REPRINTED FROM NEWSFROMME.COM WEBBLOG

Interesting take:

As you may (emphasis on the "may") have heard, the Enquirer claims to have nailed down proof that John Edwards...well, it's a bit arguable as to what they've proved. They claim it's that Edwards really did have an affair (previously and quite convincingly denied) with this woman named Rielle Hunter and fathered a "love child" with her. The Enquirer reportage suggests what they've proved is that he visited her in the wee small hours of the morning at the Beverly Hilton and ran like a craven jackrabbit when he found that there was an Enquirer correspondent shadowing him.

Jack Shafer asks if there's a double-standard at work in that the mainstream media has yet to report this. I don't think so. For one thing, there's a big difference between getting caught by an Enquirer reporter and being caught, as Larry Craig was, by an officer of the law. True, the Enquirer has been steadily raising its level of credibility as the so-called "real press" has been lowering its own...but they haven't quite crossed yet. Craig was arrested, which makes it more of a public issue and takes it out of the "none of anybody's business" category. Also, the Edwards story is new and there's a lot going on in the world.

I don't think there's a danger it won't get plenty of attention. Edwards's political opponents will see to that. If he's not Obama's running mate, we may now know the reason why.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this story is the question of why, if you were a nationally-known political figure and you wanted to meet with your mistress, you'd do it at the Beverly Hilton, of all places. Under normal circumstances, the place is swarming with famous folks — and therefore, reporters. But this week, all the TV critics in the land are in L.A. for a big press junket and every good hotel is filled with press folks. The Edwards encounter allegedly happened on Monday. That same day, I had a meeting at the Four Seasons and I saw half the cable news business lounging poolside. The Beverly Hilton is the hotel where you stay when you can't get into the Four Seasons.

I'm not saying it's proof of anything...but if you were a famous guy, especially a famous guy who's being mentioned as a running mate for Barack Obama, it would be braindead stupid to think you could get in and out of the Hilton without being spotted. In my book, that would disqualify the guy to be Vice-President, just as much as the moral hypocrisy and lying.

I just don't get the point.  So what if Edwards knocked over a bit of nooky.  Isn't that between he, his wife, and his babe?  Many presidents have had affairs, some in the White House, so what?  Its only hypocrisy if they also denounce others for the same thing.  That was my beef with Larry Craig and the other Repubs that got caught over the past few years.

Why do you insist on repeating this sh!t? The guy is got his info from the Enquirer for godsakes!




Cat

Why do you insist on repeating this sh!t? The guy is got his info from the Enquirer for godsakes!




Cat


And we know they are never right , correct?

(Already exposed numerous true stories that others tried to hide under the bathroom stall door)...
They had their lawsuits for libel but they HAVE opened doors others couldn't.

I won't comment oin the Edwards angle because I have not seen the story.

However I find that the whole notion of a "cheating husband" is simply a matter between the husband and wife is poppycock.

If a man cannot even be trusted by his WIFE, what makes me think that I can trust him?  Why would I?  I can tell you that in my personal life, once I know fer sher that some guy I know is getting some illicit action on the side, I lose all respect for him and from that point forward, have little trust in him either.

Now... if a couple has an "arrangement" where they are both free to pursue nooky-at-large, then I do not have a trust issue at all.  An unusual arrangement to be sure, but not a breach of trust.

I won't comment oin the Edwards angle because I have not seen the story.

However I find that the whole notion of a "cheating husband" is simply a matter between the husband and wife is poppycock.
Good term for it!

If a man cannot even be trusted by his WIFE, what makes me think that I can trust him? 

I think marital fidelity is a moral value; however, I'm not looking to go to bed with John Edwards so I'm not terribly worried about it.  Some people like to mess around sexually, but they're otherwise clean dealers.

The whole story is daft if you ask me.

It's not even from the Philadelphia Inquirer!

What kind of editor let's "may" stand in place of "might" in that first sentence!
:P

I wouldn't trust the Enquirer as a news source, but this story has been passed around to various sources.  The details are sketchy at best, but all that is certain is that Edwards probably won't be running for president again.