Facing questions, Edwards evades reporters

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Raleigh News&Observer

It was only three weeks ago that John Edwards was fielding media questions on his chances of filling the Democratic Party's vice presidential slot on Barack Obama's ticket or a potential Cabinet position in an Obama administration. On Wednesday, however, the former U.S. senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee was eager to duck the press when the questions took a tabloid turn.

About a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Afterward, he avoided most of the waiting reporters, at least some of whom wanted to question him about recent reports in the National Enquirer that alleged an inappropriate relationship with a former campaign videographer.

Citing unnamed sources, the Enquirer published a story in October claiming that Edwards was having an affair with a woman who filmed a series of campaign videos. The story resurfaced last week in the online version of the Enquirer, which claimed that Edwards had visited the woman and their "love child" July 21 at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, Calif. In October, the woman posted an online statement denying the first story. In December, an Edwards campaign worker claimed to be the father of the woman's then-unborn child....

***

The story has prompted some buzzing in the blogosphere but little public response from Edwards. At a July 23 speech in Houston, Edwards responded to a reporter's question about the Enquirer story by referring to it as "tabloid trash."

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1160048.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Why should he answer questions about crap in a tabloid?

[still_one]

2. What he should do is sue the enquirer like Carol Burnet did some time ago

Incidently, she won

[JDPriestly]

6. He is a public figure. That limits his ability to sue.

But the woman in question has thus far kept a low profile. She could sue. And if she plans to sue, Edwards would not want to talk to the press because he would not want to violate her privacy. That is my opinion about his conduct, for what it is worth.

Has the Enquirer actuallly produced the additional evidence they claimed they had.

In my opinion, the Enquirer is a pro-Hillary propaganda rag.

[rsdsharp]

14. His ability to sue isn't limited.

He would however, have to prove not only the falsity of the allegation, but also that they printed it knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity.

[JDPriestly]

25. You are correct, Radsharp. The higher standard of proof limits him.

I just did not want to bother to explain that. You will agree, she is a private figure and not only does that mean a different standard of proof but also may give her additional causes of action not available to public figures.

[JeanGrey]

148. Which we all know is true so he has no case.

[zbdent]

22. not really a public figure ...

I mean, is he a Senator? Is he a TV star? Is he a recording artist?

Plus, it was said that there were tons of photographers in that hotel basement ... no pictures?

[LisaL]

38. Hah?

Do you have a clue? Of course he is a public figure.

[zbdent]

39. Isn't he now a private citizen?

you know, like the Bush twins? They're not "public figures" - yet if Chelsea screwed up, it would be a media blitz ... but she's smart enough not to ...

[Noisy Democrat]

52. He wasn't when the alleged events allegedly occurred

He was presenting himself as a viable contender for the Democratic nomination. *If* the allegations turn out to be true, he has a lot of explaining to do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. Carol Burnet is a public figure, and she won

[JoFerret]

130. Stop deadendering

And don't sully Priestley's name with gratuitous trashing of good democrats.

[INDIA]

9. Too bad truth is an absolute defense to defamation. n/t

[tabasco]

106. You trust the National Fucking Enquirer.

You're on the wrong website, idiot.

[INDIA]

121. I'm glad Obama won. n/t

[INDIA]

140. Too bad I trusted the NE huh? Oh wait...nt

[Codeine]

142. Who's the idiot now, smartass? nt

[Psephos]

143. Quick-draw McGraw shoots self in foot again n/t

[JeanGrey]

149. Oh for god's sake! He has ADMITTED it unless you

missed that little piece of info and they released pics. Good grief.

[unapatriciated]

13. She did win but the cost was very high

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DA1139F937A35752C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Edwards responded correctly by not paying attention to trash.
I find it hard to believe that they had reporters without cameras waiting to ambush him in the basement
or that when they claimed he went into hiding in a restroom that they left. They would have camped out for days to get that pic.
They seem to have no trouble getting photos for their rag.

[orleans]

137. why would he sue the enquirer? he admitted to the "affair"??

[JeanGrey]

147. Sue for what? TELLING THE TRUTH?

I bet they've love that.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Yeah. I posted this because it's the first I've seen beyond Enquirer and Fox. So...

I think it may mean the story might begin to be picked up in the rest of the press.

[struggle4progress]

55. " ... California State law permits the father's name to be reported on the birth certificate only if

the couple is legally married ..."

Frequently Asked Questions
Office of Vital Records ...
My child’s Birth Certificate does not have the father’s name on it. What is needed to add his name to the Certificate? ...
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/publichealth/vitalstatistics/faq.html

[JDPriestly]

75. Edwards has promised to do everything he can to get Obama elected.

Edwards is popular and very good at speaking to blue collar working people and rural people. He would be very valuable to Obama's campaign. The MSM does not like Edwards. Hillary does not like Edwards. Kerry does not like Edwards. This story which is obviously at the least premature since there is nothing to back it up at this time, fits the schemes of those who do not like him.

Until and unless this story is proved, it is better for Obama and the Democratic Party to ignore it.

[Ian David]

3. Same 'reporter' that fabricated the Ted Kennedy Love Child story. n/t

[Ian David]

5. Because The Enquirer is so credible

I'd rather cover THIS story...

