Scandal? What scandal?
The efforts by the mainstream media to pretend that there is no scandal hanging over John Edwards can cause some rather comical reporting. One such case was a report by Stephanie Davis of McClatchy Interactive which appeared in the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Ms Davis was analyzing the backgrounds of various political figures considered to be possible running mates with Barack Obama including John Edwards:
John Edwards: Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards finds himself in a very familiar position: Will he be picked once again as a running mate for the next Democratic presidential candidate?
Edwards, who ran for president himself this political season, was the running mate of Sen. John Kerry in 2004.
Edwards worked his way through college, and became a successful trial lawyer.
He and his Raleigh law partner earned the Association of Trial Lawyers public service award for their work on a case involving a child in a pool accident. He won millions for the family, who will be dealing with medical bills for the rest of her life.
He chose to leave private practice after the death of his son, Wade.
During his term in the Senate, Edwards served on the following committees: Select Committee on Intelligence and Judiciary.
He is also the former Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Edwards is more likely a nominee for Attorney General, but that hasn’t stopped the Congressional Black Caucus from suggesting the former senator as a VP candidate.
Hmm... Now what seems to be missing in this report? The fact that Edwards won a Father of the Year award last year? Close but not quite. Perhaps Ms Davis needs to read her own McClatchy newspapers reports such as this one written last week by Lisa Zagaroli of the McClatchy Washington Bureau:
WASHINGTON — Only three weeks ago, John Edwards fielded media questions on his chances of filling the vice-presidential slot on Democrat Barack Obama's ticket or a cabinet position in his administration.
On Wednesday, the former U.S. senator, presidential candidate and 2004 vice-presidential nominee refused to answer questions that took a tabloid turn.
About a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington.
Afterward, he avoided a crowd of waiting reporters, at least some of whom wanted to question him about recent reports in the National Enquirer that alleged a sexual relationship between Edwards and a former campaign videographer and an ensuing coverup.
Citing unnamed sources, the Enquirer published a story in October claiming that Edwards was having an affair with a woman who had filmed a series of campaign videos, and that he had gotten her pregnant.
Last week, the Enquirer posted a story online claiming that Edwards had visited the woman, Rielle Hunter, and the child July 21 at a Beverly Hills hotel.
In October, the woman posted an online statement denying the first story.
As to whether Edwards might be picked for Vice President or Attorney General, he would be lucky at this point to be selected as dog catcher. However, to read Stephanie Davis you would have to believe that there are no reports of a major scandal hanging over Edwards and that his future looks sunny and bright as reflected in her laughable analysis.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
give 'em enough rope
August 5, 2008 - 16:57 ET by sawing battathis story is getting funnier by the day...ride, Silky, ride.
'blazing saddles'
August 5, 2008 - 17:23 ET by tejanodiabloor, as was said in 'blazing saddles', "whey de white wimins ??", and "pardon me whilst i whup this out" ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
psst, Stephanie...
August 5, 2008 - 17:47 ET by sawing battaIf he's on short lists for AG and VP, you might want to ask Silky about his commitment not only to his cancer stricken wife, but to the Iraqi people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g238i7O529o
---
"John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months." -OTB 1/2008
$1000 Bill
August 5, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Copperhead RidgeMa, ma, ma, where's my Pa?
He's going to the RFK Building, ha, ha, ha.
Just curious...Why is time
August 5, 2008 - 18:39 ET by JerJust curious...Why is time and band width being wasted regurgitating tabloid gossip concerning a political irrelevancy like John Edwards?
I doubt the man is even on the "long list" of potential V-P candidates. But unless and until he is chosen as a running mate, or appointed to a high level position in an Obama administration, or until convincing evidence is presented by a reputable news organization, why not leave the salacious "love child" allegations to the scandal sheets. At least wait until Scaife and his crew of accomplished dirt diggers weigh in with something slightly more substantial and credible than the breathless revelations in a National Enquirer "exclusive".
Jer
The National Enquirer is
August 5, 2008 - 19:03 ET by bigtimerThe National Enquirer is more credible than the New York Slimes...and half if not more than other papers across this country in my opinion Jer.
You see no hypocrisy here Jer...huh?
