Patterico's Pontifications


The AP on John Edwards and Integrity

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias,Politics — DRJ @ 8:42 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP leads the way explaining why the mainstream media was right not to cover the Edwards’ story. Douglass K. Daniel begins with the general principle that reporters love to break stories but points out that it’s not fair to report a “potentially career-ending scandal” based on rumors. Newspapers that file reports based on rumor “endanger their own integrity.”

Daniel also notes that the Edwards’ story was broken by the National Enquirer — a “supermarket tabloid” and “popular but trashy weekly” that is “not well-regarded” by the media. [We get it. You don’t like the National Enquirer.]

Finally, Daniel states that the Edwards’ story was never confirmed to the “AP’s satisfaction:”

“So did many of those who live in the blogosphere, where the Enquirer story was taken as fact in spite of its anonymous sources. Where, they asked, were the reports on CNN, in The New York Times, on the news wire of The Associated Press? The AP had a fair number of inquiries by phone and e-mail as to when it would report the Edwards affair.

The answer for the AP and many other news media was simple: When it could be confirmed. And it never was confirmed to the AP’s satisfaction or, apparently, to the satisfaction of others until Edwards himself owned up to the infidelity in an interview with ABC News.

“We began pursuing the story soon after it first appeared. But the standard for proof in this kind of intimate behavior is and should be very high,” said Michael Oreskes, AP’s managing editor for U.S. news. “Better to get it right even if we couldn’t get it first.”

Now let’s apply these criteria to the rumors about John McCain and Vicki Iseman:

The New York Times’ article on John McCain and Vicki Iseman was a potentially career-ending scandal based on rumors. In fact, the New York Times’ Public Editor later criticized the report for its lack of independent proof.

That didn’t stop the New York Times from breaking the story or CBS/AP from repeating it with McCain’s denial, nor did it prevent the AP from lumping Cindy McCain in with other “political wives who stood by their men in the face of rumored or alleged marital infidelity.”

But it’s true the New York Times is not a popular but trashy supermarket tabloid. Its declining advertising revenues and circulation show it’s not that popular.


95 Responses to “The AP on John Edwards and Integrity”

  1. Don’t you remember the scene from Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones tells Will Smith that he has to check his intelligence sources ? Then he picks up the Inquirer and carefully reads it. It’s a secret ! If AP told you everything that’s reported in the Inquirer, then you’d know everything they do.

    Come on.

    Mike K (155601)

  2. BAM!

    DRJ is getting sharper.

    This is an awesome post.

    Patterico (6ea6e1)

  3. I’m learning from a master blogger. Some of it has to rub off.

    DRJ (9d1be2)

  4. Hello. I was reading someone elses blog and saw you on their blogroll. Would you be interested in exchanging blog roll links? If so, feel free to email me.


    Randy Nichols (c4e7f8)

  5. Freaking Digby is saying the Edwards disclosure means the press should revisit the Iseman story, that it means they were wrong to trust John McCain.

    I call bullshit. There were valid reason not to trust John Edwards from the past yet the media went into the tank for him on this. This story blowing up reinforces the fact they shouldn’t have trusted him.

    What do they have to show that they can’t trust John McCain and what evidence is there for a story to begin with? Sour fucking grapes is all, say I.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  6. Sorry for the language.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  7. Let’s also apply the same criteria to one-time Republican Senatorial candidate Jack Ryan, whose case is relevant here for more reasons than one:

    Ryan married actress Jeri Ryan in 1991; together they have a son, Alex Ryan. They divorced in 1999 in California, and the records of the divorce were sealed at their mutual request. Five years later, when Ryan’s Senate campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. On March 3, 2004, several of Ryan’s GOP primary opponents urged release of the records. Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records public, but not make the custody records public, claiming that the custody records could be harmful to their son if eleased. On March 16, 2004, Ryan won the GOP primary with 36 percent to 23 percent against Jim Oberweis who came in second. Obama won the Democratic primary, with 53 percent to 23 percent against Dan Hynes, who came in second.

    Barack Obama’s backers emailed reporters about the divorce controversy, but refrained from on-
    the-record commentary about the divorce files. On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans’ divorce records should be opened to the public, and ruled that a court-appointed referee would later decide which custody files should remain sealed to protect the interests of Ryan’s young child. The following week, on April 2, 2004, Barack Obama changed his position about the Ryans’ soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to not inject them into the campaign. The Ryan campaign characterized Obama’s shift as hypocritical, because Obama’s backers had been emailing reports about the divorce records prior to Judge Schnider’s decision.

