Kaus touted Enquirer story about Edwards "love child," didn't note Young's claim in story* that he is the father
SUMMARY: Slate.com's Mickey Kaus touted a National Enquirer article, the headline of which was posted on the Drudge Report website, stating that former John Edwards campaign worker Rielle Hunter is six months pregnant with Edwards' baby. But neither Drudge nor Kaus have noted that the story contained a statement from the lawyer for Edwards confidante Andrew Young stating that "Young is the father of Ms. Hunter's unborn child." Don Imus on his radio show said about the story: "[W]hat does that say about your judgment, to be -- be president of the United States if you're going around impregnating people?"
In a December 18 entry (updated December 19) on his Slate.com blog, Mickey Kaus touted a December 19 National Enquirer article -- the headline of which was posted on Internet gossip Matt Drudge's website -- that reports that former John Edwards campaign worker Rielle Hunter is six months pregnant and that, according to the Enquirer, "she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby." In an update, Kaus linked to the latest version of the Enquirer story, noting that "[t]he full Enquirer story is now up." Drudge also added a link to the same story. But neither Drudge nor Kaus has noted that the Enquirer story to which they link states, "[Edwards confidante Andrew] Young -- a 41-year-old married man with young children -- now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby!" The article also states, " 'Andrew Young is the father of Ms. Hunter's unborn child,' declared his Washington, D.C.-based attorney."
Further, while Kaus included a link to Hunter's denial of an earlier Enquirer story that she had an affair with Edwards, he has not noted that the current Enquirer story states "[I]n a statement issued to The ENQUIRER through her attorney Rielle said: 'The fact that I am expecting a child is my personal and private business. This has no relationship to nor does it involve John Edwards in any way. Andrew Young is the father of my unborn child.' "
Nationally syndicated radio host Don Imus joined the fray, discussing the story on his December 19 show; news anchor Charles McCord noted Hunter's denial in the Enquirer article. Guest and CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer stated during the segment: "[I]t appears to me that there's absolutely nothing to it. I'm told that another, a man says that the child is his. I'm told that the woman who seems to be pregnant says it's not his." While Imus said to Schieffer that the story was "probably not true," in a discussion earlier in the show, after executive producer Bernard McGuirk said in reference to Edwards, "How about wearing a bag there, shyster ... for protection," Imus responded, "[T]hat's a good point, Bernard. How does that -- what does that say about your judgment, to be -- be president of the United States if you're going around impregnating people?"
From Kaus' December 19 blog post:
What to expect when you're expecting: Drudge teases the National Enquirer ... Update: The Enquirer posts the gist ...Update: The full Enquirer story is now up. ... One initial point: There's no reason to conclude this story was planted by one campaign or another. I'm familiar with how the initial Rielle Hunter/Edwards rumors, true or not, got to at least one news outlet--and no campaigns, Dem or GOP, were involved. It was a story going around--I'd been hearing it for months. Not all rumors are plants. And some are true. Even in the Enquirer. .. P.S.: Here's an earlier analysis of the potential effect of this scandal on Edwards--and Hillary. It doesn't seem all that complicated. Until recently, Edwards not very subtly put his wife's illness. and his loyalty to her, near the center of his campaign. In the process, he said:
In so many ways, you're the guardians of what kind of human being, we're going to have as president. ... And you get to judge us.
and, on 60 Minutes:
[E]very single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make.
Backfill: Here's Jerome Armstrong's initial Rielle Hunter denial from back inOctober ("completely unfounded and ridiculous") ...
Update: Many readers report the story has disappeared from the Enquirer's web site. I don't know why, but you can't be too paranoid when Ron Burkle might be involved. (If it hurt Edwards, the story would potentially devastate Burkle's candidate Hillary, who needs Edwards to beat or dilute Obama in Iowa. That's why it's crazy to suggest that Hillary's camp planted it.)
Just in case, I've saved my cached copy. You can do it too!. ...