Give me a break, if this was reversed... ALL of the msm of all venues would of been all over this....with glee.
Said person would of already been done politically, in any way, shape or form...period.
Bias and hypocrisy reign supreme with the leftists.
It is obvious.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt...I would give anything
August 5, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Jerbt...I would give anything [just about] if this site had existed--and you were posting on it--in the early-to-mid 90's when the NY 'Slimes' was leading the way on Whitewater "scandal" reporting...just so I could read your archived comments attacking the credibility of the Times anti-Clinton expose`. :-)
Jer
Jer... Oh
August 5, 2008 - 19:38 ET by bigtimerJer...
Oh well...
btw...I could care less one way or the other if the NYTs was there then or now...I have always followed what I wanted, got information just fine without that communistic paper all my life...
thank you very much.
The NYTs has leaned left for decades Jer....decades.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt and the NYT's...
August 5, 2008 - 19:59 ET by Clear thinkerIt may seem improbable but.... the NYT's is getting major heat from the left and people are cancelling their subscriptions. I find this very encouraging!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ct... Well now...that did
August 5, 2008 - 20:04 ET by bigtimerCt...
Well now...that did bring a smile to my face.
Such sad news...
....Boo-Hoo. To see that slimy, arrogant, despicable enemy within paper go under in my lifetime would be more than gratifying.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt...
August 5, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Clear thinkerCan you guess why?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ct... Criticism of
August 5, 2008 - 20:19 ET by bigtimerCt...
Criticism of Obama...his flip-flops.
...Or his whining and using the race-card himself that he starts all the time.
Just a guess...
I'll await your answer.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt, almost right...
August 5, 2008 - 20:25 ET by Clear thinkerThe Planet Nazi's are mad as hell for the NYT's for not putting ALL Global Warming articles on the front page, and allowing any of their writers to even mention anything from the opposing side. I'm dead serious.
But this does tie in a bit with your guess concerning Obama. His speech today was posted at DotEarth and the Planet Nazi's are pissed because Obama seems to be waffling on drilling.
I love watching the left eat their own! Could be a Soylent Green joke in there somewhere.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ct... Oh now I am roaring
August 5, 2008 - 20:30 ET by bigtimerCt...
Oh now I am roaring with laughter... I mean it too!
This is unbelievable...
NOT!
One thing about it all though...it is rich!!!
Priceless and all that jazz...
It doesn't get any better than this.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Jer, why do you keep on
August 5, 2008 - 19:46 ET by Chris NormanJer, why do you keep on insisting on pointing to coverage from ten to fifteen years ago? A lot has changed since then. The San Francisco Chronicle was editorially a fairly conservative paper back in the Eighties. Would you use that in an effort to negate the charge that they are liberally biased now? BTW, I think the kind of story, despite it's distastefulness, is secondary to who the media covers and how they cover it.
McNotObama '08
Jer, Denials from
August 5, 2008 - 19:05 ET by KarmaJer,
Denials from politicians are a dime-a-dozen. I know the line, "innocent until...", but one person could put this to rest at his whim. I would assume there are those who would even pony up for the DNA test.
There's no need for him to wait. This speaks to a man's character.
What would you do if you were in the same position?
Karma...
August 5, 2008 - 19:16 ET by JerLook, Karma, Newt Gingrich was carrying on an affair in our nation's capital for years right under the nose of the Washington press corps without so much as a peep from them--during which time he was Speaker of the freakin' House of Representatives!
Is Edwards running for anything at the moment? What's the point in peddling tabloid rumors at this time?
Jer
If the claims are false,
August 5, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Eileen RightIf the claims are false, don't you think someone who "earned the Association of Trial Lawyers public service award" and is a possible future VP/AG would have talented libel lawyers lining up to sue the crap out of NE? I think he can afford DNA testing to clear his "good" name.
Ellen Wrong
August 5, 2008 - 20:57 ET by Biff McCainGuilty till you prove yourself innocent.
I know how to win wars!
He has the means to clear
August 5, 2008 - 21:57 ET by Eileen RightHe has the means to clear his name and spare his family or silently suffer. Maybe he will enjoy the pity parties you'll throw for him.
Barack doesn't have big ears, it just looks that way because he's so skinny.
