The National Enquirer is NOT reliable in Presidential politics.

[PresidentObama]

I made a thread asking what role Edwards should play in the Obama Administration, and some cited an National Enquirer article that claims Edwards went to an hotel to see his mistress (you know the former employee of Edwards that the NE claims is mothering Edwards secret "love child" during the Primary) and supposed baby. It was linked through Drudge. So not only did DUers believe some bullshit from the historically unreliable National Enquirer, but they got the original story linked from Drudge? DRUDGE?!? Are you kidding me? What are DUers doing on Drudge, first off? Second off, we should sink Edwards chances for VP or another position in the Obama Administration because of some unreliable article written by a sketchy source?

The article was 'detailed' but was empty speculation. Usually tabloids that are providing bombshell articles like to show photo evidence. I was on their website reading the article, and NO photo evidence. No pictures of Edwards entering or leaving the hotel to see her. Absolutely nothing. And the article claims several guests of the hotel saw the events unfold, and yet they're left out as sources and aren't quoted in the story.

Didn't I see an National Enquirer a few months ago that said Obama is supposedly an Iranian plant?

And we have Democrats using this 'source' on DU?

Un-freaking-believeable!

[alteredstate]

1. Why on earth would you start a new thread about it?

eom

[PresidentObama]

3. I don't think you choose what I can and can't make a thread on.

So comment or be quiet.

[Egnever]

8. pretty silly to give it more air to breathe though no

Considering you think its tripe to begin with?

[PresidentObama]

9. I think we need to have a discussion/debate about how reliable NE is.

I could give two shits if people know about the Edwards story, and I'll let everyone form there own opinion.

But I wish to question the publications credibility.

[gateley]

2. This died a well-deserved death when it first started making the rounds.

I didn't think anyone here gave it any credence.

Was it a "new" DUer?

[PresidentObama]

4. Apparently some are not only believing it, but pushing it.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Well, ....

[PresidentObama]

6. So they're always right and the gospel? There track record says otherwise.

[cliffordu]

7. I'll comment:

Waste of space to use the National Enquirer as any kind of reference, unless you are hunting for Elvis's alien baby.

Are you?

[PresidentObama]

10. Well said! Thank you!!

[WinkyDink]

11. So, the NE website is okay, then, for DU'ers to read?

[PresidentObama]

16. I wanted to read the story because people like YOU pushed the story as true.

And just like I thought, it was empty speculation without a bit of evidence to prove it's true.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Why does such a thing even need to be said?

[PresidentObama]

17. Because some people believe the NE's article about Edwards

[beachmom]

13. Agreed. That story was utter crap.

Hi Kerry2008!

:hi:

[PresidentObama]

18. Hey, darling. And agreed, the story was baseless and low.

:) Good to see ya, and thanks for commenting.

[cali]

14. Agreed that the NE is not a credible source

and even if they provide photos of JE entering or leaving the hotel, that doesn't prove anything. Unless and until the JE story is confirmed by reputable sources, this should be considered as bullshit.

[PresidentObama]

15. Exactly. This is vile and baseless bullshit.

[democrat2thecore]

19. My only worry

I'll be honest....NE broke a few stories in the OJ case and a few other things. This time, they are using the names of the reporters who confronted him and you can bet the bank they had cameras and video in tow. I don't think even the NE would go out on a limb like that - with names of the reporters who questioned him, witnesses, etc. They would be looking at a MAJOR lawsuit. My worry is they have the goods on John Edwards. And you know who loses? Elizabeth Edwards and the family. What a HORRIBLE time for a newspaper, tabloid or not, to splash this story. It could all be bogus - but there are certain aspects of this that point to smoke & fire. I hate it.

[PresidentObama]

21. They provided no photos, let alone video.

And had no proof other than the word of the "reporter"

They claimed hotel guests saw what happened, and yet not one was quoted.

It was a total baseless speculation piece.

[democrat2thecore]

23. It is called a "teaser" for a more in-depth story to come

Trust me - I hope YOU ARE RIGHT.

[PresidentObama]

24. I doubt that. You don't post a bombshell WITHOUT proof. They provided NOTHING.

Not in there original piece during the primary, now.

And oh, I am right.

[karynnj]

32. Except IF the reporters had cameras - there would be pictures

Even if JRE covered his race or ran as fast as he could - there would be pictures. As to names, do you know if they are real? (I did not go to read it - the story was not credible before and still isn't. The timing alone makes it unlikely - I am not impressed by JRE as a politician or someone to be on the ticket, but there is nothing in his history to suggest that there were any problems in his marriage - much the opposite.

As to smoke and fire - it is completely possible with some media dedicated to lies and smears. That attitude is why bearing false witness is so strongly prohibited in most religions. The problem is that once there are these lies, there will always be some with completely unjustified doubts - that never should have occured.

[democrat2thecore]

20. Combined with THIS - it should give cause to pause...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/scrubbed-edwards-filmmak_n_67868.html
This was from October of '07. Same lady.

[PresidentObama]

22. So?

This proves....?

[democrat2thecore]

25. Sometimes 2+2=4 ..... I hope you're right, but

I bet 10-1 the National Enquirer has video of the confrontation. They have gone wayyy out on a limb. The HuffPo piece doesn't take a lot of thought to connect the two.

The thing that gets me is that the NE would even bring attention to this, if it's true, with Elizabeth's cancer, two small children. It's just wrong. Period.

[PresidentObama]

26. They didn't provide proof in either of the two stories they've had on this.

If they had video, don't you think they would have provided it?

Or at least posted a picture? Because so far in two articles, they haven't provided ANY evidence.

And people buy into this crap WAYYYY too easily.

[democrat2thecore]

27. Frankly....

It could go like this:

a) Tease the story with an "exclusive"

b) Allow for the "But look who it's coming from - it's BS"

C) Publish exclusive pictures in your next print edition with watermarked video released on the website.

I am with you. I am giving you why it's given me cause to pause. Especially after the questionable payments to this same lady.

And, frankly, I mean this with all due respect (I hate flame wars), you're not posting like you're not worried.

[PresidentObama]

28. This isn't the FIRST story they've done on this.

If you wanted to tease a story and then drop a photo, shouldn't you do that after the first story? Not the second?

They didn't say they had a photo or video. Nor did they provide ANY evidence.

And no, I'm not worried. I don't like people like you pushing smears that have no base.

So do you think Obama is an Iranian plant, too? The NE sure does.

[democrat2thecore]

30. Link?

So do you think Obama is an Iranian plant, too? The NE sure does.

Do you have a link for that?

[karynnj]

33. I might have thought that until the media gave the SBVT

tons of free coverage on stories 180 degrees different than teh official Navy record (which the media called Kerry's version). Remember the SBVT did not provide even one piece of proof backing their altered stories.

[depakid]

29. Hey, the corporate media's race to the bottom leaves the tabloids searching for material

Many if not most Americans long ago lost the ability to distinguish credible sources from rumor and propaganda- so none of this should surprise anyone.

[JoshDem]

31. Edwards

So much for Edwards for VP--we are lucky Obama is the nominee.

[David Zephyr]

34. John Edwards is a narcissistic loose cannon and no team player. He should have no role with Obama.

One can like John Edwards, but he is not cabinet material. He should not be Attorney General. That job belongs to Henry Waxman.

John Edwards caused nothing but grief to the Kerry campaign in 2008.

John Edwards co-sponsored the Iraqi War Resolution with Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

I've taken a lot of crap here since 2004 because I've always felt that John was a bit of a phony and have posted consistently so.

He is a train wreck waiting to happen and Obama should steer clear of this very narcissistic man.