12/19 Update: The Enquirer has now posted a more complete version. Editor in Chief David Perel emails Wonkette: "Due to a website malfunction a summary of the story went live last night for a brief time. It was then taken down because it was scheduled to be released this morning." ...
From the December 19 National Enquirer article:
Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught up in a love child scandal, a blockbuster ENQUIRER investigation has discovered.
The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Rielle Hunter, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier this year, is more than six months pregnant - and she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!
The ENQUIRER's political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle, who formerly worked on his campaign and told another close pal that she was romantically involved with the married ex-senator.
The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is expecting, but that she's gone into hiding with the help of a former aide to Edwards. The visibly pregnant blonde has relocated from the New York area to Chapel Hill, N.C., where she is living in an upscale gated community near political operative Andrew Young, who's been extremely close to Edwards for years and was a key official in his presidential campaign.
And in a bizarre twist, Young - a 41-year-old married man with young children - now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby! But others are skeptical, wondering if Young's paternity claim is a cover-up to protect Edwards.
Meanwhile, Edwards' cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth has joined him on the campaign trail.
In a statement issued to The ENQUIRER through her attorney, Rielle said: "The fact that I am expecting a child is my personal and private business. This has no relationship to nor does it involve John Edwards in any way. Andrew Young is the father of my unborn child."
But a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcée says Rielle has told a far different story privately: "Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant, she said he was the father."
Rielle loves Edwards and will do anything to protect him, the source says.
From the December 19 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: Hey, did you see the National Enquirer thing about Edwards and the love child deal?
CHARLES McCORD (news anchor): Yes, I did.
IMUS: What's up with that?
McCORD: I do not know.
IMUS: Do you know anything about that, Bernard?
McGUIRK: Well, I do know that Drudge first reported the aforementioned Bill Clinton's tryst with Lewinsky.
IMUS: Right.
McGUIRK: Remember that? And it turned into a national scandal, so it has some credibility.
IMUS: Right.
McCORD: But it's just a single thing on the Drudge Report --
McGUIRK: Other than that --
McCORD: - that says, little headline says "developing." No detail.
McGUIRK: Right. Very ominous.
IMUS: Well, my guy Matthew Hillsick claims that -- I haven't talked to him about this particular issue, but the Enquirer's not -- I mean, they're often right.
McCORD: They're not to be dismissed, actually.
IMUS: Well that's another way to put it.
[crosstalk]
McCORD: But it --
IMUS: What were you saying when I interrupted you rudely.
McCORD: John Edwards love child scandal, is the thing on Drudge, looking at it, "Woman linked to candidate. Pregnant and in hiding. Developing." As Bernie said, ominously.
McGUIRK: Yeah.
MCCORD: That's all we know.
McGUIRK: [unintelligible] for us.
IMUS: I thought you might know more, Bernard. But you don't know, right?
McGUIRK: No.
IMUS: OK.
McGUIRK: I know what I said. I know it has legs.
IMUS: All right.
McCORD: Exclusive --
[...]
McCORD: A little bit more about that Enquirer story regarding John Edwards and --
IMUS: A love child.
McCORD: -- a love child and everything. Here's the story about it. John Edwards again may be forced to answer questions about one Rielle Hunter. Earlier this year -- and then find out it's back in October, actually, the National Enquirer had named this woman -- claimed that the Democratic presidential candidate had had an affair with her. This is an October 10th story that it -- they're referring to. The magazine promised a follow-up then with email proof of the alleged infidelity that never materialized. Edwards and Hunter both denied the affair. For weeks, the story went dormant --
IMUS: They know each other --
McCORD: And Edwards told the New York Daily News, here's his quote: "The story disappeared because it's made up," end quote. According to the report from Rush and Molloy, the magazine stood by, though, that original October story, claiming that it was 100 percent accurate.
Imus: Rush and Malloy are the two people who write a gossip column for the New York Daily News here in New York and happen to be also married and very nice people, by the way, too.
