Edwards in trouble due to possible scandal?

According to politics1 The National Enquirer - yeah a sleaze machine - hitting the streets on today, will feature a scandal story about John Edwards fathering a soon-to-be-born "love child."

In October the National Enquirer already claims Edwards had an 18-month affair with female staffer on his campaign. The aforementioned staffer is supposedly now six-months pregnant and in hiding. Edwards and the staffer reportedly are vehemently denying the story but the tabloid claims it has interviews with friends of the woman in whom she reportedly confided about the Edwards details. The tabloid also claims to have emails and other evidence supporting the story.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/...

As The National Inquirer is a sleazy tabloid it could be just an other wild rumour or an attempt to damage the candidate (who I coincidentily support).

However, if true Edwards is in serious trouble. Edwards has an ailing wife and has cultivated a "good husband" image associated with her. If the scandal turns out to be true he is finished. Even if it is not true it might damage his campaign. And perhaps this is the object? Damaging him.

But as I said it could be true... this wouldn't be without precedent. Remember that it was also a gossip tabloid that broke the Paula Jones sex scandal story about Bill Clinton during the 1992 campaign.

So what do you think? Truth or lie?

•  hoo boy

  let the games begin...

  popcorn! peanuts! soft drinks!

  by Turkana on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:21:56 AM PDT

  •  Man, just when I'm trying

    to go to bed, the recent diaries get interesting, in a Ralph Nader here, National Enquirer there kind of way.

    by MissLaura on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:26 AM PDT

    •  I thought Edwards' affair

      was with an space alien.

      by doorguy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:33:58 AM PDT

      •  Actually, it's with Bat Boy. eom

        by SundayHighway on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:07:32 AM PDT

        •  Well, Edwards is a good dad

          he should have more kids.

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:16:08 AM PDT

          •  Agreed. Better a dad than a Pres. or Senator

            We don't need any more mistakes like his co-authorhip of the 2002 AUMF that launched our illegal and immoral war against and occupation of Iraq.

            What confuses me is that even The Nation thinks that the unproven sex scandal is more likely to derail the Edwards candidacy than his leadership into this war which has nearly destroyed our nation and our democracy.

            by ImpeccableLiberalCredentials on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:15:03 AM PDT

            •  Why are people uprating this troll?

              what the fuck is wrong with you people?

              by okamichan13 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:07:30 PM PDT

            •  TR'd for peddling trashy rumor from Enquirer

              Before uprating this troll, please check the Hidden Comments for a history of troll-rated comments, including the spreading of unsubstantiated, vulgar smears against a Democratic candidate.

              by jhutson on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:01:08 PM PDT

      •  Hey, Edwards finally made the big time

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        

        by Partially Impartial on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:10:32 AM PDT

        •  Hill's secret disease has already been

          

          revealed. She's got Murdochitis.

          by Lisa Lockwood on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:37:59 AM PDT

          •  Let's make fun of old smears

            instead of trying to create new ones.

            by Partially Impartial on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:50:25 AM PDT

            •  Murdoch isn't a smear, it's a fact

              Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton

              by The Dead Man on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:00:41 AM PDT

            •  This is hardly a 'new' smear

              as the picture (google image is a wonderful thing!)is over a year old. When Hillary started accepting support from Mr. Faux, their coziness was noted at the time.

              by Lisa Lockwood on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:08:41 AM PDT

              •  My larger point is you're not making fun of it

                You're furthering it.  It's freeperesque.

                by Partially Impartial on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:30:38 AM PDT

                •  Making "fun" of an archconservative's connection

                  to a democratic candidate?

                  There's nothing funny about it.  It's a cause for concern and criticism.

                  by The Dead Man on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:03:31 AM PDT

                •  "Freeperesque" ??

                  I wouldn't know. I don't go there.

                  by Lisa Lockwood on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:50:44 AM PDT

        •  I was really quite upset...

          ...when the WWN stopped publishing.  it makes toilet time that much more boring.  A what will i give my brother for christmass.