So, running for office is
August 5, 2008 - 19:32 ET by Chris NormanSo, running for office is the threshold for being considered a public figure and worthy of coverage? Huh.
McNotObama '08
I think it is a reasonable
August 5, 2008 - 19:42 ET by JerI think it is a reasonable threshold before repeating tabloid gossip about a politician.
There are plenty of reputable conservative news orgainizations and reporters. Why not at least defer until one or more of those investigate and present credible evidence.
Jer
He's running for attorney general -- this sinks that.
August 5, 2008 - 19:49 ET by sarcasmoAnd Fox News did verify the Edwards story, early on, with a hotel security guard, but the MSM still is attempting to ignore the scandal. Why?? Anyway, it doesn't matter. The only important thing is that Obama will have to pick a different lefty to be his Ed Meese. Also, The Enquirer was doing this important journalism (just like what they did on Rush & hillbilly heroin, when conservatives were bitching about the Enquirer's standards) while Edwards was still running for President, and he's denied it. If he wants the story to go away, he has 2 choices: admit or disprove. DNA's out there for baby and Democrat, folks...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
So, what you're saying is
August 5, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Chris NormanSo, what you're saying is that Rush Limbaugh and other celebrities are protected from coverage of their personal peccadillos because they aren't running for office.Is that correct?
And just who exactly gets to decide who is reputable and who isn't and what is "news" and what isn't? For many liberals, Fox News isn't "reputable". Does the New York Times have to bless the story before it becomes reputable? Newsweek? Time? The LA Times? Or would you accept the blessing of The Washington Times or The National Review? If not, are only news gathering organizations within the MSM the gatekeepers of what is legitimate news? Can People Magazine cover celebrity scandal or do they have to wait for the NYT to okay it?
McNotObama '08
I think Jer's talking about
August 5, 2008 - 20:21 ET by balboaI think Jer's talking about politicians, not EVERYONE.
Oh, so if a politician is
August 6, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Chris NormanOh, so if a politician is not currently running for office, they're quarantined from coverage some how? Oh, please. You two are being ridiculous.
McNotObama '08
Chris...
August 6, 2008 - 11:38 ET by JerChris...I'm not endorsing quarantining...I just question the ethics, taste and importance of repeating and perpetuating tabloid charges about the private life of a politician, especially when he isn't currently holding public office or is a candidate for one.
Someone brought up the Enquirer 'boozing Bush' story. I had seen a couple of blurbs about it and just mentally blew it off because of the source and the nature of the rumor. Maybe I was ridiculous to do so, and perhaps my views on the subject are passe` and in the minority. What is your opinion about how the Bush story should be treated?
Jer
Jer,At this point Bush
August 6, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Chris NormanJer,
At this point Bush has been so disparaged, demonized, carictured, dehumanized, and ridiculed by the press, the blogosphere, the Democrats, not to mention Oliver Stone, now - that it really just doesn't matter anymore. I'm sure, like me, a lot of people are just numb to it.
McNotObama '08
Sooooo
August 6, 2008 - 05:28 ET by gordonSince Bush is not running for office, we shouldn't expect to see any negative articles or books about him, right jer???
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaaaa
gordon...
August 6, 2008 - 11:53 ET by JerAs I said before, my opinion about the Enquirer article claiming Bush is hitting the bottle again is the same as my view about the Edwards story.
Jer
Jer, Are you saying the
August 5, 2008 - 19:40 ET by KarmaJer,
Are you saying the "press" sat on the Newt affair, or was unaware or didn't care to investigate? If you are trying to say "look...Newt did it too!", that doesn't work with me. I have no respect whatsoever for Mr. Ginrich and wished he were shamed from his job at the time. There are those of us who place character at the top of our check-list.
Do you have to be running for something before you defend your name? What's the point in prolonging this? He should file suit against the Enquirer to clear his name.
Frankly, Karma, it's
August 5, 2008 - 19:55 ET by JerFrankly, Karma, it's baffling why the press didn't go after Newt. I should think the suspicion and speculation would have been enormous. Maybe the sex scandal departments had all been assigned to run down Clinton rumors. :-)
I've just never been too much of a fan of leering into bedrooms of politicians or anyone else.
Edwards knows that the odds of a public figure prevailing in a libel suit are virtually nil.