McCORD: Story goes on, this time it all may prove to be more than just an allegation of an affair. The Enquirer supposedly will report that they have now confirmed that not only is this woman -- Rielle -- is pregnant, but she was living in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in a gated community just a few streets away from Andrew Young, who has been a key official in Edwards' campaign. According to a portion of the story that was posted online, she claims that John Edwards is not the baby's father. Others reportedly are skeptical about that, according to the Enquirer.
IMUS: Skeptical that he's not the father?
McCORD: That, in other words, the implication is that skeptics think that yes, he is the father.
IMUS: Right.
McCORD: That's it. Whole thing sounds --
TONY POWELL (co-host): We'll just have to wait for the footage, I guess.
IMUS: Yeah, that doesn't sound --
KARITH FOSTER (co-host): I just hope for his wife's sake that that's not true.
McCORD: Absolutely.
IMUS: Well, we always --
McGUIRK: Apparently there are two Americas for John Edwards --
IMUS: Well, that --
McGUIRK: How about wearing a bag there, shyster --
IMUS: [laughter] That will be fine. I don't think -- [laughter] It's ten minutes after the hour --
McGUIRK: -- for protection.
IMUS: -- here on the Imus in the Morning program. How -- what -- here's the thing you have to -- that's a good point, Bernard. How does that -- what does that say about your judgment, to be --
McGUIRK: -- not a lot.
IMUS: -to be president of the United States if you're going around impregnating people? I mean --
POWELL: Well, the president, the current president has screwed a lot of people in the past eight years, so I don't see why that would be an issue.
IMUS: Charles continues here at 11 minutes after the hour.
[...]
IMUS: What do we know about -- starting with pressing issues that are facing the nation -- John Edwards' love child?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know I saw that this morning. I believe that -- I believe that's a story that we will be avoiding, because it appears to me that there's absolutely nothing to it. I'm told that another -- a man says that the child is his. I'm told that the woman who seems to be pregnant says it's not his. So I guess -- I guess we're going to pass on that. Unless you come up with some new information on this, Don.
IMUS: Well, you know, Karith said, and I feel the same way, I hope it -- I'm glad it's probably not true because probably everybody in the country feels like I do about Elizabeth Edwards, and the truth is John Edwards seems to me -- I mean, I always, you know, check to see if I still have my watch whenever I see him on TV, but he's still a nice guy, and I just -- you know, you never want a story with that family like that to be true, so I hope you're right. You probably are right.
SCHIEFFER: Well, I think so, and I think there's actually nothing to this. You know, every campaign -- remember when we went through the Clinton campaign, and there was the little love child, and we went through John McCain, and that -- that's libel, that child that his wife, with the cleft palate that they just couldn't leave behind on a trip to Bangladesh, and somehow or another that became a love child. This seems to be just sort of a staple of modern campaigns, that you got through at least one love child which turns out not to be a love child. And I think we can all do better than this one. I'm like you, I not only hope it's not true, I can't imagine that it's true.
IMUS: Yeah, me either.
*CLARIFICATION: Before this item was posted, Kaus posted a new Kausfile entry that noted that the MyDD website "has the claim of paternity [to Hunter's baby] from the lawyer for former Edwards' aide Andrew Young," with a link to the MyDD post. However, Kaus had yet to acknowledge that the Enquirer article itself contains a statement by Young's attorney that Young is the father.
I don't care if John Edwards has "love children" all over the country, as long as he pays for them himself, and doesn't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.
:)
That's a pretty lame joke and I wholeheartedly admit that I don't get conservative humor.
Usually ends up being mean spirited and bigoted more times than not.
Aw come on Spin, Tommy's *joke* was neither mean-spirited or bigoted.
It was funny.
And it wasn't Conservative humor...it was just Humor.
Jeter, Actually in reading my post again I should know better than to joke about welfare or taxes to a liberal - that's the rub........and we thought it was Edwards - HAHA!!
Will I have to remind you of your fabulous sense of humor next time somebody cracks wise about evangelicals or right wing racists?
Darn those nerves and how easily touched they are sometimes......
