I imagine many here would have the same reaction.

in response to a great blog holding the line: responsible news journalist

First of all, the timing is impeccable. Edwards just films a 30 minute segment for NOW on PBS about Half in Ten to challenge political leaders to
take some pretty bold steps to alleviate poverty and Elizabeth Edwards is on the cover of Sojourners Magazine and all over the place talking about health care. On top of that, many speculate that Edwards is on the "short list" for Obama's running mate. Clearly, someone wants Edwards done for and out of the way for good. During the primaries, they attacked him over hair (all candidates have expensive pampering), hedge funds (other candidates were funded by the same hedge fund), his house (all candidates lived in bigger houses that the rest of us, some of them with more than one house), and bloggers (one of which works for Obama, which you've never heard anything about). Any time Edwards starts making news, someone raises a FLUKE scandal about him.

Secondly, there are a lot of things that sound fishy about the story. Firstly, the use of a "security guard" as the primary witness is a psychological trick no different than when the conservatives run to a soldier in Iraq who still supports Bush in order to claim that "the troops still support the Commander-in-Chief". They know most people will view a "security guard" as an unbiased person with no reason to lie and hopefully just accept his story. However, without a "name" for the security guard, they just want us to accept the word of an imaginary witness who didn't even know who Edwards was? The use of security guard instead of receptionist or desk clerk is suspicious because that's the one position that they know people are most likely to believe. Everyone has had run-ins with desk clerks before, so you might not like them, but a security guard is always "just doing his job" even if he gives you a hard time, right?

Next, it's rather convenient for them to claim that Edwards was there, but he just "DIDN'T REGISTER with the hotel," to justify his name not being in the book. In other words, since they claim he was trying to hide something, we assume that he didn't bother registering to avoid leaving "evidence." If that's the standard, they can claim that anyone was there even if they weren't.

Finally, they have always said that Edwards was a wimp, so they embellish the story by claiming that he ran into the bathroom, hid, and turned pale white out of fear. Maybe he did, but when you understand how Fox News feels about Edwards to start with, since he was the one who led the Democratic Primary boycotts of Fox News, you sense a stretching of the truth and an overzealous need for payback.

What we need are pictures or video that clearly show Edwards "existing" in the hotel that night, and the book that shows who else was at the hotel that night in order to know if this is even halfway true. Was anyone else there with "Hunter" if she was there? Who else was there? You can't just say that Edwards being there and Hunter being there automatically makes the allegations true, until you know who else was there. EARLIER IN THE YEAR, the National Enquirer claimed that Hunter moved to North Carolina, Orange County near Chapel Hill, which is where Edwards currently lives. Why in the heck would they need to meet in a Beverly Hills hotel if that was the case?

We need some evidence, not words from an unnamed "security guard", because security guards are sooo, sooo trustworthy.

Anyone who believes Fox News doesn't understand its motivations, and anyone who believes the National Enquirer without physical evidence, probably still believes every word that comes out of George W. Bush's mouth.

he was heading home to be with Elizabeth, for crying out loud. That was their 31st wedding anniversary. Whose payroll are you on?