    On June 22, 2004, after receiving the report from the court-appointed referee, Los Angeles
    Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider released the files that were deemed consistent with the
    interests of Ryan’s young child. In those files, Jeri Ryan alleged that Jack Ryan had taken her to
    sex clubs in several cities, intending for them to have sex in public. The decision to release
    these files generated much controversy because it went against both parents’ direct request, and
    because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. Jim
    Oberweis, Ryan’s defeated GOP opponent, commented that “these are allegations made in a divorce hearing, and we all know people tend to say things that aren’t necessarily true in divorce
    proceedings when there is money involved and custody of children involved.”

    Prior to release of the documents, Ryan had told leading Republicans that five percent of the
    divorce file could cause problems for his campaign. But after the documents were released, GOP officials including state GOP Chair Judy Baar Topinka said they felt Ryan had misleadingly indicated the divorce records would not be embarrassing. That charge of dishonesty led to intensifying calls for Ryan’s withdrawal, though Topinka said after the June 25 withdrawal that Ryan’s “decision was a personal one” and that the state GOP had not pressured Ryan to drop out. Ryan’s campaign ended less than a week after the custody records were opened, and Ryan officially filed the documentation to withdraw on July 29, 2004. The same party leaders who called for Ryan’s resignation controversially chose Alan Keyes as Ryan’s replacement in the race; Keyes lost to Obama, 27% to 70%.

    DubiousD (d27564)

  8. #5 Reading some Kos diaries, someone was claiming first hand knowledge that Edwards was carrying on with an affair in DC for five years, going out with another woman and a congressman and his wife. No idea of the veracity of this, but it would show a pattern.
    Of course some conspiracy theories see the other woman with the baby as an Republican plant, out to destroy democrat pols. Yes, that evil genius Karl Rove again at work? Sure.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  9. I’m sure the media and others never stopped looking into McCain-Iseman. The Edwards’ story won’t make them look any harder than they already were.

    DRJ (9d1be2)

  10. What’s interesting about this story is that the ABC journalist did not appear to have the presence of mind to ask Edwards what he was doing in that hotel room if, as he claims, (a) he was not visiting his love child, and (b) the affair is over.

    Rielle Hunter, the former Lisa Druck, is, if her former lover Jay McInerny is telling the truth, a stone cold groupie slut. So it is absolutely believable that she bedded Edwards and then his aide, with the latter hitting the genetic jackpot. Edwards, though, is a pretty cold guy himself to humiliate his wife this way. He is the true successor to Bill Clinton in more ways than his hair and accent.

    And btw, DRJ, I’ve been critical of some of your past posts, but this is quite good. Both subjects were fair game for the NYT–but they ran with the McCain story when they had nothing, and ignored Edwards when he was caught pulling up his pants, as it were.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  11. #6 – That’s fucking rude!

    Icy Truth (c1347d)

  12. The MSM are partisan pieces of shit, pure and simple. ABC scored the Edwards confession and now they’re running with it. Ratings do trump all other considerations — once the story is confirmed. They know that Obama can find himself another AG.

    Speaking of that, the Obama campaign has announced that the Messiah will be visiting his ‘typical white person’ grandmother during his vacation. Perhaps he will be bringing along a scrub brush and some detergent to scrub off the ‘tire tracks all across her back’. [Finally! A perfect opportunity to use a Hendrix reference.]

    Icy Truth (c1347d)

  13. DubiousD – What criteria and what relevance to this election again, apart from paving the way for Obama to get where he is?

    Btw, Jeri was kinda hawt and a ham sandwich could have beaten Keyes.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  14. DRJ – I hope were pleased that your post met with Cyrus’s approval. I’ll bet you were on pins and needles all night about that. It’s good you can relax now.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  15. The entire MSM has egg on its face. Now the AP is running cover for them with this utterly devious story. This was a blatant cover up, it can’t be spun any other way. The AP knows it.

    There was confirmation of the Edwards/National Enquirer encounter from a security guard at the Beverly Hilton. There was no apparent effort of any MSM to follow up on that.

    They certainly could have tried to confirm NE’s room number information, they didn’t.

    The LA Time’s memo to close out discussion of the NE story on its website was an effort to keep the story from getting legs. That can’t be spun any other way.

    As late as Wednesday, I checked Google with Edwards+affair on news sites. There was nothing.

    When there is such a total blackout, where no newpaper in the country has even reported the existance of the NE story, it is not an accident.

    Many don’t remember the same thing happened about the same time in August 2004. That’s when the Swift Boat Vets disclosed major holes in John Kerry’s heroic military career. There was a total blackout then. It wasn’t until Rush Limabaugh started carrying the torch and the blogs followed up that it started being covered. Kerry didn’t respond becuade his staff felt MSM would keep it buried. Big mistake!