[dysfunctional press]

17. from what i understand, the enquirer has apparently gotten much beter than it used to be...

weren't they the ones that pretty much nailed the o.j.stuff..? :shrug:

personally, i don't think it's looking too good for edwards- and he was who i supported most in the primaries.

[Inspired]

35. They nailed the OJ stuff? What about that Obama stuff?

Was that true, too, now that the NE has gotten so much 'better'?

[dysfunctional press]

40. what stuff are you referring to...?

i'm not a reader of it myself.

[saracat]

115. Try "Obama Gay Love triangle" or the current "Obama Marriage Collapse".

Or "Hillary's Gay Lover" etc . The Enquirer is just trash.It amazes me that any defend that rag but they are selective. It depends on who the NE is trashing,apparently. Gag.NE is worse than porn.

[zbdent]

58. really? Much better about that stuff?

I mean, the Bush cocaine headline overshadows a time frame - fight for Dying Ted's (Kennedy) fortune ...

The date of it is June of this year ...

So, if they don't have pics of Edwards, but just someone saying it, it must be true, right? So Bush is on cocaine ... according to the Enquirer's "current" standards ...

[dysfunctional press]

67. the 'bush on cocaine' headline is from the globe, not the enquirer...

the onlt reading i do of either one is reading the front page in the grocery store checkout.

[struggle4progress]

92. The same trash from the same publisher

[onehandle]

7. And here it is posted at DU.

A unfounded tabloid rumor.

Hey everybody, Obama is a secret Muslim!!!

I read it on "Democratic" Underground.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. I posted this -- and have posted nothing before about it --

because I thought it was significant that after all this time, the story has gone beyond Enquirer and Fox. Believe me, I take no pleasure in posting it, or in fearing that this may be the beginning of the story moving beyond a tabloid and Fox. If we want to ignore that happening, and not post about its coverage here, I can understand that. I usually believe in having info out here, though.

On edit: I was careful to include the denials, and left out of the excerpt details from the Enquirer story.

[onehandle]

23. See reply #19.

See what I mean.

I wasn't blaming you. It's not your fault that DU is full of "Democrats."

[DeepModem Mom]

28. I've PMed you, onehandle. nt

[Merlot]

42. Don't you mean "Democrat Underground?"

[DeepModem Mom]

48. Self-delete.

Responded to wrong post.

[jeanruss]

8. I don't care

As an Edwards supporter, I have to say that I DON'T CARE!!!! America's outrage for stories like this is really hypocritical. We have allowed this president to invade a country to steal its natural resources and have killed a MILLION people in the process, yet John Edwards is immoral. We need to look in the mirror and admit that if we were moral, we would not have allowed any of this to happen inour name. Bush may be evil, but we allowed his evil. I wonder how many Iraqi women are pregnant because their husbands were killed and they were thrown out in the streets? If this is true about Edwards, I'm sure he is taking care of this child and her mother, just as he takes care of his family. Let's quit with the gotcha game. The world has too many problems to waste time on non-problems.

[question everything]

54. If this story were about Romney, would you still say that you don't care?

That we are hypocrite?

You can be sure that DU would be full of the story, as would Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher.

[jeanruss]

60. yes

Of course I would feel the same. I don't care about the private sex lives of anyone as long as what they are doing is not criminal (rape, underage,etc.). Why are Americans so hung up about sex? I think it's weird. It's none of our business. Most of our best Presidents were not faithful. As long as they performed their jobs well. so what? If their spouses decide to tolerate it (as most of them do) who cares. The world is breaking apart because of the intolerance towards each other for a variety of reasons. Compared to the heinous things going on in America, like treason, illegal wars and fascism, we should save the newspaper columns for the REAL problems of our society, not this high school stuff.

[Noisy Democrat]

63. The problem is

that *if* Edwards did all this while running for the nomination, knowing that a secret like this would destroy his campaign, then he betrayed the voters' trust. It would mean that he was willing to risk handing the election to McCain on a platter. It would mean that he lied to the voters on a very serious matter: whether he's fit to be a candidate for the presidency. That *is* a big deal, and if it's true, I care very much.

[jeanruss]

66. Republicans

Republicans can always find something wrong with a Democratic candidate. Are we electing a public official or a Pope? McCain has acted terribly in his personal life, yet he is running without a problem. Vitter and Larry Craig are still working in the Senate. Was Bush a good President because he hasn't cheated on Laura(at least to our knowledge)? Of course not. Jimmy Carter is always touted in the media as a failed President and was probably faithful to his wife. Kennedy is revered by the public, yet was a notorious womanizer. I think Edwards is a good person. If he made a mistake, he probably doesn't want to add to it because he knows how vicious people and the press can be and wants to spare everyone he cares about. America doesn't need a saint. We need a smart and competent person who has the balls to stand up to corporations, and that is Edwards.

[Noisy Democrat]

83. But he would have lost

He would have lost the election if he had gotten the nomination. And he no doubt knew that, or should be smart enough to know it. Unless the allegations aren't true.

[goclark]

95. McCain called his wife a c*** in public

but that seems to be perfectly OK with the rethugs.
He divorced his seriously ill wife and married "Lil Cindy shortly after.
That's OK?