          (I wallpapered my dorm hallway with WWN at college and the powers that be actually understood the joke and left them be)

          by delver rootnose on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:45:30 AM PDT

    •  i'm guessing we're due

      for the wonders of ron paul.

      by Turkana on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:34:09 AM PDT

      •  Well, he is rather dreamy...

        ...plus, he can make the CIA disappear!  And saw a woman in half!

        by Jay Elias on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:50:35 AM PDT

    •  I actually just checked

      to see if there was a full moon tonight.

      by wilco920 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:34:45 AM PDT

    •  Next up

      Ron Paul.

      by MBNYC on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:35:26 AM PDT

    •  Why does this not merit a troll tag, ML? n/t

      by sgary on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:38:08 AM PDT

      •  We don't do troll tags.

        Against the rules now.

        K, I'm starting to get sleepy.  Turning computer off now.

        by MissLaura on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:40:53 AM PDT

        •  Thanks.

          I'm absolutely certain I saw one tagged that way last week, but can't remember what the diary was.  Madrassas or something.
          I assumed only administrators could do it.

          by sgary on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:43:45 AM PDT

  •  OMG. This has SO been diaried and been

    deleted (in one case--or more?)

    How many here go to Drudge and scoot back to do
    a BREAKING story?

    It is...disheartening.

    by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:37:55 AM PDT

    •  Disheartening is realizing

      that like 1/3 of commenters don't even read the whole title of a post before commenting.

      by MissLaura on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:40:00 AM PDT

      •  Hammurabi Code

        I take some bemused pride in seeing the Hammurabi Code is become something of pop reference in these circles. Maybe it'll pop up in the Kossary. Heh. A boy can dream, can't he?

        by opendna on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:08:27 AM PDT

        •  Oops. Wrong diary.

          That comment belongs to June 2004. Sorry.

          by opendna on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:10:31 AM PDT

          •  Damn

            and I had my reference all ready to go and everythang.

            

            by Randgrithr on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:45:54 AM PDT

            •  some how a big...

              ...phallic object is appropriate for this diary, even a historical one.

              by delver rootnose on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:52:22 AM PDT

  •  We have been fighting this nonsense all day.

    Check through the pages of Hidden Comments today.

    DKOS is becoming a haven for tabloid journalism due to over-eager candidate bashers.

    Lovebabies, conspiracies... what's next?  Secret deals with the Enemy?

    by tecampbell on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:07:39 AM PDT

    •  we even had one of those

      not a whole diary, just a comment.  

      i am getting to the point where i don't even wonder about "what could possibly be ...

      * [worse]

      * [lower]

      * [dumber]

      * [more outrageous]

      * [more baseless]

      * [sleazier]

      * [idiotic]

      * [more troll-worthy]

      * [less up-rate-able]

      * [more obvious a sock-puppet]

      etc..."

      someone will just come along and show me...

      unreal.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:52:18 AM PDT

    •  well i lost TU...

      ...a long time ago when I got in an argument with a front pager and no mater how many recs I get it doesn't come back.

      by delver rootnose on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:46:19 AM PDT

  •  Billie Jean's Not My Lover

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:36:18 AM PDT

  •  I've got I know what it is

    The National Inquirer was mistaken, it wasn't John Edwards the presidential candidate that's having a love child. It's John Edward the psychic that's having a love child with a spirit from the beyond OOOHHHHHHH spooooky. See it's nothing than a typo.

    by Wes Opinion on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:15:47 AM PDT

  •  Pass The Pocorn And Peanuts?

    More like pass around the vomit bag. When you see what get focused on during a presidential election campaign you realize that the US should not be a superpower. Such a beacon of democracy.

    by HL Mungo on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:56:50 AM PDT

    •  Eurovision.

      I rest my case for American superiority.

      by burrow owl on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:23:49 AM PDT

  •  This crap is not worthy of a diary.

    Why would you print (regurgitate?) this stupid rumor.  This rumor should not be spread beyond the Enquirer.

