Gossip?

What the hell?

Are we a nation of old ladies?

Nevermind...

What do you mean? the Enquirer is not a major newspaper?

So their feature says "The National Enquirer says Edwards is having an affair". Great investigative journalism, there.

FTFA:

That said, Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage."


Right, because Anna Nicole Smith was running for Office?

He's a 'celebrity', practice reporting with an even hand.

Who blames him if he did, I mean who wants to have sex with someone dying of cancer?
/besides necrophiliacs

Way to trash another brand, Murdoch.

galewgleason: Who blames him if he did, I mean who wants to have sex with someone dying of cancer?
/besides necrophiliacs

Will she be dead in less than nine months? Is she still at least moderately hittable? If so, I'm totally there.

/I'm pretty sure I don't get a seat
//I get to ride with the cargo.

OMG a Murdoch publication attacking a Democrat? I'm Shocked!! Why doesn't he just have the WSJ run with it?

So lets see here, the NYTimes can write a full expose about an alleged McCain affair built entirely around innuendo and it is brave reporting, but won't touch a story where Edwards gets caught red-handed in an affair with a woman he knocked up and the Times won't touch it.

Hobodeluxe: OMG a Murdoch publication attacking a Democrat? I'm Shocked!! Why doesn't he just have the WSJ run with it?

No way. The WSJ has a reputation to uphold. They won't run a story like that without corroboration. Thankfully, the Times of London mentioned the National Enquirer story. In MSM-bizarro world, that counts. Expect the story in the next few days.

atomsmoosher: and the Times won't touch it.

Which is why we're reading about it in the Times.

atomsmoosher: So lets see here, the NYTimes can write a full expose about an alleged McCain affair built entirely around innuendo and it is brave reporting, but won't touch a story where Edwards gets caught red-handed in an affair with a woman he knocked up and the Times won't touch it.

It is not news because this is the way the New York Times expects Democrats to behave, since Dems don't wave a banner of "moral standards" like the Repubs and then fail to live up to it.

MooseUpNorth: Which is why we're reading about it in the Times.

I believe he means the NY Times, not the UK newspaper.

wombatsrus: It is not news because this is the way the New York Times expects Democrats to behave, since Dems don't wave a banner of "moral standards" like the Repubs and then fail to live up to it.

So, it's okay for Democrats to be amoral, selfish swine because we expect it of them? Noted.

I could care less where John Edwards, or any politician, sticks his dick. So long as it isn't up my ass.

As the London Times notes, the New York Times wasn't worried about sourcing or propriety when it plastered the McCain/Iseman story all over page 1.

Ask yourself if you were worried about the cheesiness of the Enquirer when they broke the Limbaugh/oxycontin story.

Why is "who so-and-so slept with" such an important topic in american politics? It's not high school, for God's sake!

Nabb1: So, it's okay for Democrats to be amoral, selfish swine because we expect it of them?

No, it's that those are universal human characteristics. Republicans like to bash people around on moral issues that are no one's business except their own. Democrats are more tolerant. Thus it's considerably less newsworthy when they get caught being human.

Rethorn: MooseUpNorth: Which is why we're reading about it in the Times.

I believe he means the NY Times, not the UK newspaper.

Which was kinda obvious, but I'm the first to admit that truth shouldn't interfere with snark.

jules_siegel: No, it's that those are universal human characteristics.

I thought the idea was to select representatives who could get just a tiny bit beyond those characteristics, y'know?

Instead we get slobs who think poontang-on-demand is just another perk of the job, and we excuse it away.

"As the London Times notes, the New York Times wasn't worried about sourcing or propriety when it plastered the McCain/Iseman story all over page 1."

And like then, I'll give this story the same amount of consideration, as in, none at all.

A straight Republican Senator is news.

Look. The NYT story on McCain was newsworthy because the story was on his lobbyist ties. It briefly implied the possibility of an inappropriate relationship, but that's all. It wasn't the focus of the story until the right-wing blogs and Fox went apoplectic and used the sex thing to distract from the real lobbying story.

This is different. This is demanding that the mainstream media make a RUMOR of Edwards' affair a front-page story based on nothing more than him being spotted in the same hotel as a woman a tabloid claims he had a "love child" with. It's bullshiat, and it deserves to be relegated to these rags unless something a lot more concrete comes out.

The thing is that most of the right-wing propagandists pushing this KNOW it's bullshiat. They're just using it in their recent efforts to escalate their nominal "working the ref" tactics against the media as their desperation deepens; forcing them to adopt increasingly dishonest and dishonorable means to TRY to corral public opinion for the Republicans.

The NYT is hoping this will just boil over so they don't have to comment on it. They don't like the idea of a high ranking Democrat getting caught with his pants down this close to the election.

Can't we just forget this and vote for Obama? The Times isn't shy on who they want to be the next president and will do anything in their power to ensure that happens.

Nemo's Brother: The NYT is hoping this will just boil over so they don't have to comment on it. They don't like the idea of a high ranking Democrat getting caught with his pants down this close to the election.