What happened to that Lobbyist girlfriend that was on the front page for 2 days?

[Psephos]

117. "We need a smart and competent person who has the balls to stand up to corporations..."

What we really need is a smart and competent person who has the balls to stand up to his or her own actions first.

If this stuff actually turns out to be true, then Edwards was playing the same dice game Clinton played, expecting his supporters and party to pick up the pieces if he rolled snake-eyes.

Personally, Edwards hiding in the hotel bathroom for 15 minutes before being whisked out by security with no comment to a waiting SUV didn't exactly strike me as a portrait in courage.

If he's innocent, there's more than a stained dress. There's a baby. A DNA test would settle everything instantly, and if it's negative for Edwards, it would open the door for him to sue. Which he's very good at.

So why has there been no DNA test?

[Critters2]

122. There's a mother, there's a father. Why would a DNA test be necessary? nt

[Psephos]

124. There's a mother and a statement to the press, not a father. Do you understand the difference?

Or are you in the habit of believing whatever politicians say in suspicious situations without any need for corroboration or evidence?

If Edwards no longer wishes to be considered as a potential V.P. or A.G., then I don't need to hear anything further about this. But if he does (and he's made no statements to the contrary), then this is serious business.

Here are Edwards' own statements on the relevancy of fidelity last fall:

COURIC: Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

EDWARDS: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans-- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's-- it's fundamental to-- how you judge people and human character-- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that-- you love-- your spouse, and you'll stay with them.

COURIC: Do you think-- what-- what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts...who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character when it comes to infidelity...I guess is what I'm getting at.

EDWARDS: Yes.

COURIC: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

EDWARDS: I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness-- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And-- and certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

COURIC: So you think it's-- an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

EDWARDS: Yeah. But I don't think it's controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the-- to the stories we've all heard-- that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don't think it controls the issue. But I think it's certain-- something reasonable for people to consider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/19/courics-candidate-questi_n_77448.html

[Critters2]

125. The woman hasdenied the story. The man has admitted paternity,

but you know better. Right. :eyes:

[Psephos]

128. bye bye little sheep n/t

[Critters2]

129. Defending a Progressive Democrat against the unfounded charges of a tabloid

makes me a sheep? What website is this again?

[Psephos]

132. Care to comment now that Edwards admits to the affair?

You had a lot of company here on this one.

[JeanGrey]

150. I don't believe that. Look how we trashed Larry Craig.

[JDPriestly]

10. The woman has already denied this story.

In October, the woman posted an online statement denying the first story. In December, an Edwards campaign worker claimed to be the father of the woman's then-unborn child.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1160048.html

While the woman might have been lying or might not be responsible for the on-line station, let's face it. Her statement on-line as reported in the newsobserver is quite consistent with the facts and would even be consistent with Edwards' having visited her in Beverly Hills. I'm still friends with the local people with whom I volunteered on Edwards' campaign. It would not surprise me at all if Edwards is still friends with his former campaign staff.

As a supporter of Edwards, I followed this story. The facts support the explanation that this woman had an affair with one of Edwards' staff and became pregnant. So, there is no way the Enquirer could draw any conclusions of any kind with the evidence they have brought forward thus far.

Unless the Enquirer has more facts and better evidence, this is a smear, and I hope she sues the pants off the Enquirer if it is baseless. -- invasion of privacy. She has been a very private person about this matter, in case you have not noticed.

[INDIA]

15. He was "visiting" her at what, 3 am?

That's...er...suspicious. And regardless of if he was platonic "friends" he was with her, he would have had to cut all ties after the rumors surfaced. He didn't, apparently.

And now Edwards, who has always been a warrior on the issues and with the press, is dodging reporters and hasn't come out and affirmatively denied the allegation. He has only attacked the source, calling it "tabloid trash." I think he wants to avoid a " I did not have sex with that woman" moment.

It's sad. Mostly for Elizabeth and their children. How terrible. I hope this just dies and goes away. The problem is that he was recently a candidate for president, and currently on the "short list" for VP. He's the most public of public figures. I guess we'll get to see the morality of the press here. I don't have much faith.

[Inspired]

18. How do you know he was visiting 'her' at 3:00 am? Because the NE told you so?

[JDPriestly]

21. The woman was accompanied by a man and her baby.

Why would she take a man and her baby to an illicit rendez-vous? Sure, it is a possibility, but the facts are more consistent with the explanation that Edwards and she are friends and that they met privately because she does not want to expose her personal life to the public, and maybe because she feels that her baby has nothing to do with this. You are jumping to absurd conclusions.

If the facts prove your theories, so be it. But at the moment you are spreading a rumor. You are expressing dismay over nothing other than your own imagination at this point.

John Edwards probably knows the legal ramifications of this situation. The Enquirer has printed truths but also falsehoods in the past. If the allegations are true, we will eventually find out. If false, we will also find out.

I remember during the primaries that some of the newspapers allegedly had a story about a scandal involving someone allegedly associated with one of the candidates. They refused to publish it on the grounds it was not relevant. Rumor had it that Bill Clinton was the subject of the story. Who knows? The story is no longer relevant. And it was never printed or proved, whatever it was.