Should he agree to DNA testing? Probably.
Jer
Jer, Would submitting a
August 5, 2008 - 20:14 ET by KarmaJer,
Would submitting a negative DNA test at that libel proceeding up his chances?
I don't want to look into anyones bedroom. That's crazy and likely disgusting. I want to look into their integrity; although that could also be disgusting.
Karma
August 5, 2008 - 22:29 ET by acumenJust wanted to express my gratitude for your common-sense approach. It is sooooo refreshing to read here...
And as you are well aware, even with a passing 'D' grade by the demedia, letting the cat out of Edward's bag will be a whole lot easier than putting it back. And that is why the demedia ain't interested in what is in Edward's bag. And that is why many on the left don't want to look in that bag (bedroom) either -- With most on the left, ideology trumps integrity. And I take no pleasure in stating that depressing observation.
Jer, if you insist on going
August 5, 2008 - 19:49 ET by motherbeltJer, if you insist on going back years, there are those who say JFK was carrying on in the White House, and the press not only didn't investigate or report, they covered up for him.
Don't ask me to name names or cite, because I didn't dwell on them, not being all that interested in the Camelot myth.
The press was a completely
August 5, 2008 - 20:04 ET by balboaThe press was a completely different animal back then. They looked the other way on all kinds of indiscretions by movie stars, musicians, pro athletes, and politicans.
As opposed to now, when they
August 5, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Chris NormanAs opposed to now, when they look the other way at the gaffes, the contradictions, the shaky resume, and the past associations of the Democratic presidential nominee.
McNotObama '08
Now you're getting the hang
August 5, 2008 - 20:20 ET by balboaNow you're getting the hang of it.
Truth bal
August 5, 2008 - 22:18 ET by acumenTruth bal. If we keep reminding ourselves that most politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt, we can forget to discuss the bias of the establishment media and the culpability they maintain in allowing corrupt politicians to thrive. Well, that is, as long as the corrupt politicians have a D after their name.
motherbelt...Those
August 5, 2008 - 20:05 ET by Jermotherbelt...Those "carrying ons" involving JFK, which were indeed covered up at the time, became common knowledge later.
....Just as Eisenhower was protected by the press from revelations of his dalliances with Kay Sommersby [sp?] while he was Supreme Allied Commander during WWII, and such information continued to be shielded from the public during his presidency.
Jer
Hannity's America Rules!
August 5, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Biff McCainThey live in their own little world where reality is whatever Fox News and the NE report.
Read the Limabugh-McGreevey letter.
As opposed to Dan Rathers
August 5, 2008 - 19:34 ET by Eileen RightAs opposed to Dan Rathers world, which it sounds like you live in.
Eileen
August 5, 2008 - 19:38 ET by MrShyRemember "What's the frequency, Biff?" ?
:P
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
My bad and duly
August 5, 2008 - 19:43 ET by Eileen RightMy bad and duly noted.
Thanks
Welcome to the Machine Biff
August 5, 2008 - 20:06 ET by acumenUs, and them
And after all were only ordinary men.
Red and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end its only round and round.
Havent you heard its a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
And all the while, avoiding scrutiny with a smile the politican lied.
Funny Jer, you're rendering
August 5, 2008 - 19:32 ET by MrShyFunny Jer, you're rendering him a political "irrelevency" when he very recently ran for President in the primaries, and then based on your "doubt" that he's on a long list of VP possibilities. He's still on the list, Jer. Not the short list, but the long list. I believe there are only two lists, unless there's some new "super long to infinity" one :p
Also, you're making two arguments... the one above, but then the comparison to Newt's affair. If any media news source had this floating around back then, then the extended media SHOULD have picked up on it.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Wrong, Shy...
August 5, 2008 - 20:24 ET by JerI'm making only one argument. While I do believe it would be commendable if all of our elected officials were possessed of impeccable, Dudley DoRight [sp?] character, I think that as long the job performance of those officials is unaffected, the press has much better things with which to occupy itself than being a morality cop playing "gotcha".
Jer
Jer
August 5, 2008 - 20:32 ET by MrShyFair enough on the second point.