    The New York Times demonstrated its complete bias by not reviewing O”Neill’s book for over 7 weeks, when it was at or near the top of their own best seller list. They finally reviewed it (and panned it) in late October.

    You have to recognize that the new bias is not reporting stories which go against the media’s liberal mindset. Another eggregious example of this was the New York Times failure to report Joe Lieberman’s support for our involvement in Iraq just after Thanksgiving 2005. His op-ed in the WSJ went totally against the carefully crafted strategy of the Democratic party to set a date certain to pull our troops out. There wasn’t a peep from the Times for a solid week. The WaPo, ChiTrib ans LaT covered it but not the Times.

    It wasn’t until the story became how the party would get rid of Joe Lieberman that the Times started covering it.

    You wonder how the blackout of the Edwards story could be so airtight. It certainly was. I’d love to see someone open that can of worms.

    Corky Boyd (af3d74)

  16. The Enquirer had inside information

    Hotel, Edwards, Hunter, baby…

    1. Why did Edwards want to see Andrew Youngs baby at 2:30AM?

    2. How was it that a tabloid was able to get a photo inside an exclusive hotel with the baby without the help of Hunter, and if she was involved in the setup…why?

    Something tells me Edwards is about to really feel the heat

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  17. John Edwards – Waging War On America’s Poverty

    One blonde at a time.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  18. Live reactions to the Nightline interview: Smarmy, slimy, smiling! blaming fame. . . .

    Icy Truth (c1347d)

  19. More live reactions to the Nightline interview: My opinion, Ms. Hunter is extorting him (his claims that he personally isn’t making the payments is a dodge); “I don’t know”, “I knew nothing about this”, “I had no participation in this”; lawyerly dodge. He had a third party, someone loyal to him, handle the payoff — pure and simple.

    Icy Truth (c1347d)

  20. Thanks, Icy Truth. My faith in American womanhood need not be totally shattered. She did it for the money.

    nk (e38352)

  21. Corky Boyd wrote: Many don’t remember the same thing happened about the same time in August 2004. That’s when the Swift Boat Vets disclosed major holes in John Kerry’s heroic military career. There was a total blackout then. It wasn’t until Rush Limabaugh started carrying the torch and the blogs followed up that it started being covered. Kerry didn’t respond becuade his staff felt MSM would keep it buried. Big mistake!

    I don’t remember Rush getting on the Swifties’ bandwagon until after Sean Hannity started beating the drum for John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi almost completely on his lonesome, having either on Hannity & Colmes and his radio show at least once a week.

    L.N. Smithee (14949d)

  22. What, do I sound jaded?

    Icy Truth (c1347d)

  23. Although I hate to see Elizabeth Edwards and her children have to go through this, there is a certain delicious satisfaction seeing this preening jerk get his just desserts.

    Bill M (5e9a70)

  24. She has no job but she lives in a $3 million house; and when told this Edwards doesn’t even blink, just denies personally making the payoff. She didn’t necessarily sleep with him with the expectation of being taken cared of, but ex post facto . . .

    Icy Truth (c1347d)

  25. I’m watching Woodruff’s grilling of Edwards. He’s not doing a bad job. Edwards is saying that fame, accomplishment, and Washington turned him into a different person than the hard-working boy that his father raised (thank God he didn’t mention the mill). He’s talking about what a wonderful woman Elizabeth is because she forgave him. When Woodruff asked why she wasn’t “here,” Edwards pointed to her chest and said, “She’s right here.”

    Some of you — and you know who you are — considered making this rat bastard President.

    L.N. Smithee (14949d)

  26. Marc Ambinder says John Edwards won’t speak at the Democratic Convention and may not even attend, but Elizabeth Edwards will speak in primetime.

    DRJ (9d1be2)

  27. @13

    The fact that the Chicago Tribune printed the story instead of covering for Ryan the way they and the rest of the media have been covering for Edwards.

    The same Wikipedia article linked above also points out that John Kerry’s divorce records were sealed, yet no attempt was made to divulge the contents therein when Kerry was out campaigning.

    (But then, we’re still waiting for Kerry’s after action reports from Vietnam, aren’t we?)

    DubiousD (92e19d)

  28. How is it that the AP can say, with an apparently straight corporate face, that the story was not substantiated to their standards if they were unwilling to try to substantiate the story?

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  29. The AP’s Edward R. Murrow Douglas K. Daniel must not have read all the way to the end of this NYT account. Silly AP reporter! Here–I’ll help!

    The intense public relations effort to contain the story was finally diverted into minimizing its impact — Mr. Edwards called the affair “a liaison.” His admission came on a Friday, coinciding with the start of the Olympics, and was followed up with calls to friendly reporters like Bob Schieffer of CBS News…

    When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards associates, including from past campaigns, assembled at his headquarters to try to stop the story from moving from the tabloid into major newspapers. They declined to respond to questions or issue statements that might produce news reports, according to those involved in the effort.