This story is also not relevant to politics right now. And there is utterly no evidence of any wrong or immoral activity. The stories about this are all innuendo and you are falling for every bit of it.

Edwards has made all the denial he needs to you. He can't prove a negative. The woman involved might be able to force the Enquirer to prove a positive. I would be surprised if Edwards allowed himself to be goaded into making a public comment on this. It would be foolish. It is not a public matter.

[aquart]

31. "Why would she take a man and her baby to an illicit rendez-vous? "

She would if it were his child he wanted to see.

[INDIA]

34. Because it might be his baby.

Come on. For the most part, I like Edwards' positions. I like Obama's more, but that's besides the point.

Being on DU, you obviously pay attention to politics. Let's be honest, Dem/Rep/I doesn't matter, a lot of these guys are sleazy to varying degrees, just like regular people are sleazy to varying degrees, even more so because of the position of power they are in. Defending him with "maybe he doesn't sleep" or "maybe they're just friends" is grasping for straws. Why not visit John and Elizabeth at the same time if they are just friends? If you are friends with somebody, and such rumors arise, you cut ties. Say hello on the phone ever so often. Have lunch with her and your wife at home. Send her a Christmas card. Don't sneak in and out of hotels to see her in the middle of the night.

Maybe I AM jumping to conclusions, but if I am, its because I predicted this during the 2004 election. Edwards is a good looking, (handsome actually), guy. He is famous and powerful. He travels the country and is away from his wife for long periods of time. He also has a little bit of a vain streak. That's a recipe for disaster right there. He'd have to be a friggin saint NOT to cheat. It's more than possible that this happened.

And could you please post a link to a quote where he actually denies the charges? His only quote on the subject thus far said it was "trash", and that he wouldn't address it, not that it was patently false. Clever language from a talented lawyer.

[brentspeak]

41. Or it might be your baby

How do we know it's not?

[INDIA]

43. Complete lack of any connection whatsoever.

Edwards...

1) Was caught sneaking out of her hotel late night
2) Has been accused of paternity.
3) One of his close campaign aids claims to be the father. That's a tangible connection right there. (Where is that guy speaking up and claiming paternity btw?)
4) She worked closely with his campaign
5) Earned a 6 figure salary...for making videos.
6) LOTS AND LOTS of smoke. And apparently pictures soon to be released.

Me?

1) We live in the same country
2) .....?

[JDPriestly]

73. Why not visit John and Elizabeth at the same time if they are friends?

Because Elizabeth was back in North Carolina and not with John in L.A. and because the woman in question apparently was in Santa Barbara and had driven down to L.A.? That's the way I understand the allegations. Santa Barbara is a couple of hours from L.A.

[Mushroom]

107. Reduce, reuse, recycle!

EVERYBODY knows that the tabloids are the best products on the market to make happy poopy, and news paper has more uses other than bathroom literature. My favorite is The National Examiner - seriously - I like reading Dear Tony, psychic healer. He has great affirmations and I love it when he tells his readers he sees nothing but rainbows for them. Who wouldn't want to be told that!

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

27. As an Edwards supporter, I remember hearing and reading

during the campaign that the Edwards don't sleep a lot. I don't either, so I was interested in that fact. Some people just don't sleep as much as other people. Edwards runs a lot. That may have something to do with it. Elizabeth stated she blogs late into the night.

So, 3:00 a.m. not be such a strange time for him to leave especially if he thinks the paparazzi are outside. Haven't you ever stayed up to talk to old friends (or new ones) until 3:00 a.m.? I sure have.

[JDPriestly]

74. John Edwards is one of the few politicians who takes

little if any money from lobbyists. Obama is also severely limiting the money he accepts from lobbyists. This fact makes Edwards an attractive candidate for the vice presidency. I personally don't think it will happen. I think Edwards would accept the position if it were offered, but I don't think he wants to have it. The MSM refused to give Edwards the time of day during the election. (Remember he came in second in Iowa and was thereafter shunned.) And elements of the MSM, especially certain Hillary factions and conservatives would like to ruin his reputation now. The story could be true, but the Enquirer has not yet published sufficient facts to support it -- if such exist.

[DeepModem Mom]

16. Thanks for adding this info. nt

[JeanGrey]

151. We all know about "denials" now, don't we?

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Trying to bring the Dems down to the level of the hypocritical Repukes??

Only in this case it IS lies.

[Voltaire99]

19. "Sorry, not now" doesn't cut it, Edwards

Edwards is, of course, free to bonk whomever he wants.

But after shamelessly parading his cancer-stricken wife for the purposes of advancing his career, he owes everyone an explanation.

Pretending you get a pass because it's a tabloid that caught you? No, it doesn't work that way.

What were you doing in the hotel room in the wee hours, Johnny Boy?

[JDPriestly]

24. You are libeling Edwards. You have no facts at this point

Please be careful. Not now means not now. Edwards is not running for office.. He is a private person. True or not, this is his private business at this point -- just as Clinton's latest flames are his private business (assuming there have been some recent ones as was suggested in stories that were no more substantiated than this one during the primaries).