Now back to the first one. Kind of silly to label John Edwards a political "irrelevancy", non? Plenty of us on this thread have made various valid arguments to the contrary.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
I think there's a long way
August 6, 2008 - 18:09 ET by Chris NormanI think there's a long way between being a Dudley Do-Right and what, if true, Edwards is accused of.
McNotObama '08
NE "exclusive's" jer & Biff probably relished..
August 5, 2008 - 19:32 ET by mastersofdeceithttp://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426
M.O.D. :)
August 5, 2008 - 19:37 ET by MrShyI'd be amazed if he doesn't hit the bottle more often, with all the crap he's had to put up with from the MSM and hoards of raging left wing lunatics wanting him impeached, imprisoned, assassinated, or all three.
A few times, I've had to sit next to people hoping he'll be assassinated. Disgusting.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
You've sat next to mike
August 5, 2008 - 19:40 ET by mastersofdeceitYou've sat next to mike malloy?
Yikes!
August 5, 2008 - 20:13 ET by MrShyYikes!
"It is common knowledge at his point that the lies, phony evidence, White House conspiracies, directives from Dick Cheney and his stable of Neo-conservatives, dis-information dumps to the Bush Crime Family's co-conspirators in media (you know who they are) - all of it pasted together with the coagulated blood of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians - was designed to drive America into a war of theft, fraud, and murderous dishonor unparalleled in recent U.S. history. So, what added weight to the enormity of these crimes does a forgery add?
The dream of this war and the attendant death and destruction was foremost in the sick minds of Dick Cheney and every putrid son-of-a-bitch carefully selected by him. The goal was not only war for its sake alone, but also the theft of Iraq's oil reserves and the resulting panic that would push the price of oil to unprecedented levels. As a bonus the Fascists who drove this insanity also had the goal of, for once and for all, absolutely poisoning whatever remained of the American ideal of representative government. In its place would be a Neo-conservative corporatism that would end completely the promise presented by the Framers 232 years ago.
The "news flash" comes from the testimony in the book that yet another crime was committed in forcing the U.S. into war: forgery, the crime of thieves, liars, cheats and sneaks. A crime so fitting to the petty thugs and cheap punks who, through the protections provided by the Bush Crime Family, were able to rise to the level of international war criminals."
Man. It really is scary out there.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Soon to be made into a
August 5, 2008 - 20:16 ET by Clear thinkerSoon to be made into a Childrens Cartoon.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Wow, what a coincidence, Shy...
August 5, 2008 - 20:33 ET by JerWow, what a coincidence, Shy...I heard the same thing [he's a murderer and a criminal who should be impeached, assassinated, etc] from the Clinton haters a decade ago. It was repellent when it was said about Clinton, and it is just as repellent when said about Bush.
Jer
Jer...
August 5, 2008 - 20:37 ET by Clear thinkerJust curious... are you gay?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT
August 5, 2008 - 20:41 ET by MrShySay wha?
Now I'm coming to Jer's defense, a bit, with that one. But well, this should be interesting.
Carry on...
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...
August 5, 2008 - 20:45 ET by Clear thinkerNah, nothing ugly. I was only curious because he has such a flair for dramatics. The only people I know that are good at that are some females and gays. That's it, nothing sinister.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
"The only people I know that
August 5, 2008 - 20:48 ET by MrShy"The only people I know that are good at that are some females and gays."
Some (correction, most :p) females, gays..... and artists/musicians!
And no, I'm not gay, and I'm offended that you asked. Sorry to be so dramatic about this, but I am.
:p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...
August 5, 2008 - 20:51 ET by Clear thinkerI don't get it. I wasn't asking you, it was meant for Jer. Or are you offended that I asked him?
Besides, I never get offended when someone asks if someone is straight.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT
August 5, 2008 - 21:00 ET by MrShyHaha, sorry, my ":P" at the end meant I was joking... should use a more standard "/sarc" or something, and I guess I will in the future.
Sorry for the confusion.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Ct and MrS... Now that
August 5, 2008 - 21:07 ET by bigtimerCt and MrS...
Now that you guys have that all cleared up...
Jer is married.
The reason I know is from back and forth posts between us long ago.
One thing about it though...Jer has to get the last word in...most time anyway.
Good luck both of you.