    I am an Obama supporter, but this is the kind of crap that keeps us from discussing legitimate issues  

    by pwr2thepeople on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:13:54 AM PDT

•  Post A Tip Jar, Mr. Frederik of Hollywood! n/t

  by sgary on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:22:40 AM PDT

  •  never a single comment, I see.

    a few diaries, though here

    by sgary on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:27:39 AM PDT

    •  

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      by Marcus Tullius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:30:48 AM PDT

      •  thanks. my search got nothing. n/t

        by sgary on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:33:08 AM PDT

        •  alway remember

          to check the archive box
          
          
          ````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:33:59 AM PDT

    •  50 Diaries and Zero Comments?

      That does it.

      I was going to hold my breath for the tip jar, but I'm not suicidal.

      by Gooserock on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:33:19 AM PDT

      •  check the archive

        there are the diarist has over a thousand comments.
        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:50:45 AM PDT

      •  Hmmm, he does have some, but were any

        tip jars?

        by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:51:10 AM PDT

  •  are you wearing a teddy

    while you try to peddle this?

    by sgary on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:29:23 AM PDT

  •  I'm new and kinda curious...

    what's a tip jar?

    by darkmasterjoey on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:11:13 AM PDT

    •  Tip jar=

      A diarist posts a comment close to the top of the thread to collect mojo (recommends). Garner enough recommeneded comments and voila! you gain Trusted User status and can troll rate and view hidden comments.

      by Lisa Lockwood on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:42:12 AM PDT

    •  a tip jar darkmasterjoey?

      it is the same thing that you neglected to post in YOUR diary this morning.

      the really problematic diary that makes a lot of pretty outrageous claims about globalization and has not a single link to corroborate its claims.

      a tip jar - you were asked several hours ago in your own diary to post one...  and none was posted...

      so how come you feel the need to play dumb like that and come into this diary and ask tis question?

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:08:57 AM PDT

•  A similar diary was posted then deleted earlier

  today. Check out Atrios' response to this topic.
  http://atrios.blogspot.com/

  by humphrey on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:25:45 AM PDT

  •  This is the third one I've seen

    the freeptards have been busy, but not half as busy as the people reacting.

    And I spent so much time on my own diary, that was virtually ignored because I published it at 7:30am EST. Le Sigh. Won't be doing that again.

    by Randgrithr on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:23:58 AM PDT

    •  jeez people!

      it's the freaking internet! stop trying to control what people diary! i would say this if it regarded ANY candidate!

      by blueterp on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:26:55 AM PDT

•  Huh?

  I thought Edwards was supposed to be gay.  Y'all need to get in sinc with your smears.

  Sheesh!

  by LawStudent on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:25:51 AM PDT

  •  you mean you never saw

    mr. mom?

    by Turkana on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:27:17 AM PDT

  •  Dude...

    ...this is clearly a case where he and his gay lover have gotten this woman to be their surrogate.  I mean, duh...

    by Jay Elias on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:52:07 AM PDT

•  You need more than air-filled crap

  before you perpetuate a smear, that's what I'm thinking.

  by ksh01 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:26:53 AM PDT

•  How convenient

  the only evidence is in hiding. Sounds like Republicans are getting scared. Reminds me of John McCain's bastard baby of African descent before the South Carolina primary. These sleazy and false smears work... sadly.

  by bobbyd100 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:32:26 AM PDT

•  Yay!

  Diary #5 about the Enquirer story! Tip jar! Where's the tip jar?

  Seriously, fuck off with this crap.

  by MBNYC on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:33:30 AM PDT

  •  i sort of want to make that my new sig.

    Tip jar! Where's the tip jar?

    Seriously, fuck off with this crap.

    ~ MBNYC

    by Marcus Tullius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:35:01 AM PDT

    •  Heh.

      A little long, perhaps?

      by MBNYC on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:37:25 AM PDT

      •  My first one was

        We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine

        And the machine is bleeding to death.

        It's on hiatus until February.

        by Marcus Tullius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:40:04 AM PDT

        •  I like your sig line. n/t

          by niteskolar on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:29:39 AM PDT

          •  Thanks. I agree with yours. n/t

            by Marcus Tullius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:32:22 AM PDT

      •  yeah... leave the bit about the tip jar out :) nt

        by Trix on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:49:35 AM PDT

•  Scat!

  Cretin.

  by kpardue on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:34:01 AM PDT

•  It's worse than that.