[Noisy Democrat]

49. Actually, I don't think it is his private business

I don't know whether the story is true. But if Edwards was seriously trying to get the Democratic nomination while concealing explosive, campaign-ending secrets such as an affair and an illegitimate child, that would be a grave betrayal of the voters' trust, and if it's true, then yes, he does owe it to the voters to face up to this mess forthrightly, not run and hide in kitchens and bathrooms. It would be entirely different if he had withdrawn from the primary process and then started to have an affair. But that isn't what's being charged here.

[fjc]

61. Maybe.

But so far, what do we know? Nothing. It's all rumor and innuendo. If that is all it is, then Edwards has no obligation whatever to come forward.

[JDPriestly]

72. "Charged" is the key word.

First, we don't know whether the allegations are true. Second, even if they are, there are reasonable explanations other than those you espouse. Edwards might have had an affair, might have an illegitimate child, but the mother of the child supposedly has denied it.

Edwards is not running for office. His sex life is as much his business as other people who are not running for office.

And, the fact is that, if the baby is someone's other than Edwards', mother, father and child are not public figures, and their right to privacy is being invaded without their consent. If the allegations are true, you will hear a confirmation, and if not, you will continue to hear allegations which must assumed to be baseless without further evidence. The fact is that even criminals are considered innocent until convicted in our country. Only in countries with dictators are people assumed guilty until proved innocent.

You are assuming that Edwards is guilty -- based on innuendo and suggestion at this point.

[Noisy Democrat]

76. No, I'm not

I'm saying that the "even if he did it, it's his private business" argument is flawed. He was running for office at the time all this allegedly took place. If he did it, it wasn't just his private business. If he didn't do it, I hope he sues the Enquirer from here to Kingdom come.

[JDPriestly]

77. But, he is a private citizen now. He is not running for office.

He is a public figure, but not an active politician. People in that category are usually given their privacy. Bill Clinton is permitted to flirt in peace.

If you recall, the L.A. Times and other papers during the primaries questioned whether they should run a story they had about the spouse of one of the candidates. They ruled out Edwards and said it was a spouse. Everyone thought it was Clinton -- another one of the unsubstantiated rumors. They did not print the story because they thought it was irrelevant.

This tale about Edwards is also irrelevant.

[Noisy Democrat]

80. But he was running for office when all of this

allegedly took place. He was still in the running for VP until all this broke open. It's not irrelevant at all. What is your position? "He's a private citizen now, so the fact that he deceived millions of people when he was trying to get the nomination doesn't matter"? I think that the people who supported him deserve better than that. If he didn't do it, great. If he did do it, the people he deceived deserve better than this.

[saracat]

118. There is a lot of rumour and inuendo about our presumptive nomineee as well. That doesn't make any

of it true. The NE has stories on all kinds of pols with "winesses" and pics. Most are rubbish. I find it very odd that only this one concerns some and that they defend this as true while "assuming " all other soties about others are garbage. Hmmm. Bias anyone?

[onehandle]

26. I think you missposted.

Here you go:

http://www.freerepublic.com

[Redstone]

30. He doesn't "owe" anyone jack shit. Least of all you.

Redstone

[Noisy Democrat]

50. Actually, he may

If he didn't have an affair, if it's all a pack of lies, then it's true he doesn't owe anyone anything, and he's just the innocent victim of a tabloid and/or a right-wing conspiracy, and I hope he sues their asses off. But if he misled millions of voters by misrepresenting himself, knowing that he had these explosive secrets, with everything that is at stake in 2008 -- then yes, he owes an apology at the very least.

[Inspired]

37. What the fuck?

You should be ashamed of yourself. Really.

[Critters2]

56. He doesn't owe anyone crap!!

Why is this shit being posted on a progressive Dem website? Disgusting!

[Noisy Democrat]

82. Because some of us expect our leaders to act with integrity?

Some of us don't go for "IOKIYAD"? Some of us think that it's important to know if one of the top contenders for the nomination was actually scamming us the whole time? Something like that.

[Critters2]

100. Scamming you?

This story comes from the source that published a "love child" story about Obama, too. I think "some of us" are afraid of a real progressive being named to the ticket.

[EFerrari]

70. What is your stake? What do you care about his personal life?

It's juvenile, this Puritanical, intrusive obsession with the privates of public figures. People who need this story should just go out and get a Sears catalog and get it over with. Honestly.

I've yet to read a single poster say, "Wow, maybe John Edwards has another kid. That's great! Is is healthy?"

No -- it's this prurient, regressive, childish crap that degrades real human life. No wonder this country is fucked so far beyond belief that you can't even see belief from here.

[Noisy Democrat]

81. So lying to the voters is hunky-dory?

Trying to get the nomination, *knowing* that you have a juicy, campaign-ending scandal just waiting to burst open and hand another election to the Republicans, is a great way for a Democrat who supposedly cares about this country to behave? If it's true, I think it's despicable.

If Edwards had an affair after he was no longer running for office, I'd say "Who cares?" The idea that he played millions of people and made a serious attempt to get the nomination, knowing the high likelihood that the result would be a blow-out victory for McCain, is shocking, if it turns out to be true. And this is why I wish he'd address it seriously instead of running and hiding from the press.