Btw...Hi Jer...just thought I would fill them in since you must be taking a break....I know you'll show up...besides that I already posted to you above somewhere...I think this is the thread...lol.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hi bt... Yes...took a
August 5, 2008 - 21:59 ET by JerHi bt...
Yes...took a break to call mom with details about enrolling my son in a military academy.
Actually, I rarely get in the last word. And the only thing that bothers me about that is when I'm accused of "ducking tail and running" [as someone claimed just recently].
Thanks, for confirming my marital status to Ct and MrS.
Later, Jer
Um, I wasn't the Curious
August 5, 2008 - 23:01 ET by MrShyUm, I wasn't the Curious George here.
:)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...
August 5, 2008 - 23:14 ET by JerBlame bt.
Jer
Shy...
August 5, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Clear thinkerNo problemo!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Clear
August 5, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Cool ArrowDon't forget lawyers.
Case in point - John Edwards channelling unborn babies.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Clear...
August 5, 2008 - 22:11 ET by Jer[Jer] has such a flair for dramatics
Are you freakin' kidding me?!!! That's the most quintessentially absurd statement I have ever read in my ENTIRE LIFE. Give me one--just ONE!!! example, hotshot.
Geez, you people are UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Jer
Hmmm...
August 5, 2008 - 22:16 ET by Clear thinkerLet me see if I can find one.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Shy
August 5, 2008 - 20:46 ET by Cool ArrowAccording to Liberal ideology, you're being a bigot if you feel somebody needs to be defended for being asked that question.
The acceptable answers are:
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Clear
August 5, 2008 - 20:41 ET by Cool ArrowNot that there's anything wrong with it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
LOL Cool
August 5, 2008 - 21:16 ET by acumenNo nothing at all....
Congratulations, Clear...
August 5, 2008 - 21:46 ET by JerJust curious... are you gay?
Congratulations, Clear...You are the only person to have ever asked me that question in my 61 years and counting.
The answer: No...boringly, thoroughly, hetero.
Just curious...why do you ask? It's a rather strange question. But maybe you're a queer thinker.
Jer
Jer
August 5, 2008 - 22:03 ET by MrShyWe hope you've done wrist-stretching exercizes, because you have a truckload of good posts to respond to on this thread, mine being a couple of them.
This gay question was not one of them, but it was funny nonetheless.
He finds you to be a tad over-dramatic in your views, so hence the question. :p
And 61?
"What do you have to say about that, Mary?"
"Wow, you're old."
- Mary Tyler Moore's playful retort to Phyllis, after she finally divulges to Mary and Rhoda that she's several years older than they are.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...it takes me ten
August 5, 2008 - 22:34 ET by JerShy...it takes me ten minutes [OK...slight exaggeration] to get even a comment this brief posted...because my computer is so da*n slooooow! It's driving me nuts.
Jer
Jer, Your civility is an
August 6, 2008 - 07:19 ET by KarmaJer,
Your civility is an admirable trait but, I don't think you really needed to use the * above in the word "darn".
BTW, I wish your son well at whichever academy he may enter.
Jer
August 5, 2008 - 20:40 ET by MrShyWhy don't you start a "NewsBusters - Back To The Future" site. Just an idea.
We've all been catching on to a recurring theme of yours.
If you're going to continue to claim the Dems got the same treatment in almost every argument, we're going to begin requesting real proof/links of this. And I mean, you'll have to dig up a LOT, to show that it was rampant, as it is today against Repubs.
I got it, how about I put in the first request :)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy, did you listen to talk
August 5, 2008 - 23:28 ET by JerShy, did you listen to talk radio in the 90's? If so, did you have some sort of magic filters in your ears which bleeped out any "uncomfortable" observations made about the Clintons?
I actually tuned in often. Thus, I personally heard Limbaugh charge that Bill Clinton "deliberately incinerated" innocent women and children at Waco.
I personally heard Kim Peterson [local Atlanta, streamed overseas] express regret Clinton couldn't face a firing squad.
I read that [I think it was] Bob Grant stated on air that Hillary should be "put down".
These weren't the ravings of call-in whackos, or somebody you sat next to on the bus. These were long-time, established, popular conservative talk show hosts.
So, yes, it has come from both sides and it's a shame.