Touched? I'll have to ask you to keep your hands to yourself. I like ya big fella, just no that way.
Oops, sorry (hands back along my side)
I agree. Lame joke, but not mean-spirited or bigoted.
They've been trying to get Edwards on a sex scandal for years now...way before he was even a senator. I think none of it sticks because none of it's true. I've heard so many rumors about him, being from NC, that I've gotten to the point where I don't care what he's done, ever.
Apathetic by fatigue, I suppose.
Here's a hard and fast rule -- if you have to tell someone after the fact that what you said previously was a joke, then it wasn't.
Tommy is like every other Republican -- he makes a baseless charge, he gets called on it, and he backs off, claiming he was only kidding.
He's not joking and he's not funny.
I absolutely was not kidding, and I absolutely do not want to pay for John Edwards', or anyone else's for that matter, "love child".
He's not joking. He's trying to keep discussion about possible "love child"(ren) alive pertaining to democratic candidates.
Drudge "broke" the Clinton black love child story, too, in about 1993 or so.
The attempt here is to keep this "story" going until you have to get the candidate to DENY such a far-fetched and obviously manufactured rumor. And as we can see, the GOP bought into this plan wholesale...and they tried it in 1993 with candidate Clinton.
The media enjoin them in this game, and thats why we need MMFA to expose the movement.
It didn't stop with Clinton - they did it to McCain, too. The only reason they didn't try with Gore is because 98% of the American populace doesn't want to think Al makin' whoopee.
Once again, Tommy, you've missed the point - even with your little :) stuck in there.
Why can't your side tell the truth? Why do they have to make up lies to smear candidates on the left?
Oh, I know why - BECAUSE REBPUBS HAVE NOTHING ON THE RIGHT! If Republicans had an actual platform to run on, other than Judi's "9/11, 9/11, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.." mantra, they might have a snowball's chance in Hades of putting another fake christian, bible-thumpin assclown in the White House.
But since they've got NOTHING, they have to smear the other candidates. Mature, thoughtful people left that nonsense behind in the fifth grade.
The truth wouldn't matter to these jerks, anyway. Edwards and Hunter BOTH say that the child is NOT Edwards' child - but the puke on the right-wing radio talk-shows don't care about the truth. They just care about lies and distortions.
Are you so sure that my side, which isn't my side at all, is responsible for this little Edwards' story?
It could very easily by your side that is responsible.
After all, what would the rightwing have to gain whatsoever in putting out a story about John Edwards? He is barely a threat to Clinton or Obama, much less any Republican.
Take a look in your own house first.
...and like clockwork, Tommy gives us his cowardly, gutless "hey, its not my side" plea. What a joke.
Hey Tommy- here's a quarter. Buy some principles. Then defend them. Stop wetting your pants and hiding behind trees every time someone calls you on your comments.
I don't hate conservatives. But spineless cowards...ugh.
...and like clockwork, Tommy gives us his cowardly, gutless "hey, its not my side" plea. What a joke.
Hey jamele wanna tell us again which side tried to smear Obama by bringing up his drug use?
Of course you can't admit it can you? Sorry fella you are the spineless coward.
As Solon is so fond of saying...Why don't you buy a clue?
Uh.. Jeter, I would like to remind you that Obama's drug use was beaten into the ground by the right wing spin machine before the Clinton rep ever tried to ressurrect that corpse.
And I'd like to remind you that it died as a topic. NOBODY was talking about it...till one of Hillary's soldiers brought it back up.
Please stop trying to place blame on the Republicans when one of your own f#cks up.
Does she have cogs or soldiers? I thought it was the Clinton machine, not the Clinton army? Maybe it's an army of machines? Cons better run to the Hills in that case ;)
"Mind telling us which side..."
You asked which side. ONE person on the left brought up Obama's drug use, after a legion on the right beat it down. You asked which side, and I'm reminding you that the right flogged that skeleton long before Clinton's rep brought it up.