    Hey, politicians, here’s a Mainstream Media Secret: if you want to keep the public in the dark about your sleazy personal conduct, why, just organize an intense public relations effort! That noise you hear is the sound of palms slapping foreheads, as not-sufficiently-leftwing McCain (#5), Jack Ryan (#7), Rush Limbaugh (#15) and so many others exclaim, “Why didn’t I think of that!”

    Perhaps if the MSM had a much-vaunted system with four layers of editors, then they wouldn’t be so easily played? Pwnd at times, that is, for we all recall that while all political celebrities are equal, some are more equal than others.

    AMac (90ab22)

  30. I don’t get why, if it shouldn’t be covered under the “not a public figure” exemption, it’s being covered now. What lifted the exemption?

    brobin (c07c20)

  31. Thanks DubiousD, I thought you were going a different direction.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  32. One small correction to DubiousD’s remark.

    We actually have the after action reports. They were authored by John Kerry as the boat captain.

    What has never been released is the medical files showing the splinter of grenade fragment removed from his arm after he irresponsibly tossed one into the riverside brush to see it go boom.

    Caveat: 20 year old boys will do stupid things whether they are officers or enlisted. That said, I wouldn’t vote this lying traitor a job higher than following the elephant at the circus with a shovel.

    MaaddMaaxx (9822e4)

  33. …taken as fact in spite of its anonymous sources.

    This is a criticism from the MSM?

    Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

    Patricia (f56a97)

  34. Great post. The Antique Media is dead. Long live the New Media! Edwards is your typical lying dem, he’ll be forgiven and taken back into the fold with little or no consequences. Antique Media double standard, what double standard??? Nothing here, move along, move along….

    J. Raymond Wright (0440ef)

  35. #5

    There were valid reason not to trust John Edwards from the past yet the media went into the tank for him on this.

    I’m waiting for Maureen Dowd this weekend (re McCain coverage).

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  36. I feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards. I’m sorry she has breast cancer (my brother’s wife is going through almost the exact same stages). I’m sorry Elizabeth is married to a spineless weasel. I’m sorry she has to put on a mask and stand by her man, when it’s him who should be standing up for her.

    I feel sorry for the members of the Edwards family, and I feel sorry for all the good Democrats who put their trust in a false prophet. I feel sorry for the innocent baby brought into this world under such disgraceful circumstances.

    I feel sorry for the honest reporters and editors who work in mainstream journalism who’ve had their faith and loyalty in a once proud profession sullied. And, I’m sorry the National Enquirer has been reviled for printing the truth when truth-telling was politically unpopular among those who are paid to keep watch on our prospective leaders.

    I feel sorry for all this and so much more, but most of all, I feel sorry for all the mindless ninnies who refuse learn the lessons of this sad melodrama, and who at this very minute, are standing in line, chompping at the bit, waiting to make the same mistakes in service to an even bigger fraud.

    But, then again, they haven’t learned anything in years anyway. Why would anyone expect this latest proof to penetrate the fog of gulibility surrounding the “useful idiots” and garden variety dolts who blindly suscribe to the left’s outworn creed?

    Ropelight (cb4838)

  37. Great read. Actually, DRJ is without peer. Giving her blogging tips is like telling Monet how to paint flowers.

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  38. Maaxx – Are you signing your posts differently now?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  39. #38 I’ve seen that dude around before. I’m the one with 333 attached (only 1/2 evil).

    Why does Eliz. Edwards garner so much sympathy? ok, I know she has terminal cancer. But she seems to enable her corksucking hubby. She’d foist him, character flaw and all on us as potential potus, vice potus, attorney general, what have you. Look at that black liberal wad who took over for Eliot Spitzer- he’s admitted all sorts of nasty behaviors. And the public embraces him. Or Marion Barry the cokehead who was reelected in DC. What will become of another shitehead, Kwame Kirkpatrick, who Obama has praised to high heaven not so long ago? What happened with the Philly Mayor? I forget which one- John or Milton? Or the congressman from Mass. that kept getting returned to Congress? or badboy Barney Fag? Not to mention Fatboy Teddy, senior senator and liberal lion from Mass. No comment from Mary Jo.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  40. No thoughts about Rielle in all these statements and interviews and statements. It’s all about John and the family and the mistakes he made and his shame and guilt. How do you think that makes her feel to hear all that BULLSHIT!!!!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  41. Madmaax:

    I don’t want to hijaack this thread, but please post a link to where the Kerry after action reports can be found.


