believe that Obama is now responsible for the paparazzi American culture that elevates the sex story above all others excepting maybe acts of violence, then we really, really do deserve McCain and Palin.


No, but the repubs (none / 0) (#59)
by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:07:08 AM EST

will blame him for it, and it could stick.

I'm sure he's crafting a response calling the whole thing 'horrible and despicable' even as I type this...


: Yes (5.00 / 0) (#71)
by glanton on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST

They will blame him, and it could stick. If we, the public, let it stick. In which case we deserve what we get. Which is really what this Presidential election has come down to anyway.
Obama was right when he said this election is about us. The results will be telling.

readership (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by sebimeyer on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:50:17 PM EST

I don't read the Enquirer for good reason, it's trash. But if I remember correctly their readership is overwhelmingly republican, so who knows what effect it will have.

: zero effect (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:52:16 PM EST

they never practice what they preach.

Strangely (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:02:27 AM EST

The first I heard about this rumor was not from the Enquirer or the Washington Post, but from the McCain campaign itself.

Interesting strategy they are pursuing.

I am really out of the loop. Where do you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by hairspray on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:07:59 AM EST

get this stuff Steve? Not that I care, I don't read the Enquirer because they are trash.


Watching CNN (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST

reading blogs, etc...

It strikes me as very unusual for a political campaign to broadcast a tabloid rumor to the world before it has even been published. It just means a lot of people will hear about it who never would have known otherwise.


: It's a stupid strategy (none / 0) (#87)
by bluegal on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:00:14 AM EST

But I think they realize that after the Edwards scandal the media is going to start asking questions so they threaten to sue the enquirer to scare the MSM from investigating it.
Unfortunately for them, people are swarming all over Alaska digging for dirt on her and people like to talk.
I don't trust Palin and I don't think she is going to be good for McCain in the long run. She made a lot of enemies in Alaska.

Not really (5.00 / 4) (#84)
by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:44:59 AM EST

They're current strategy is that Palin is under attack by the unfair MSM, tabloids and left wing blogs. It does make a certain amount of sense to keep the outrage machine ginned up. For them, it's just another example of how the washington cocktail circuit is trying to tear down this nice reformer lady.


BTW (5.00 / 4) (#78)
by Brookhaven on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:27:03 AM EST

I'm not laughing at Palin. Far from it.

Once again, I see this behavior on the part of the press and some Dems as reactionary because they are just plain scared especially after watching Palin deliver this evening. And, my, did she.

I don't understand why this is considered news and it's the continued pile on on this woman about her private life that I find not only counterproductive but distasteful.

I didn't like it when they did it to Bill Clinton and I am not liking it any more when they are doing it to Palin even if the they is my side.

A pox on both their houses is just how I feel about going down this road.

you people are completely (1.00 / 3) (#76)
by cpinva on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:24:31 AM EST

missing the point, with respect to the rumored affair. surely you all can't be this stupid, or can you?

should this turn out to be true (and i have no clue if it is or isn't), this would destroy her creds with the evangelistic religious right, the group she was brought on board to bring on board, to mccain's candidacy.

there, simple enough for you?

jeralyn, you really need a higher class of critics on this site! lol

: I doubt it (none / 0) (#83)
by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:38:13 AM EST

They'll figure out some way to spin it. Say God's forgiven her. Whatever. Blame everyone for picking on Palin.

That would be (none / 0) (#25)
by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:27:17 PM EST

an amazing development. And put the family values crowd in a state of shock.

WOW!! (none / 0) (#27)
by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:43 PM EST

Jeralyn put her boxing gloves on now. Was it "just" the Miranda comment? Palin is a scrapper, that is for sure. Hope Palin can take it as much as she dishes it out.

I doubt (none / 0) (#38)
by JThomas on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:42:15 PM EST

it would affect the race much. If found true they would just go the McCain route and admit an mistake and ask forgiveness. It worked for him,why not for her.

But,again, probably not true,anyway.

Because Edwards Political Future Looks So Bright (none / 0) (#43)
by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:51:02 PM EST

Is that it?

I don't see much of a double standard. Finding sex sleaze to weild as a weapon against the candidate has now become stock and trade in the political game. Affairs don't specially hurt female politicians. They hurt politicians.

With Bill Clinton, he was Pres when he got caught, and not running for re-election. But, it did ruin his credibility with more people than those who love him like to admit....

It Did Hurt Clinton, For Sure (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by kaleidescope on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:01:42 AM EST

But I suspect it would've been even more devastating to his image if it had been Hillary who'd been caught in an affair.


: Perhaps you are right about that (none / 0) (#67)
by glanton on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:10:54 AM EST

But, it is speculation and to be honest, I don't see what difference it makes one way or the other, in light of what is at stake here.
It's just hard to feel sorry for this dangerous political ticker because of the mean ole Enquirer doing what it always does with celebrities of all kinds.

there isn't and i deleted (none / 0) (#79)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:30:22 AM EST

the comment that tried to hijack the thread once again to a discussion of sexism.


Exactly. This story is probably not gonna (none / 0) (#44)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:51:33 PM EST

blow up anyway. Let's move on...

I dare not hope ... (none / 0) (#65)
by FreakyBeaky on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:10:34 AM EST

... that, like a stopped clock, the $%%^&ing Enquirer, of all low-down rags, has this right.

Somewhere on the blog (none / 0) (#70)
by txpolitico67 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST

Jeralyn said she doesn't tell Obama how to run his campaign and he cannot stop her from criticizing McCain/Palin as a citizen/voter who does not favor a right wing conservative of Palin's extraction to be "one heartbeat" away from the presidency.

fair stmt i think.

: yes and the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 0) (#80)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:31:47 AM EST

has been deleted as insulting and a personal attack.

dont know... (none / 0) (#72)
by laila on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:15:06 AM EST

Don't know if that is true...but if they were to prove it? Wow! I mean lately in the news where there was smoke there was..you know. Except when it came to Hilary or Obama, for instance all the phony emails, and lies spread it has kinda not taken hold whatever heat they had was usually from gaffes and such although some of the media was a little tough on both of them. Daily KOS was off but then they were close...
I sure hope that before we jump on it someone finds out for sure...

Slander and smear? (none / 0) (#96)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:48:17 AM EST

You didn't read that here. Jeralyn has her opinions, to be sure, but she's done a good job keeping people focused on policy. Further, I think those people who gratuitously accuse others of slander and smear, simply because they express a differing view, are themselves guilty of slander ans smear.

Politics ain't beanbag, sister.

thread cleaned of off-topic comments (none / 0) (#123)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST

and insults.