That's really big of you. What a stupid, nasty, slimy piece of excrement you are, Tommy. Just a quick question- have you ever done or said anything worthwhile in your life?
And you think its funny- priceless. Typical Conservative "humor."
Oh and let me save you some time- "Lighten Up," "Its only a joke," etc. etc. Please, just go away. NOBODY will miss you and your "humor."
Ya'll stop hating on Tommy...most of his arguments are concise and thoughtful, even if I don't agree with him on a lot of issues. He has every right to post on here, as do you.
For the record, JJAMELE is an equal oppurtunity berater. He takes lefties to task for bs too. I speak from experience.
I agree, he is an equal opportunity hater. But Tommy's "joke" was taken way out of context and then hated on. I'm all for the truth, but not at the expense of free speech.
Oh yes, I guess I missed the "context" of Tommy's "joke." And what was the "context" again?
Here's a thought- maybe instead of bloviating and tossing more mud, Tommy might be asked to stand by the words he choses to post. Too much to ask? Yeah, I thought so.
Much easier to smear, claim you aren't smearing, then smear again, right, Tommy? (Oh and keep your playground putdowns to yourself, ok? Try to respond like an adult for once.)
How's this for an adult response? Please, I beg you, keep posting, with the same elementary embarassments that pepper every one of your responses, at least to me.
It's my "grown-up Christmas wish"
I'm no apologist for Tommy, but his "joke" was indeed that. A joke. It wasn't even making fun of Edwards, he just said as long as he doesn't have to pay for it...I found it slightly snarky and in good humor, like most of the first posts on any number of threads.I can't believe this is such a big deal. Does anyone else agree that his joke doesn't show Edwards in a bad light, or anyone for that matter?
Thanks DB, I cannot believe it has to even be explained. It was not a dig at Edwards at all. It is well known I am no fan of his, but this whole "love child" story is ridiculous.......he needn't even bother to dignify it at all, it's trash from the Enquirer for crying out loud. And if it's true, well so be it - let the primary voters sort it out, I could care less either way. And the "taxpayers" part was just a veiled dig at the welfare state, it wasn't intended to insult anyone.
I didn't think Tommy's joke was a dig at Edwards, I actually thought it was a joke on conservatives. You know, the morality being overridden by the cheapskatiness. ;0)
no problem. Sometimes people are just a little too touchy on here.
I didn't say hater. I just think JJ has no patience for bs. I don't blame him.
Sorry, I couldn't see the post when I was commenting, so I kinda ad-libbed.I'm gonna call for this again...MMfA, update your posting capabilities!
Well then Roundhouse you got it wrong. This guy jamele is a HATER.
Who's hatin' now, big guy?
So now the truth somehow equals hate?
Sorry the the guy spews hate around here like the rest of us breath.
But whatever....
I'd never expect you to side with me or any Con against a Lib.
Carry on.
You're up here scrawling the F word on the screen, tryin to tell me you ain't hatin'? Come on Jeter, check yourself. Calm yourself a little because you seem to have made the false assumption that I'm siding with one person over the other, or something.
This isn't with us or against us land. I don't care if they both stop posting.
There will be a day when I stop posting here. No big loss
I'm just trying to help you see that your argument against hatin' is subterfuged by your own anger. That's all I'm sayin'.
Thanks DB, appreciate it.
Thank you JJ, considering the very fine line between love and hate, I become more convinced everytime you unleash one of your filth-laden tirades against me, that you have a secret lustful crush on me. Hmmmm?, Ah - No.
But Happy Holidays.......
jjamele, tommy knows i'm no fan of his, and i rip him all the time for what i see as his doubledealing. but i really don't like the term calling him "excretment". i save that for guys like karl rove.
jamele maybe you should go away, trust me you won't be missed.
Tommy would be.
Why don't you take your angry young man shtick to some other site. It's gotten boring having to read it here.
If there is a slimy piece of excrement stinking up this forum, it's you, not Tommy.
i don't know which i would miss more from tommy: "why is this here" or, "it may be misinformation but by paying attention to it you are helping to spread the story further so it's best to ignore it".