    DubiousD (3ae4e2)

  42. Daleyrocks- Rielle’s younger sister is defending her HONOR on abc news.

    I’ve read several allusions to Edwards’ mistress being a slut groupie. She wasn’t living in any tenement or using food stamps, but I’d be interested as a study in human nature whether or not she thought she truly loved hunkster Edwards or was attracted to money and power. It didn’t seem to bother HER that Edwards was married, but then who knows what bullshit lies Johnny Boy told his amore.
    I’ll try to post a link that goes through.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  43. link to little sister of mistress:

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  44. I’m amused how the A/P justifies its actions by claiming that the Enquirer is a “supermarket tabloid”, “popular but trashy weekly”, and is “not well-regarded” by the media.

    Does anyone remember November 1998? The A/P, along with the other MSM jumped on the bandwagon to shame Bob Livingstone about an affair he had engaged in about 20 years earlier.

    And who was the principal source for this information? None other than Hustler Magazine, which presumably is not “popular and trashy”, and obviously is “well regarded by the media”.

    The same stunt, with the same players, was later pulled to embarrass Henry Hyde about an affair that he had engaged in 40 years previously!!

    Steve Levy (2d04eb)

  45. max – I’m talking about the statements from the Edwards’s camp.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  46. “No thoughts about Rielle in all these statements and interviews…”

    Unnamed sources report Rielle says she’s pleased as punch, or was before the baby came, with her role as the main squeeze of ex-Senator (D-NC) John Edwards. She was telling any new acquaintance or just met stranger about the wonderful new man in her life. Rielle, (aka Lisa Druck), was openly complimentry about what a great guy John Edwards was and how happy she was to be helping him seek the Presidency.

    If Rielle’s had second thoughts, or hasn’t yet been forthright about her true intentions, or wants to sell her story to the tabloids after she’s milked all the cows on John Edwards’ farm, she’s not said so in public. Unless of course, she told some reporter for the LA Times, and for reasons concerned with protecting the interests of the Democrat Party, editors there are sitting on the story.

    Ropelight (cb4838)

  47. #45 I realize they are treating her like garbage and showing no sensitivity to the likely mother of saint edwards’ cherub. Gotta give the consideration to dying wifey, although I doubt she’d divorce the scoundrel, being still under his magical spell. One wonders how the kids are taking this though. Has to mess up their minds.

    Btw, did the NY Times ever offer any kind of mea culpa or apology to McCain for their fictional front page story on the Juan McCain/lobbyist trysts?? Anyone? Bueller?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  48. Sorry to butt in here, but myth or no myth (still open to discussion) McCain’s “culpa” has to do with what really matters, or rather what really should matter to Americans.

    Having said that, I’m very, very disappointed in Edwards. Anyone running for a high office should have a lot more discipline that that. Especially in the climate we live in.

    Oiram (8813bc)

  49. “McCain’s “culpa” has to do with what really matters, or rather what really should matter to Americans.”

    Oiram – Splain that.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  50. max – Right, she’s just some cum dumpster John picked up in a bar one night, like he does all his bimbos. He used her for a while and then passed her on to one his aides. No big deal. Didn’t mean a thing to him. He was just in it for the sex.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  51. daleyrocks- I don’t see Edwards as really god’s gift, but quite possibly the lady was overwhelmed by the smooth talking shyster and idea of having his child was a really big thrill for her. Bet you he used the L word too and said the old lady with carcinoma wasn’t giving him any.

    At least Rielle isn’t being left destitute. Perhaps Johnny Hearthrob will acknowledge his bastard child in fullness of time or there will be a paternity test.

    As a teen, I saw JFK at a pre-election public rally and thought he exuded charisma, but more likely it was that great Palm Beach winter tan. Like Obama words, I doubt Kennedy really had much of substance to say. At least he was not telling us America was a shithole country unloved and disrepected by the Euroweenie elites.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  52. #49 Issues over Sex.

    One should be more important than the other.

    Oiram (8813bc)

  53. DRJ, I love your closing line when you say, “But it’s true the New York Times is not a popular but trashy supermarket tabloid. Its declining advertising revenues and circulation show it’s not that popular.”
    Your words say much more than just the words, and all of it true. I like clever writing so give yourself a pat on the back from me.

    Fritz (452a8e)

  54. #49 Issues over Sex.

    One should be more important than the other.

    Huh? WTF? Weren’t they both about sex? Which one is more important? One is 30 years old before a man was a candidate for public office. The other was while a man was candidate for the highest office in the country and he lied about it. What are you trying to say Oiram?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  55. #49, its not the sex per se but the unintended consequences if Edwards had gotten the nomination – or perhaps ended up in a plum cabinet position/AG’s office. I hadn’t considered this:

    “This brings us to a very serious issue which I haven’t seen addressed by anyone…which Mirengoff should particularly consider: Edwards, by covering up the affair, opened himself up as a prime blackmail target as either a Presidential nominee or President. This is a potential national security issue which Edwards arrogantly failed to recognize, and as such this is far, far more than a “personal” failing which should be left for the family to deal with.