  It's an out of wedlock, black baby.

  Wait, is this 1999? We're talking about John McCain right?

  by Rex Manning on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:34:35 AM PDT

  •  Naw, Rudy did it

    In fact, when she goes into labor, the NYPD plans to escort her to the hospital, then volunteer for nanny duty until the child goes to school. I heard it from a reliable source who cannot be identified at this time.

    by Ekaterin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:38:06 AM PDT

    •  Of course, if it was Rudy's black baby,

      The NYPD would simply "mistake" the umbilical chord for a gun and shoot it.

      43 times.

      by textus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:58:25 AM PDT

•  you know what else will mean trouble for Edwards?

  If every story about this non-story, instead of noting that there's nothing to back it up, assures us that "if true Edwards is in serious trouble."

  by olivert on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:36:11 AM PDT

  •  Here another thing that would hurt if true

    If Edwards were a Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, that would certainly hurt his chances of getting elected. Of course, he would probably poll well among other Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers, who tend to not vote in primaries, so it could be a plus. If it were true, of course.

    by Morlock on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:34:11 AM PDT

  •  The Beltway Boyz smirking it up yet?

    They're like Bluebottles on a dogturd, they'll be all over this one...I give it 24 hrs, if they don't I'm sending $25 to Romney's campaign.

    by KenBee on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:50:04 AM PDT

•  Delete this crap diary.

  Unless you have EVIDENCE to support it.

  How dare you come here and post Drudge/National Enquirer shit about a Democratic Presidential candidate.

  by leisure on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:38:16 AM PDT

  •  Email management to delete it

    They've got the power.

    by AllisonInSeattle on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:46:58 AM PDT

    •  They really don't delete, Allison

      I think it's best, though irritating that they remain.

      One today WAS deleted for copyright violation, though
      the comments and all were left up.

      by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:52:56 AM PDT

      •  They, uh, really do

        And have after I've e'd before.

        I've e'd on matters that I thought were possible legal problems. Slander, over-quoting of copyrighted materials, advocating killing someone. The kind of stuff that publishers need to stay on the alert about.

        There's a diary on recent diaries now (maybe 1-2 cuts back) that was deleted, poster banned.

        by AllisonInSeattle on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:29:43 PM PDT

        •  somehow i'm

          skeptical that the administrators are as big on censorship as you apparently are, and as you say they are.

          by blueterp on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:40:15 AM PDT

          •  When it's yer rear that could get sued

            it tends to change yer perspective.

            by AllisonInSeattle on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:03:18 PM PDT

            •  sued for what?

              i'm not a lawyer ... yet ... but i'm almost one, and i don't think there is anything actionable about this national enquirer stuff.

              they've got the goods.

              and i suspect you know this.

              good luck with your censorship campaign!

              by blueterp on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:14:40 AM PDT

              •  Aarrrgh!

                Are you a publisher? I am. I write as publisher to publisher. I don't give a flying squirrel's tail if they agree with me or not. Their choice.

                There's crap you can and can't say online w/out getting in trouble. Same as in print.

                There are amounts of copyrighted material you can and can't quote.

                End of story.

                by AllisonInSeattle on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 02:47:33 PM PDT

  •  i find it funny that neither drudge nor...

    the NE have any info up about it whatsoever on either website... looks like they don't have any proof to back it up...

    even drudge just has a cropped top of the alleged new cover (which as seen on Atrios can be easily photo shopped...)

    --poligirl

    by poligirl on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:15:03 AM PDT

•  BTW, Freddy

  

  by Ekaterin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:38:27 AM PDT

  •  It's definitely crazy pootie time in the valley

    of late-night DK.

    

    by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:40:35 AM PDT

    •  LOL, begone, must be a full moon

      Guess we might as well get into the holiday spirit:

      

      by Ekaterin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:58:56 AM PDT

      •  No need to but me a gift this year, Ekaterin

        because I just stole your very relaxed Santa Pootie.

        ;-)

        by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:03:33 AM PDT

        •  P.S. "y"

          That is all.

          by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:04:38 AM PDT

          •  He's a cutie, isn't he?