Well now that damn song by Diana Ross is stuck in my head ;-)
Hey no one knows if this is true or not, though I'd guess not. But if the media is going to discuss it, they should include the entire he said she said they said so called facts.
Just because this story originates from the National Enquirer doesn't mean it should automatically be dismissed. Wasn't it them or The Star that broke the Gennifer Flowers-Bill Clinton tryst? That turned out to be true.
Just sayin....
Sean Hannity is already hyperventilating on this one. I heard him at lunchtime, and in his opinion, if Obama's kindergarten writings and (some GOP pet Clinton issue -sorry, can't remember which one, Hannity sounds like white noise after a while) are worth investigating, then this Edwards love-child surely is.
Sean's next sentence- I kid you not- was "And this is what you get with the Clintons-sleaze and the politics of personal destruction!"
WTF? Nice segue, Hannity.
If there is a Hell, I imagine Hannity will have a functioning brain implanted in his big skull, be put in a small room, and endless loops of his show will be played.
Sorry, this wasn't about Sean, was it?
Well, that's how the playbook mapped it out from 1998 to 2000:
1. Smear the Clintons and other Democrats
2. Repeatedly give coverage to every right wing wackjob busily smearing the Clintons.
3. Bemoan the "lack of civility in Washington DC"
4. Present as the answer to this "lack of civility" the election of Republicans.
5. Once Republicans have been elected, point out how much more "civil" the discourse is now that the Democrats are out of power.
Was it The Star or National Enquirer? Just because one may have gotten something right once doesn't mean the other has ever been right about anything.
"That's a pretty lame joke and I wholeheartedly admit that I don't get conservative humor.
Usually ends up being mean spirited and bigoted more times than not. "
I guess no one noticed I put a full return between sentences. I wasn't saying his joke was mean spirited etc - I was making a generalization that Conservative humor is mean spirited and bigoted most of the time.
And I did say that I don't get/understand conservative humor. I bet if you make jokes at the expense of repubs/cons on the Free Republic or other conservative sites you'll hear such fine whining from the posters there as well so any cracks about Liberals not being able to take a joke don't mean anything. I would imagine Republicans would get all upset and violent, seeing how they love war and all...
Spin,
I don't get upset at any of it, frankly - from either side. Some are funny, some are not - it has nothing to do with ideology for me.
Also, politicians and media personalities are all big boys and girls - they enter the public arena and know the price of it, I don't feel sorry for any of them. They can take it, if they can't, then they should step out of it and make their living elsewhere.
Also, since I have no love lost for either political party I don't get all personally offended when someone is skewed at all.......all's fair in love, war and politics.
So the RWnuts are now sourcing the National Enquirer for their mudslinging?
That's just what they're doing RobRob and then the MSM is blaming it on the Clintons. That way they can trash two Dem's running for POTUS at the same time. Talk about multi tasking.
This is the most amazing BS that Media Matters has ever noticed. These were quotes from other sources. This did not come out of Imus’ mouth nor Charles McCord or Bernard McGuirk.
MMFA should be ashamed to even report such BS. I hope they are found to be the corrupt organization they truly are. The Hillary Machine does it again. “SATAN”
So it's cool to just repeat nonsense lifted from dubious sources?
I read all over the web that paranoid cons like Mike Huckabee secretly lust for a taliban-like theocracy to replace our democracy.
No harm right? I mean, I read it on the web. Someone with a high national profile should be reporting this on the radio and tv. Right? It doesn't matter anyway. Right?
What are you trying to say? That Imus made this an issue? It was a quoted source from a dis-reputable news source "The Philadelphia Enquirer", in regards to a report from October.
And in doing so posed the question to Bob Schieffer of CBS. A well respected broadcast Newscaster. The Imus team did this to ask a question. Not to disparage anyone. The person you should look at or persons is the "Clintons". Not Imus and Charles McCord.
Your a screaming liberal who believes the filth portrayed by MMFA.