[EFerrari]

87. Oh, b#llshit. You have no evidence that John lied about anything.

And the mere fact that American voters could be so hugely stupid to care about this, one way or another, is depressing as hell. Yeah. John Edwards potential love child is so much more important than my food supply or than Bush crony bailouts or than TSA taking my laptop. The corruption has trickled down, but good.

No wonder we're the world's largest third world country. We are obsessed with the private lives of our leaders instead of minding their public policy. We deserve whatever happens to us for being so mind numbingly petty.

[halobeam]

116. just an observation or two......

Didn't he drop out?

The way you say he would've handed over the nomination (if true), to McCain... falls apart right there, doesn't it?



Who knows whether this is true, and personally, imo.... I don't care.



I want a good PRESIDENT.
An affair, an illegitimate child would only affect me if that person was in my PERSONAL life.



Separation of Church and State.
Should they REALLY have had to put in the Constitution, Separation of Adultery and State? Oh please.

We would've been president-less before this country got off the ground if that were the case.

Did you hate President Clinton for his Clenis? I wasn't thrilled with NAFTA, but I didn't lose a wink of sleep over his blow job.

Can we move on now?

[LittleClarkie]

91. How did you feel when Sen. Craig was caught. Feel the same way?

Do you apply the same standard to both Republicans and Democrats? Or do you only defend the privacy of people you like?

[EFerrari]

102. I defend all potential love children, being one myself.

I'm just sticking with my people, LittleClarkie. lol :)

[noamnety]

110. "shamelessly parading his wife"

Right, because:

1) Elizabeth doesn't have a mind of her own and her husband makes all her decisions for her, and
2) People with cancer need to be hidden from the public eye

:eyes:

Next time you are tempted to post completely sexist tripe, please try to restrain yourself.

[Ian David]

20. Here's the REAL story: Investigation of GOP group sought

Investigation of GOP group sought

A campaign finance group wants an investigation of the Republican Governors Association.

Democracy North Carolina filed a complaint Wednesday with the State Board of Elections arguing that the method the national GOP group is using to raise money is unlawful.

According to campaign finance reports, the RGA's North Carolina 2008 Political Action Committee has raised nearly $390,000 to assist the campaign of Republican nominee Pat McCrory.

Democracy North Carolina head Bob Hall says the association raised money from out-of-state donors who aren't being told the money is going to North Carolina. He argues that state law doesn't allow that.

More:
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1160048.html

[Redstone]

29. And you're posting negative bullshit about Edwards, exactly why?

He's one of us. He's one of the good guys. Why are you helping that lofty, august beacon of journalistic integrity, the fucking National Enquirer smear him?

This is beneath you, and beneath ANY kind of dignity.

(Edited to add: And beneath contempt.)

Redstone

[DeepModem Mom]

32. See my post #11.

If you disagree with my view, I apologize.

[Redstone]

36. You don't need to apologize to me. You can post whatever you want to. And I can ask why

you'd post such rubbish, indeed useless rubbish that only serves to get a woman who is dying of cancer upset.

Did you think about Mrs Edwards's feelings before you decided to spread this manure around?

Just thought I'd ask.

Redstone

[Noisy Democrat]

51. Have you thought about the feelings of

those who are deeply disappointed in Edwards and trying to make sense of what's going on? I think a lot of people are going through different parts of the 5 stages of grief. Some people want to talk about it. Others want to shut them up. We're all handling our feelings about it in different ways.

[EFerrari]

89. What in world is John Edwards' responsibility for

you projecting all over him?

Is he your relative or something?

And aren't your feelings your responsibility?

Good grief.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flvegan]

33. Why are we even discussing this on DU?

Until Obama calls his name, he's just another Dem voter like the rest of us. Let us not do the right wing's work for them.

[INDIA]

44. Well, I didn't donate to the Edwards campaign. But I would be pissed if I did...

and this turns out to be true.

The woman was earning 6 figures from the campaign. A paid campaign staffer claimed paternity. (I doubt that was in his job description.)

I don't know if that's illegal or not, but it would definitely be unethical to spend supporter financed campaign funds in that manner.

[Critters2]

68. Then STFU. I did donate to the Edwards campaign, and volunteered for it,

and this unfounded crap doesn't bother me at all. Except that I don't think I should be reading it on DU.

[INDIA]

120. I'm glad Obama won. n/t

[Critters2]

126. The National Enquirer has published a "love child" story about him, too.

I figure we'll be hearing more about that after the convention. I assume you'll be claiming he's not qualified for president when Fox starts raising that issue, right?

[INDIA]

141. Is it still unfounded mycritters2? nt

[asdjrocky]

45. Enough with this shit all ready.

[DearAbby]

46. Tabloid trash....good enough response for me

I am sick of this story...it is baseless and cruel.

[waiting for hope]

47. This is all crap and anyone with half a

brain should realize that. Here, as long as there are those here that "trust" what the National Enquirer (or their sister POS, The Globe) has to say, chew on this:



Or this:



They are claiming these items to be true by printing them in their rag (which I wouldn't let a rat shit on) - why the double standard?

[MissDeeds]

53. Ouch

You are a brave one indeed, Waiting For Hope.

Prepare for incoming.

:hide:

[Orsino]

59. Guy couldn't *buy* coverage when running for president.

This is the sort of thing that attracts the media's attention.

