Let me explain something pretty basic:

[cali]

First off the Edwards rumor on Drudge disgusts the hell out of me. Whether you support JE or not, it's time to circle the wagons. I give 0 credence to any piece of crap Inquirer rumor.

But that's not the point. This is. It's already started. Posters are insisting that this is Clinton's doing. That makes no sense at all. The worst thing that could happen to her campaign in Iowa right now, is for JE to bleed support. Why? They know damned well where most of that support would go: To Obama. Clinton would much, much prefer JE to win over Obama.

This is politics 101. Now if this story was about Obama.....

[DURHAM D]

1. In that case, shouldn't we assume that it is an Obama planted story?

[maximusveritas]

2. Nah, we should assume it's a non-story in the Enquirer

that some right-winger is pushing in order to build support for Edwards.

No one could seriously think this would hurt Edwards.

[Joe the Revelator]

3. Well there is a connection between Clinton and the new owner of the Enquirer....

its worth looking into. She's proved that she knows no low when it comes to attacking her opponents. And she also knows that a loss is a loss for her, and she completely loses the power given to her by "inevilibility".

[DURHAM D]

5. You are so full of it..... n/t

[cali]

6. Let me explain another very simple thing:

He was President for 8 years. She's been a Senator for seven. They have connections with thousand and thousands of people. That in itself is hardly persuasive of anything, and as I explained in my OP, damage to Edwards is damage to her.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[cali]

8. things can take a while to die on the vine

and I don't believe for a moment that it's true.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Divide and conquer

The real purpose of this is to divide and conquer.

Nothing has happened yet. It's all speculation. But, it does get people fighting.

Divide and conquer is all it is.

Don't be fooled.

[gateley]

9. There was a previous story about Edwards and a woman which died a quick,

quiet death. I'm guessing this will do the same, so regardless of who's behind it, they probably won't achieve their goal.

[Capn Sunshine]

10. Agree. It's disgusting

has the MO of a RW hit piece true or not. Don't forget Edwards' campaign is a HUGE threat to status quo. This would be the first salvo of a long running war. Remember , Trail Lawyers. They hate 'em.

[FrenchieCat]

11. So who wants to help Edwards in Iowa?

I don't think either Hillary or Obama campaigns really want that.

I think this smear is to help John Edwards, because anything eminating from the Drudge site does just that....so again, who wants to help Edwards?

[cali]

12. I don't think it helps him. People don't often recall the source of a rumor

[FrenchieCat]

16. Iowans Democratic caucus goers are not just "people"....

They are probably some of the best informed voters in the country. I don't think that a Drudge or the Enquirer "rumor" will compel them to change their vote.

In fact, they will believe that a RW source attempting to damage John Edwards is an enemy of theirs.

So I stand by my comment; it helps John Edwards...

(unless the rumor was true....and don't believe that this is the case...and I don't even "like" John Edwards--and even I would defend him on this one--further proving my point that this "helps" John Edwards)

[Adelante]

20. Well, it is the National Enquirer

Iowans stand at supermarket checkouts just like anybody anywhere. It would be hard to miss. And they have human failings. I think Edwards and the woman will have to come out with a strong denial. He and she have already denied the affair (provided this is the same woman) and they will have to deny the pregnancy has anything to do with him. If he does that, Iowans will trust him. But he's gotta do it soon before it goes any wider. Maybe he should file an immediate lawsuit against the Enquirer to show he's serious.

[madeline_con]

13. the Edwards rumor on Drudge

I'm not much of a Drudge fan. Help me out here, please.

[Kucinich4America]

14. The Des moines Litterbox Liner's non-endorsement of Edwards for being "too anti-corporate"

made him a target of the corporatists.

Who is the corporatists' candidate?

[sniffa]

15. interesting. i hadn't even thought of the Clinton connection yet

it all makes perfect sense now. :think:

[Renew Deal]

17. I'd bet on BS too.

I doubt it's real. I don't put it put it past the Hillary people to do this, but I seriously doubt it.

[K Gardner]

18. Also, if people would just QUIT responding to articles linking to Drudge or to posts referencing

sleeze, those would drop off the radar VERY quickly

[cali]

21. alas, that's not going to happen.

And I think WesDem is right: Edwards needs to sue those bastards.

[K Gardner]

22. Hey.. one of the best lawyers in America.. I say go for it !

[asdjrocky]

19. An old story that does not worry me-

I think they are scared. Makes em easier to beat.

[EV_Ares]

24. Right, why would a Drudge story have any significance, most know

him for what he is.

[EV_Ares]

23. So, if it is an Edwards rumor on Drudge, why would that be of any

significance. A typical enquirer type story that is not that credible to most, only those that like the Drdge Enquirer.

It will simply die a slow death.

Bringing it up here & us discussing it is sort of keeping it alive but it will die overall.

[cali]

25. kick.

[EV_Ares]

26. LOL, hard to kick your own thread. eom.

[sandnsea]

27. Circling the wagons helps Edwards

just sayin.

Personally I think it's a sell newspapers story. They either run with it now, or never.