I think you mean "blow over." It's one of those one-is-good, one-is-bad, kinda things.

Prospero424 gets it.

jules_siegel: Nabb1: So, it's okay for Democrats to be amoral, selfish swine because we expect it of them?

No, it's that those are universal human characteristics. Republicans like to bash people around on moral issues that are no one's business except their own. Democrats are more tolerant. Thus it's considerably less newsworthy when they get caught being human.

Cheating on your wife while she is suffering from cancer is not "being human." It's being an irredeemable scumbag. And after Edwards' public sanctimony on just about everything, well, you reap what you so, John Boy.

Nabb1: jules_siegel: Nabb1:

Republicans like to bash people around on moral issues that are no one's business except their own. Democrats are more tolerant. Thus it's considerably less newsworthy when they get caught being human.
...
Cheating on your wife while she is suffering from cancer is not "being human." It's being an irredeemable scumbag.

I believe the real issue here, as well as with, for example, Sen. Craig's "wide stance" imbroglio, has to do with judgement and character.

As an investor, I pay attention to any CEO that gets caught having an affair, using drugs, or buying a 10,000+ sq ft house. Those actions are reflective of poor personal judgment, which usually translates into poor professional judgment. Seeing any of those three actions (and others) will probably cause me to sell the stock.

There has even been a research paper published about the correlation between a CEO's house size and stock performance -- they're inversely related.

By the same token, any politican caught having an affair, using drugs, or using public restrooms for other than intended purposes shows a lack of personal judgment that will be reflected in their professional life. I generally vote against these people because I no longer trust their judgment.

This correllation is why politician's improprieties are news.

/If Salma Hayek gets caught having an affair, I don't care except for the fact it wasn't me.
//well, if I were single

A political sex scandal involving a bathroom. That would never get covered in the media.

C'mon, admins, you're really dropping the ball on this huge story. A meager eight links in five days, tsk tsk.

Damba: By the same token, any politican caught having an affair, using drugs, or using public restrooms for other than intended purposes shows a lack of personal judgment that will be reflected in their professional life. I generally vote against these people because I no longer trust their judgment.

And how do you know there's any correlation at all? Cheating is very common among all classes of society. Someone can have poor personal judgement but highly superior financial skills and judgment. Until you can show that character issues relating to personal sexual and moral choices have anything at all to do with economic or political judgment, you're just winging it on the basis of your own prejudices.

You are aware, perhaps, that Warren Buffet has a rather unusual marriage that would undoubtedly be condemned by right wing moralists. People cheat on each other. When caught, they lie about it. They have homosexual affairs and they lie about that too. The one thing we do know about "deviant" behavior is that everyone does something that someone else will consider weird.

I'm sure that Wall Street really cares about any of that, and I seriously doubt that any sane investor would make decisions based on who is doing whom in which hole. Drugs are the biggest phony issue of all. Who hasn't used them at this point? It doesn't say anything at all about the individual because it is so widespread as to be meaningless.

jules_siegel: And how do you know there's any correlation at all? Cheating is very common among all classes of society. Someone can have poor personal judgement but highly superior financial skills and judgment. Until you can show that character issues relating to personal sexual and moral choices have anything at all to do with economic or political judgment, you're just winging it on the basis of your own prejudices.

It's not the cheating itself, though. What it is is the fact that politicians who get caught cheating often pay a very heavy political price and it can bring them down (e.g. Elliott Spitzer). Therefore, the fact that one would disregard the consequences of one's actions and yet continue on that path anyway shows extremely poor judgment.

jules_siegel:
You are aware, perhaps, that Warren Buffet has a rather unusual marriage that would undoubtedly be condemned by right wing moralists. People cheat on each other. When caught, they lie about it. They have homosexual affairs and they lie about that too. The one thing we do know about "deviant" behavior is that everyone does something that someone else will consider weird.


But apparently you aren't aware that 'everyone is doing it' isn't a valid reason to consider anything moral or ethical, and using that argument once you've passed the third grade makes you look extremely foolish.

Or perhaps you're not aware that marriage is a contract in the form of an oath? How a person treats their marriage is not representative of how they treat contracts and duties, it is how they treat contracts and duties. So from a character perspective in hiring someone, it's a valid concern.

If he is in the running for Obama's VP or as the AG if Obama wins, and he is trying to sneak into a hotel at 2 in the morning to meet someone, it doesn't show well for his judgment.

Nabb1: jules_siegel: And how do you know there's any correlation at all? ... Someone can have poor personal judgement but highly superior financial skills and judgment. Until you can show that character issues relating to personal sexual and moral choices have anything at all to do with economic or political judgment, you're just winging it on the basis of your own prejudices.
...
It's not the cheating itself, though. What it is is the fact that politicians who get caught cheating often pay a very heavy political price and it can bring them down (e.g. Elliott Spitzer). Therefore, the fact that one would disregard the consequences of one's actions and yet continue on that path anyway shows extremely poor judgment.