            Enjoy!

            by Ekaterin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:07:46 AM PDT

•  It's smear politics

  and it's nasty.

  The people running are human beings. (Well, maybe there is a part of them that is simply made of steel. Look at what they deal with!)

  To be elected President of the United States is the highest of honors (and wow--what a thing to do with one's life); however, there are a lot of negatives and a lot of sacrifices that go along with that.  

  But let's not kid ourselves: if you think this Dem race has been negative, just wait until the general election stuff starts...

  by turning blue on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:49:41 AM PDT

  •  The Clintonite who owns the national enquirer

    The Clintonite who owns the National Enquirer

    by terrapin station84 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:52:13 AM PDT

    •  fascinating

      thanks
      
      
      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:54:03 AM PDT

    •  It IS a fascinating article. Hardly know what

      to make of it, but it is interesting.

      by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:00:41 AM PDT

      •  They're sleazy cowards

        The Enquirer story cites anonymous emails from the un-named woman allegedly involved to another un-named source.

        by Ekaterin on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:05:51 AM PDT

        •  Exactly! It's just that I couldn't follow

          this part

          Yesterday's National Enquirer story was mirrored by a pair of stories in the Huffington Post -- whose public face, Arianna Huffington, is a harsh critic of Clinton. The Huffington Post stories implied that the Edwards campaign was concerned about its relationship with a film-maker, Rielle Hunter, who had shot web videos for Edwards. The stories stopped short of directly suggesting the candidate had a relationship with her, something Mickey Kaus made explicit on Slate yesterday.

          "The MSM seems to be strenuously trying to not report it," Kaus wrote, and indeed, aside from a disapproving link to Kaus's item on the website of the New Republic, and gleeful coverage on the gossip blog Wonkette, the story has mostly stayed out of the old-line press. But it's unclear whether that reluctance is the result of Clinton-era neurosis about the topic of sex, or a less fraught sense that there simply isn't much to report here, particularly in the case of a candidate who lacks the media wattage and poll numbers of his rivals.

          

          by begone on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:33 AM PDT

    •  given her friendship with Murdoch

      does she have any publisher friends who do NOT post garbage and call it fact?

      by alizard on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:06:44 AM PDT

    •  This has the makin's of a BACK-FIRE.

      If this story is proven false, with a Clinton connection,

      a key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman

      this will look like a desperation move and will backfire in a big way.
      More shoes to drop on this one.

      by Mike Taylor on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:07:22 AM PDT

      •  Or2quote the Diarist "Clinton's in Serious Troubl

        If this is a smear, and it's linked to Clinton, Clinton's in serious trouble.

        Wont' admit a mistake,
        Hangs with Murdock
        Slimes other candidates,

        Increasingly Hillary's the new W.

        by The Wonder Moron on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:22:23 AM PDT

        •  It's trolling to link to a baseless Edwards smear

          But it's somehow OK to baselessly smear Clinton in the same diary?

          by Partially Impartial on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:13:24 AM PDT

          •  Logically you are right

            However, given the utter depravity of HRC's campaign of late, you have to understand that people will sometimes jump to unfounded conclusions in the heat of the battle.

            Ironically, sometimes those conclusions will turn out to be right even though they were unfounded.

            Regardless, despite teh Hillary-Drudge axis and the Hillary-Enquirer axis, I don't see why she would do this; doesn't she want both obama and edwards in teh race, and doesn't she think she has a better shot of beating edwards because she thinks he can't raise enough money?

            by JedReport on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:28:01 AM PDT

          •  Always, because:

            1. She's Hillary.

            2. Hillary is evil.

            3. Everything bad is her fault.

            4. Electing Hillary is worse than a republican.

            5. She's Hillary.

            6. Hillary eats live babies.

            Repeat as needed.

            by homogenius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:00:39 AM PDT

      •  Clintons can be linked to almost anything

        if you try hard enough...

        Let's examine the logic, however:

        1. Days ago people here were arguing that the Clintons actually WANTED Edwards to win Iowa so he could hold off Obama and then run out of money.  So this would make this smear an illogical tactic.