    Dana (254946)

  56. Thank you, Fritz. That’s a generous comment and I’m glad to know we share the same sense of humor.

    DRJ (9d1be2)

  57. I’ve had enough for now. Someone commenting over at LGF said Enquirer spokesman was on Fox claiming Enquirer had the DNA to prove paternity, BUT I can’t find anything at Fox or the Enquirer.

    Talk about conspiracies though. FBI released secret files through Freedom of Information act of Gerald Ford feeding FBI info on Warren Comm. at time of hearings. Seems there were questions about whether or not the shots came from the Book Depository.

    Now I’m looking at everything the msm was pushing as possible political agendas. Already knew from personal experiences that reporters are often clueless buffoons. Always was fascinated by Watergate and now haev Silent Coup on reading list. And how is John Dean these days> Have Maureen aged much? How come Liddy didn’t just strangle Dean?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  58. Dana – I read that last night. It points out the obvious problems of having skeletons in your closet and the fallacies of the enlightened liberal doctrine of “it’s only sex, no one cares.” Hey, people care enough to lie about it, demonstrating the problem with the argument.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  59. Now why do you think that the Obama campaign requested that nobody who knew him during college or grad school talk to the media without prior permission? What message are they trying to control or are they worried about certain things coming out?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  60. #26…DRJ…

    Do you think that the MSM will ask the right questions of EE when she speaks at the Convention? Will they ask her why she agreed to participate in the cover-up–why she was willing to lie for her husband???

    Why would the Democrat allow her to speak now???

    reff (b68a4f)

  61. Why would Mrs. Edwards speak at the convention? She wants privacy for her and her family?

    carlitos (ef0c6f)

  62. I’m learning from a master blogger. Some of it has to rub off.

    You been cheating on us? What other blogs have you been posting at?? 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  63. Reff #60: No.

    Scott: No way!

    DRJ (9d1be2)

  64. Its declining advertising revenues and circulation show it’s not that popular.

    And not revealing marital infidelities of prominent officials who pose as moral tribunes is the reason.

    Oh, wait. Forgot about Spitzer.

    The Beverly Hilton exposé might have hit the fan had Edwards been in the race. As it was, it took what – three weeks? With the paternity angle contested.

    He lied and a muckraking editor deserves props.

    steve (73f121)

  65. #62
    It’s ok if DRJ cheats on us Scotty. That I can forgive. 🙂

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  66. The NYT’s Vicki Iseman piece was less convincing than the Enquirer’s folo on Edwards. Drudge, in point of fact, had hoisted the Iseman matter up the flagpole two months earlier.

    The appetite for uncorroborated, looked-like-to-some-people, nobody-knew-for-sure dalliances will never die.

    steve (05bc59)

  67. Edited out of the Nightline Silk Pony interview were things like Edwards using the usual lib tu quoque by reminding us McCain cheated too, but then said he shouldn’t involve other people in his own grief. Silk Pony, more like horse’s ass and SILKY PHONY at that.
    And of course now says she won’t agree to any paternity tests. Guess maybe the payoff was made. She can just enjoy living in that $3 million dollar mansion. Other unwed moms should have it so good.
    At least now the Silk Pony is qualified to be mayor of Los Angeles. So is Reille a bimbo or a fool for love? The real whore is the LAT for sitting on the story.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  68. On a more serious note, John Edwards has not been as truthful as he needs to be.
    1) Why did he get into this affair? Was the pressure of his wife’s cancer taking its toll on him? Was he feeling she was growing old on him. He is 54 and she is 59. Did he get tired of what he was seeing when they were alone, naked, in the room? Was he feeling she no longer could fit into his growing needs? Did they discuss this? Did her cancer exacerbate her physical appearance? Was he feeling choked off knowing he had to be faithful to her no matter her condition? Did he show signs to her that he was no longer really happy with his sexual life? Did she understand and agree with him to support whatever decision he took-so long as he was happy? Was she privy to this affair from day one? Did she always know about the other woman and had to live with it, so as to not lose him?
    2) Was having a baby part of the arrangement? Did he break their bedroom agreement by getting her pregnant? Is she willing to forgive him and accept this shame as long as there was no child coming out of it? Did John Edwards at a point get so involved with this “strange woman” emotionally that she felt she needed something to hold, something that would increase her self worth. Something that will make her not to see her self as his slut. His whore. Was this baby her only way of self redemption? Or wait, was the baby meant to be a secret between John Edwards and this woman? A secret that will only be revealed after the anticipated passing of Elizabeth? Was this woman his fall back from the expected loss of his precious wife?
    More Questions in my next installment.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  69. As awful as it would be, I would not be surprised if Mrs. Edwards were at the last minute invited to speak at the convention. I also wouldn’t be surprised if she accepted. Anything for the greater good. There couldn’t be a more sympathetic speaker to rally the troops to press on and fight the good fight (well, the leftist fight anyway which might negate the ‘good’ part…). If they invited her and if she accepted, it would certainly reveal the depths to which they would sink.