Nabb1 is elaborating on the point I am attempting to make.

It is not the cheating I am interested in -- everyone makes mistakes (although I disagree that cheating is as widespread as you believe it is, Jules). It is the actions after they are caught. Not to start a flame war, but if Bill Clinton had come out and said, "Yeah, I banged her. I banged her in the Oval Office, the Lincoln Bedroom, and the Presidential Bowling Alley", everything would have been fine. It was the cover-up that damaged his legacy.

Similarly, if a CEO has an affair, then admits it, then moves on, fine. A cover-up indicates to me that he would also cover-up financial improprieties.

"Sane" investors take what information they have and incorporate it into their strategies. Successful investment takes discipline. Running a business takes discipline. Any action that shows a lack of discipline is a red flag.

I wasn't aware that I was showing prejudices. Craig was used as an example because he's been in the news, and the jokes are still cropping up. People would know the example.

Edwards ran away from the reporters. I don't know how serious a VP candidate he was, but I wouldn't want someone who doesn't have the courage to stand up to some Enquirer reporters being responsible for negotiating with some hard-nozed Russian diplomat. Fear like that exposes someone to blackmail.

You may have noticed that Putin is pretty ruthless. Blackmail is definitely not outside the realm of possibility.

I'm just surprised it was a woman.

This is big! Why it almost made me forget the about the public White House visitor log the Bush administration is refusing to provide.

First: Who cares? Edwards isn't running.

Second: I've known plenty of couples with open relationships. You can't call it an affair unless she does.

Last: Who cares? Edwards isn't running.

jules_siegel: Republicans like to bash people around on moral issues that are no one's business except their own. Democrats are more tolerant. Thus it's considerably less newsworthy when they get caught being human.

This. Who he does is between him, his wife and his baby momma. He is human and it is none of our business. That is why it is called a private life. The real problem stems from those who confuse a politician's private life with a public life. We're not electing the Pope, we're electing a leader for our country. Give me a philanderer who can make the trains run on time over a tea-toter who is unqualified to be President any day.

Sammy Jenkins: If there were any EVIDENCE of this actually being true, this would be the only thing the press would be talking about. The logical conclusion is that this is total farking bullshiat.

No, this is true. But no one wants to be the first one to take the word of the National Enquirer on something like this. I like a lot of things about Edwards, but all the evidence seems to suggest that this one is true.

I like Edwards even more that he had the good sense to get caught before Obama could pick him as a running mate.

This article has an excellent point that raises a much larger one: Why hasn't the media covered the Enquirer's reporting on the President's drinking problem? Laura's threatening to divorce him over it!



Our Commander-In-Chief, The Man With His Finger On the Button, He's a drunk! Isn't that a little newsworthy?

I would be surprised if *none* of the major media outlets (networks, Washington Post, NYT, Washington Times since it's a Democrat) are at least doing a little gumshoe work as we speak.

Hollie Maea: No, this is true. But no one wants to be the first one to take the word of the National Enquirer on something like this.

Except you, apparently.

Nabb1: So, it's okay for Democrats to be amoral, selfish swine because we expect it of them? Noted.

It's not OK for anybody to do that. It's just that there's no HYPOCRISY there when Democrats do it. They don't run on that platform.

/it's amoral for both sides
//it's hypocritical only for Republicans who run as the more moral party.

Aexia: This article has an excellent point that raises a much larger one: Why hasn't the media covered the Enquirer's reporting on the President's drinking problem? Laura's threatening to divorce him over it!

Wow! I guess we'll have to get the foreign newspapers to do that job for us too!

jules_siegel: Republicans like to bash people around on moral issues that are no one's business except their own. Democrats are more tolerant. Thus it's considerably less newsworthy when they get caught being human.

So the whole deal with him hiding away his pregnant mistress in a mansion and paying all her bills, while he's still on the campaign trail with his dying wife, that's just being human.

"But who cares, he's not running!" Well, he was running when he knocked up Rielle Hunter. He was running when he went to great lengths to cover it up. And he's been trying to keep himself in the public eye as a possible VP for Obama. He is a public figure.

The Enquirer story is not a rumor. It's not "Hey, have ya heard the latest?" It's on-the-spot reporting with a whole bunch of easily verifiable facts. Which you guys would know if you stopped fanning yourselves for a minute and actually read it. But that's probably beneath you.

I still can't figure out why it is news whether a politician boinked someone other than his wife. Even MORE outrageous is people overseas give a rats ass about John Edwards.

ObamaRepublican: Second: I've known plenty of couples with open relationships. You can't call it an affair unless she does.

ding ding ding

which is why this is more amazing coming from a european paper

i'd thought i'd read somewhere that eliz edwards had let him go free back when she thought her days were numbered...

Hobodeluxe: OMG a Murdoch publication attacking a Democrat? I'm Shocked!! Why doesn't he just have the WSJ run with it?

Why doesn't he just have Fox News run with it? (I love a conspiracy theory that immediately has to fold its own inconsistencies into the theory.)