        2. One of the great negatives about the Clintons were all the sex/affair scandals that swirled around them such as Lewinsky, Jones, Flowers, etc.  Would it be wise to provoke Edwards with a false smear that would tangentally evoke memories of Bill Clinton's own escapades?

        3. Matt Drudge just got through posting a hideous picture of Hillary Clinton that he left up on the top of the page in LARGE size for 2 days straight.  Drudge is supposed to be in the bag for the Clintons (on the Democratic side) So now 1 day later he is actually helping to drive this "story" on their behalf? (oh wait maybe it's to make up for the picture!)

        4. John Edwards loves his wife and this smear is one of the most unbelievable types they could have chosen.  People simply won't be it and there is definitely not enough time for it to fully come out (true or not) before the Iowa voting date.  In all honesty it would have been much easier to just doctor a photo of him engaging in some gay sex.  And more interesting!

        by diplomatic on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:38:58 AM PDT

    •  Did you read the article you're

      using to smear Clinton?

      The investment boutique which Altman founded and chairs, Evercore Partners, bought a controlling stake in American Media, which publishes the Enquirer, in 1999, which it still holds with a partner. Evercore's president, Austin Beutner, sits on American Media's Board of Directors, according to Evercore's website.

      A spokesman for American Media, Richard Valvo, said in an email that Altman has "no involvement in editorial, ever." He said that Evercore owns 20 percent of the company through an investment fund. Altman didn't respond to an email seeking comment or to a message left with his secretary.

      American Media has also published lurid and negative stories about the Clintons since its acquisition.

      There's just as much evidence that Edwards had an affair as there is that Clinton is somehow involved in spreading this smear.  None.

      by Partially Impartial on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:19:13 AM PDT

    •  Interesting...

      given how the Clinton campaign has also been wooing Drudge to provide more positive coverage of her.

      Interesting.

      by BruinKid on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:53:38 AM PDT

  •  National En. Doesn't Care About Politics

    They care about selling papers

    Quit with the paranoia

    by ipodvideo6 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:16:03 AM PDT

    •  Actually

      Any media outlet tehse days is very capable of caring about both, especially if it comes with sufficient money attached. I mean, come on. If the NY Times and CNN have sold out, the Enquirer has been ahead of them in that line for decades.

      by Randgrithr on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:18:43 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, the two are not mutually exclusive.

        I hear old Rupert Murdoch has a habit of making respectable news operations into tabloid type thingies.  That is, aside from his taste for turning all of his news aquirements into right-wing rags.

        by terrapin station84 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:21:24 AM PDT

    •  please

      don't recommend this troll's comments.

      by taylormattd on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:11:01 AM PDT

    •  Troll alert - do not uprate!

      check his history.

      by okamichan13 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:49:23 PM PDT

    •  Donut donated

      ..per troll alerts and brief perusal of this one's history.

      by Ahianne on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:20 PM PDT

•  Freddy, I understand your disappointment

  You wanted to have his baby.  

  by DWG on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:55:48 AM PDT

•  Wheeeeeeeee

  Hey when you guys get done with this latest piece of vapid freeper shit you can, like, read MY diary any damn time now. :)

  by Randgrithr on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:06:17 AM PDT

  •  It's like Groundhog Day

    around this sonofabitch, ain't it?

    by niteskolar on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:33:12 AM PDT

•  It gets worse!

  From the River City Gazette:

  Edwards beats Edwards in Iowa by Wide Margin
  by Harold Hill

  In a stunning late development, former Democrat Party senator John Edwards is now leading former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards by as many as 76 trombones (with a margin of error of +/- 110 cornets) in an unscientific poll conducted last night with several members of the River City High School Marching Band (note: most of its members are minors and will not be eligible to vote in next month's caucus).

  In an exclusive interview earlier today, the candidate admitted to being quite thrilled with this positive new development, and predicted "sweet fragrant meadows of dawn, and dew" in a landslide victory over himself next month.

  When the latter was contacted for a response, he struck a more somber note and remarked that this was certainly "Trouble with a capital 'T', and that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool".

  Our election analysts are still trying to interpret what this all means, but it does not appear to bode well for John Edwards in his increasingly bleak-looking matchup with John Edwards.