[robcon]

62. He should answer the questions to save his wife the embarrassment.

Unless, of course, his answers would embarrass her further.

His failure to respond, and failure to categorically deny the allegations (other than to attack the source) is worrisome.

[Noisy Democrat]

64. Yes

I would've thought we would've heard by now, "I wasn't at the Hilton that night."

[Critters2]

69. Bullshit. He shouldn't dignify it with an answer.

It's the effing National Enquirer!!

[robcon]

71. It's so easy to say" I wasn't there" - then attack the Enquirer.

Why would he let this drag out, and cause his wife so much pain, if he wasn't there?

[Critters2]

101. Responding is what will drag it out.

He should ignore it. It's bullshit.

[hopewell1985]

65. Cut this guy some slack

His wife has been sick for a while bit human urges don't go away. that is if he actually did anything. bring in ken starr

[rasputin1952]

79. I suppose it was a slow news hour or two...

First clue, "journalists" using the Enquirer as a "source"...:eyes:

[ohio2007]

84. Does this means Edwards is off "the short list" ?

[rasputin1952]

85. I don't think so...but I really don't think there will be any announcement

until the Convention. Tradition holds that the VP is usually announced at said event.

It should prove to be interesting...:D

[GoldenOldie]

86. This is "Breaking News?" God help us all!

As a long time supporter/donor of John and Elizabeth Edwards I, as many others on DU still follow John and Elizabeth's activism on labor and health care. As a 20-year cancer survivor and having many family members who lost their cancer fight, Elizabeth and John give strength to millions of Americans who have no voice.

I worry about a 21-year old grandson, serving in Northern Iraq. He recently arrived home for a 3-week, R&R, a much wiser, yet more anxious young man, knowing he had to return to the nightmare. While home he learned that his cousin, only a few months older than he, and serving in Afghanistan, had been wounded during the the AlQuida (sp) overrun of their base when 9 of his comrades had been killed.

I worry about my daughter, the mother of my 21-year old grandson, serving in Iraq, who is a RN, Trauma Nurse, working night-shifts in one of our local hospitals. I recently learned from her younger sister, favorite aunt of my grandson, that the day my grandson returned to Iraq and the night that his mother returned to work, her very first patient was a 19-year old, soldier, who had just returned from Iraq and was in the throes of a PTSD incident. My daughter who has always, always, works best under, pressure, lost it, and the physicians, knowing about her son, and knowing this was so unlike her, immediately replaced her with another nurse. While trying to calm herself down, she misheard a few techs laughing and joking and thought it was regarding the young soldier patient. Needless to say, the techi's didn't know what hit them and I am sure they will be more mindful of such actions around patients. My daughter, the trauma nurse, a nurse that occasionally functions as triage nurse, a nurse who has to deal with serious ill patients, in a horribly failed medical system.

NO! I don't give a shit if John Edwards, has a baby from some other woman than Elizabeth. That is their personal affair and I am sure they are capable of dealing with it. I give a damn, about the Iraq/Afghan wars and what it is doing to our military, our Nation, and Iraq and Afghanistan. I give a damn about the medical system within our Nation. A Nation which has always gloated that "the US has the best medical care in the world," It ain't the best, if WE THE PEOPLE cannot access it. It ain't the best, if our medical schools are not able to train new doctors and nurses. I give a damn about the environment, which is poisoning our entire eco-system......I am really old, so I can remember, when you could swim and eat fish caught from the local rivers and lakes. I can remember when the skies were clear. I can remember when the vegetables and fruits didn't taste like cardboard. I can remember when the meats weren't injected with dangerous drugs to produce fatter, faster, production.

Get real folks and worry about what personally affects all of us.

[ohio2007]

96. It was only three weeks ago that John Edwards was fielding media questions on his chances of filling

the Democratic Party's vice presidential slot.

I wonder how all this impacts his wife's cancer fight.

[cobalt1999]

88. I doubt Edwards was ever on the short list.

When you can't win your own state, you're not going to be considered for the ticket.

[roamer65]

90. I don't a rat's ass about this "story".

Even if it is true, I'll paraphrase Lincoln.

"Show me a man without vice, and I'll show you a man without virtue."

[LittleClarkie]

93. If we're going to go after Republicans and their vices, then our own vices are fair game

That's all I have to say.

[defendandprotect]

94. Does anyone truly believe that Edwards is getting VP slot . .. ?

I don't . . .

But I do think that, unfortunately, there has to be some response to this stupidity ---

And, where's Elizabeth?

I think she would take it in hand and reply ----

In fact, even if it were true, I think she'd take it in hand and reply!

[ohio2007]

97. And, where's Elizabeth? Still fighting her cancer I think

and I doubt Hillary is getting the VP nod either

Its obviously a no brainer Edwards is dead in the water.

I doubt Gore will get the nod either

[defendandprotect]

99. Elizabeth is always there, even with cancer . . . she's smarter than John ...

She'd agree -- I think -- this has to be replied to ---

[Bozita]

103. She was on with Colbert last week. She looked GOOD!

Real good.

Both the GOP and DLC do not want John Edwards to be within a heartbeat of the Presidency.