    I think it would be in extremely bad taste of course but it seems that the one thing that supercedes everything these days – is to win.

    Dana (254946)

  70. David Ehrenstein wrote: While we go on and on and on and on about the all-important Edwards story. . . .

    Whaddaya mean “we?” Nobody made you click on this thread, David. You’ve got your own blog. And you KNOW you wouldn’t be whining if it was Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee instead of Edwards.

    L.N. Smithee (14949d)

  71. LN – Clearly, David E does not care about this insginificant story. He just is compelled to comment about it.

    JD (5f0e11)

  72. Hi everyone.

    John McCain cheated on his wife, too. What are you complaining about?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  73. #73
    Hey! Levi! Where have you been? These guys here really miss you. Even though they hate to admit it.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  74. #73 John Mccain was not running for anything. John Edwards was a likely Obama pick for AGor even SCOTUS associate justice. McCain was a young man straight out of 5 1/2 years of Hanoi Hilton. Yeah, I know you’ll say he confessed and gave aid and comfort to enemy. Can’t say that about John Effin’ Kerry though.
    Edwards is supposedly sharp, wisely aged trial attorney and former US Senator with a wife dying of cancer. You libs are so great with the moral equivalency about everything. What did McCain lie about and try to hide and obfuscate? If you are so concerned about the youthful indescretions, what does Obama’s admitted use of blow say about HIM? How come his youthful and college associates are not allowed to give interviews about O’s past without permission? Why are liberals so effin’ big on trying to hide their own flaws and telling everyone else something is not relevant and to just STFU??????
    Nobama 2008!

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  75. #73 – Levi

    John McCain cheated on his wife, too. What are you complaining about?

    — Levi, is it acceptable for a public servant (or a former public servant who could potentially be appointed to a post in the Executive Branch of govt FIVE months from now) to cheat on his wife? YES or NO?

    Icy Truth (d05099)

  76. #76
    It is neither acceptable for John Edwards to cheat on his sick wife any more than it is acceptable for John McCain to cheat on his. The difference is that John McCain is still in the race, John Edwards isn’t. If you are going to beat up one, beat up the other. Fair is fair!

    love2008 (1b037c)

  77. Absolutely! Now, where is the proof that John McCain has cheated on Cindy; or, for that matter, where is the proof that Cindy is ill?

    Icy Truth (d05099)

  78. When did McCain lie about, try to cover up, give hush payments, father a child out of wedlock relating to his youthful indescretions? He admitted he was an asshole at the time and his first wife is still alive and says she loves him.

    How many other women was Edwards boinking while married. Rumors say he carried on opnely in DC for five of his Senate years.

    What drugs besides cocaine did Obama imbibe? Did he shoot up heroin? Did he frequent trashy women?
    Rumors are out there that the anointed one was carrying on with men in Wright’s church? What’s wrong with dignifying rumors with comment if the esteemed NY Times can create an affair out of thin air vis a vis McCain and a lobbyist and totally fecking ignore all the hubbub surrounding the Edwards’ scandal?
    If you want fairness or justice, enter a seminary. J. Edwards is a self-indulgent, arrogant prick with an inflated sense of entitlement, son of millworker or not.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  79. #78
    Icy! You are so naive! Who is talking about Cindy?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  80. #79
    I am not here to defend Edwards. Obama is my candidate. Edwards is just a politician I know. He has dug a hole for himself. He only, will have to come out of it. My point is that McCain is not the moral alternative here. What he also did to his first wife was cruel and mean and selfish. That puts him in the same box with Edwards. Fair is fair. If you will condemn one, condemn the other. If you will justify one, justify the other.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  81. Because a murderer who says they’re not guilty even though they know they did it and were convicted for it is exactly the same as someone who is ticketed for speeding and quietly pays the fine.

    They both did wrong, so condemn them both. Circumstances don’t matter.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  82. OMG! I’m naive? Come on! Can I not use sarcasm with you at all? I know that you were referring to his first wife; thus, by talking only about Cindy I was (I thought) making the point that what happened twenty-nine years ago is different than what happened on FRIDAY!