It's The National Enquirer and the Philadelphia Inquirer.
But then you may have been making a wingnut play on words. Who can tell anymore?
It's the National Enquirer. And why so hostile friend?
And you are the moron who will make any appology for rightwing propagandistic BILGE. You share with those pushing this story the morals of a Swamp Rat.
And we couldn't do it without...you BV. Thanks, and although your so far away you probably can't see it or hear it, I'm wavng and shouting hello.
So how'd MMfa put that fake video together? Some seamless tech there hey?
So the quotes above from Imus and Mcgerk didn't come from their mouths? Sounds like you have a pretty good case there, bvd.
I hope you realize that repeating BS is BS, and the reporting of the repetition of that bs is not bs.
No, I guess you don't.
No YOU should be ashamed. Those SOURCES were Drudge he who WISHES he had credibility who got it from the National Enquirer your GO TO source for alien baby abduction stories. That is not a source anyone with the slightest journalistic ethics would take seriously
It is bad enough that they are using Drudge as a source but now they are using the National Enquirer as a source. What does that say about the state of "journalism" in this country.
Well it did not take Imus very long to prove that he hasn't learned anything. "IMUS: '-to be president of the United States if you're going around impregnating people? I mean --'." Wake up, that might have been news in the nineteenth century when Cleveland was running for President. It is a little late for Don Imus to be playing the innocent, easily-shocked virgin.
Although the pregnancy is new news the rumors of an affair are old news. I wouldn't care if a presidential candidate had a hundred lovers, in fact, I fully expect many type A personalities to have an inclination toward variety and adventure male or female. I agree with the idea that if a person has a child and is responsible in taking care of that child it is none of my damn business what arrangement two adults have made.
It is amusing to read and hear how the socially challenged juice the story with inuendo, salaciousness, "what if" scenarios, and psychobabble analysis of means, motive, and opportunity. The real problem is that we pay any attention to this type of "news" at all. It isn't as if we haven't had experience with this before.
The slandering of John McCain, the swift boating of John Kerry, the false imprisonment of Don Siegelman, the unrelenting accusations against the Clintons, and those the evidence was false in these four instances the accusations linger, and it is deliberate.
"[W]hat does that say about your judgment, to be -- be president of the United States if you're going around impregnating people?"
[W]hat does the fact that your quoting the NATIONAL ENQUIRER say about your judgment, to be -- taken seriously as a pundit, commentator or even reasonably sentient human being?
In order to put an end to the charges that he fathered this child, John Edwards channeled the baby's thoughts and as he described it, the fetus said, "John Edwards is not my daddy. Please somebody help him get out of this fake scandal. He's losing ground and needs help right away if he's to win in Iowa. Please somebody save him or at least pay him a couple of million for his anguish!"
:-)
ps. Bruce Willis, in an effort to support Edwards, has reportedly signed to do the voice over for "Look Who's Channeling 2008". Kristie Allie, has declined the offer to play the expectant mother now that she's slimmed down. However Kenneth from "30 Rock" will play the role of John Edwards.
That was pretty clever AA.
And by clever you mean stupid and unfunny, right?
No I actually liked it. A take off on the psychic of the same name, nothing really derogatory about Edwards a Willis voiceover reference. I liked it.
"nothing really derogatory about Edwards"
One of the conservative criticisms of Edwards stems from a case in which they claim he "channeled" a young victim before a jury to win a case. In reality, it was closer to the "..imagine if.." prosecutorial scene from what I think was Mississippi Burning.
Given AA's history here, it would be a safe bet to think it was a dig on the politician and not a coy reference to a similarly named popular psychic.
I missed that GOP slam on Edwards. You could be right. I did find it funny.
It's a tidbit here, just as an FYI:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/52915
"[W]hat does that say about your judgment, to be -- be president of the United States if you're going around impregnating people?"
I can't agree more. Let's stop electing breeders for President.
I guess the National Enquirer is the paper of record for conservatives. It is the print equivalent of Fox News.