[defendandprotect]

104. Right . . . remember the THREAT he had from the Chamber of Commerce . . .???

....if he didn't stop his POPULIST messages . . . !!!

[JanMichael]

98. let's see. People in the US are losing their homes, and are hungry.

And John Edwards might have a love child.

We might attack Iran.

And John Edwards might have a love child.

We might be facing an economic depression that makes 1929 look easy.

But, John Edwards might have a love child.

Lemme think about this "news story" for a moment.

Opps! Moment over.

And I could give a flying rat's ass.

[defendandprotect]

105. right . . . and we're looking for a political basis we can believe in . . .

in order to correct those wrongs --- trust and politicians . . .

the fact that affairs may be going the same way that "divorce" scandals

went in the not so distant past ---

This is basically the Edwards business -- but if the GOP can make hay of

it in this political season they will ---

[JanMichael]

111. I don't know if you have caught the news lately--

but, Mr. Edwards isn't running for office--with or without "legit" kids.

[Psephos]

119. I don't know if you caught the news lately

but Edwards has been actively vying for either V.P. or Attorney General in Obama's administration.

I also don't if you caught the news that he was running all last year and the year before that for president, coincident with the alleged affair. If it turns out true - and remember, there's a baby with DNA that could settle this tomorrow afternoon - then he was engaging in politically reckless behavior that could easily have cost the party the election had he been the nominee.

If that isn't politically newsworthy then nothing is.

[clear eye]

108. It Is Exceedingly Unlikely That Another Man Would Claim Paternity if

he were not the real father. I know you're trying to restore a sane perspective on sex allegations, but the point in this situation is that there is hard evidence out of the mouth of the real father that this is just as Edwards claims--total trash. Asked and answered.

It takes a perverse suspension of disbelief to give this story any credibility. Case in point--the poster who said she believed the Enquirer because she herself predicted that a good-looking man like Edwards would have affairs while on the road. Now that's convincing evidence.

[marshall]

123. Remember the Anna Nicole case?

Sometimes men who are not the fathers DO claim to be the fathers of unborn children--for a myriad of reasons.

[LisaL]

109. I have no clue whether there is any truth to this story.

But such a behaviour would not be that uncommon with a man who has a sick wife.

[w4rma]

112. "an Edwards campaign worker claimed to be the father of the woman's then-unborn child"

Debunked. That was easy. Why is any time being wasted on this?

[clear eye]

113. Thank you. n/t

[robcon]

114. When was it debunked?

w4rma wrote: "an Edwards campaign worker claimed to be the father of the woman's then-unborn child" was debunked????

I don't know the status of the claim that Andrew Young (Edwards campaign worker) is the father of the baby.

What's been debunked????? Was Edwards at the Beverly Hilton that night? Was he in Rielle Hunter's room that night? Did he lock himself in the hotel bathroom when approached by reporters?

I don't know. But I do know that NOTHING had been debunked. And Edwards had the opportunity to take the story head-on, and he didn't.

[Wabbajack_]

127. A man has needs

everyone should stop being so judgmental.

[The Croquist]

131. His wife has needs too

Maybe he should re-read his marriage vows.

[mnhtnbb]

139. That is narcissistic bullshit. Try masturbation.

[Psephos]

133. Thank you DeepModem Mom for putting up with a lot of "shoot the messenger" bile here

As events have now proven, your instincts for political news were right all along.

An uncomfortable number of people here want to restrict the flow of information, and only read storylines that fit with the approved view. That's exactly what the far-right wingnuts do, too, and for the same reason.

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
- Bertrand Russell

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. A lot of people like to put their fingers in their ears to avoid eharing things which clash with

their beliefs. It is the same with liberals and conservatives.

[DeepModem Mom]

145. Thank you, Psephos.

As I explained earlier upthread, I didn't post anything about this story until it appeared outside of the Enquirer and Fox. As far as I know, it didn't get beyond those outlets and the News & Observer -- which had a local story on its hands -- until yesterday. Now, the MSM is coming in for a lot of criticism for not pursuing the story. It turns out they were pursuing it but were waiting until they had found enough evidence on their own to go with it.

It was an interesting study in journalistic ethics -- and, of course, a terribly sad and unfortunate story all around.

[snooper2]

134. lot of crow...

being munched on 'round here







GOBAMA!

[RamboLiberal]

135. Yep - I think some DU'ers owe others DU'ers an apology

Saw a lot of posters really get jumped for even speculating if there was any possibility it was true. And woe to anyone who had the temerity to start a thread on the subject.

[Montypython]

138. We don't need this now.

This makes Faux News look good and the other media outlets look bad. This election may not be the walk over I had hoped.

[DeepModem Mom]

146. Hi, Montypython -- welcome to DU!

I think it makes Fox look good because the story turned out to be true. The other news outlets look good from a different perspective, IMO, because they were pursuing the story but waiting until they had proof of their own, not from the Enquirer. The story seems to be setting off a journalistic debate now about whether the nature of legitimate news sources has changed. Should tabloids, and also the blogosphere, be given more credibility than they have been given in the past?

Aside from that, you're right -- this story is not helpful to Democrats, and is, of course, another personal tragedy for the Edwards family.

[TaffyMoon]

144. Now real news will disappear into the "scandal" black hole...