    I tell you what; I will make you a deal: 28 years from now — in 2036 — if John Edwards runs for office I SWEAR I WILL VOTE FOR HIM.

    Icy Truth (d05099)

  83. I tell you what; I will make you a deal: 28 years from now — in 2036 — if John Edwards runs for office I SWEAR I WILL VOTE FOR HIM.

    Do you think he’ll have told the truth by then?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  84. No…and lovesick08 will still be hoping Edwards will call her for a drink in a bar….

    Wonder if she’ll tell her husband?

    reff (b68a4f)

  85. #84 – In 2036 Edwards will be 83, I will be 71; Elizabeth more than likely will be many years passed on, as will (based on statistics) former-Senator Obama; the Enquirer will be reporting on Abigail Breslin’s third divorce; and, if there’s any justice in the universe, I will be plugged into a droud, like Louis Wu in the “Ringworld” novels.

    In other words, by then I won’t care anymore. Right now I care very much.

    Icy Truth (d05099)

  86. Because a murderer who says they’re not guilty even though they know they did it and were convicted for it is exactly the same as someone who is ticketed for speeding and quietly pays the fine.

    They both did wrong, so condemn them both. Circumstances don’t matter.

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 8/10/2008 @ 5:02 pm

    Great point; well put.

    Not that it matters, but had thought ever since love2008 started posting that love2008 was a woman (sounded like one). Then I heard ppl saying he was a man. Now people, more than one, are saying he’s a woman. aaaaaaaggh 🙂 Just curious I guess about whether the old judgment of how masculine or feminine a poster sounds is totally impaired yet. 😛 Somebody help me out?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  87. Well, I don’t really care but, all I know is that he never reacts negatively to being characterized as male.

    Icy Truth (d05099)

  88. #87 It(she/he) comes across as possibly androgynous and sexually confused. We get plenty of projection and other psychobabbble terms. It is allabout “FEEELINGS”. Obama gives the obamatards good vibes/feelings in his quest for hope/change and bringing the races together, raising taxes and lowering tax intake in interest of “fairness”, his great leadership skills (at least in his own mind), etc. ad nauseum. I don’t see logic and rationality here. The messiah worshippers remind me much of the mindless Paultards in thinking fearless leader is only one who can save america despite being a clueless, ignorant, flip-flopping, throwing endless associates under the bus dissemebling reprobate.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  89. I’ve always thought female but don’t care much either way. I think it’s more interesting how the underlying anger and contempt has been pretty blatant the past couple of days after the initial flower-child personality wore off. True character (or lack of it) always comes out.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  90. 81 super AH- you never address my points. There is no moral equivalency between McCain and Edwards. Edwards’ BS was out there for a long time now and yet Obama had him on the short list to be AG. Tell us why McCain sucks because he ran around decades ago, but your idol the magic negro is a fine human being in all aspects despite being a cokehead??? What does it say about his judgment NOW that he associates with the scum of society for his whole adult life??? Show us friends that are not an assorted motley crew of rabble crooks, terrorists and racist preachers (both black and white). Show us ANYTHING that qualifies Obama to be Potus other than supposedly American and old enough.
    Otherwise address someone else with your drivel and bioya.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  91. #81, love’08

    You need to address many inconsistencies and lies spouted by the matinee idol. It makes a real response long overdue: why is B-Ho qualified to run for Potus? And does the Chicago machine have something to do with his ascension in recent years? The muscle & money in fixing ballots, suing rivals and leaking documents is weak and dishonest. Your response?

    MORE disturbingly, the SAME shoddy womanizing was dealt by MLK to his wife, Coretta. And your response to that, based on your beliefs from an earlier post?

    “What he also did to his first wife was cruel and mean and selfish. That puts him in the same box with Edwards. Fair is fair. If you will condemn one, condemn the other. If you will justify one, justify the other.”

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  92. ^ love’08. Awaiting your answer.

    “What he also did to his first wife was cruel and mean and selfish. That puts him in the same box with Edwards. Fair is fair. If you will condemn one, condemn the other. If you will justify one, justify the other.”

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

  93. What he also did to his first wife was cruel and mean and selfish.

    I think you’re mixing up McCain with Giuliani.

    nk (e38352)

  94. love 2008. Please explain your ideas. Are you condemning adulterous, cruel, duplicitous behavior as a whole ? Or do you pick and choose your exceptions. Like, it’s okay for Obama and Michelle to use the racist card but no one else?

    “What he also did to his first wife was cruel and mean and selfish. That puts him in the same box with Edwards. Fair is fair. If you will condemn one, condemn the other. If you will justify one, justify the other.”

    Vermont Neighbor (a066ed)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1230 secs.