Jer
Oh, but you know, that was
August 5, 2008 - 19:53 ET by motherbeltOh, but you know, that was factual...this stuff about Edwards is just overactive imaginings.
<sarc>
You're making my point, m-o-d...
August 5, 2008 - 20:11 ET by JerYou're making my point, m-o-d...cheap and tawdry. When GWB stumbles to the podium at news conference with a flask in his pocket...I'll start to worry.
Jer
This is new - "the news good
August 5, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Chris NormanThis is new - "the news good taste test". Only stories of good taste shall be covered. No tawdry news will be entertained.
McNotObama '08
Hope this helps Jer
August 5, 2008 - 19:40 ET by acumenWhy is time and band width being wasted regurgitating tabloid gossip concerning a political irrelevancy like John Edwards?
Good question Jer but I disagree with your premise; "...regurgitating tabloid gossip..."
Reading P. J.'s post I didn't see one quote provided by the National Enquirer. I only see two apparently contrasting articles by two writers at McClatchy.
The topic of P.J.'s post is not tabloid gossip but the obvious parallel universes that exist at McClatchy. According to McClatchy reporter Lisa Zagaroli, Edwards has gone from fielding questions from reporters to dodging reporters; "Only three weeks ago, John Edwards fielded media questions on his chances of filling the vice-presidential slot on Democrat Barack Obama's ticket or a cabinet position in his administration. On Wednesday, the former U.S. senator, presidential candidate and 2004 vice-presidential nominee refused to answer questions that took a tabloid turn." Zagoroli went on to report; "...raising questions about his prospects for a spot in an Obama administration."
But according to a later story by McClatchy reporter Stephanie Davis entitled; Guessing game: Who will be the next Democratic vice presidential candidate?, Davis still considers Edwards a current viable VP consideration by Obama even including Edwards on Obama's 'short list'; "The short list isn't so short" and Davis goes on to list Edwards as someone on Obama's short list.
So as you can see, P.J.'s post is not a regurgitation of tabloid gossip but the discrepancy between one writer at McClatchy "...raising questions about his (Edwards) prospects for a spot in an Obama administration" and another writer at McClatchy still considering Edwards on Obama's "short list".
You've got to admit Jer, that is quite a descrepancy. Particularly for an organization that provides news and features content service for newspapers, broadcasters and web sites.
acumen... High five to
August 5, 2008 - 19:47 ET by bigtimeracumen...
High five to ya'!
...that post of yours is rich.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Thanks BT
August 5, 2008 - 20:41 ET by acumenWouldn't it be nice if we quit fighting each other over nonsense and took the fight where it belongs? To the majority of politicians that have fled DC for a relaxing five week vacation instead of staying on the job and passing legislation giving 'we the people' back our land and the God-given right to use it?
Just how much land does the US government control instead of 'we the people'? Some might be surprised to learn it is about one third of total US land (jpg document so takes a while to load). And this doesn't include US coastal waters that Federal politicians have taken a liking to.
And as recent reports by the federal government's own watchdogs point out, Federal agencies are not doing a good job managing the land of 'we the people'.
Something to occupy our (we the people) thoughts while most politicians in Congress are partying for the next five weeks. Must be nice...
It seems the media
August 5, 2008 - 20:09 ET by Chris NormanIt seems the media considered Edwards important and relevant enough not too long ago to cover his endorsement of Obama as a major event. Edwards is a public figure because he has made himself one - I don't think there is a controlling authority who decides when one is off the public figure list unless Jer knows who it is.
McNotObama '08
Chris...I can assure you
August 5, 2008 - 20:51 ET by JerChris...I can assure you that for the puposes of any libel suit against the National Enquirer, Edwards is legally deemed to be a "public figure".
I just happen to think that being a public figure shouldn't ipso facto reduce oneself to grist for the tabloids, but if and when it does, scandal rumors still shouldn't become the subject of mainstream media gossip.
Jer
I agree
August 5, 2008 - 20:55 ET by Cool ArrowLike National Guard rumors and forged supporting documents timed immediately before an election.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...I've always thought
August 5, 2008 - 23:11 ET by JerCool...I've always thought Rathergate won the election for Bush. It discredited a story that was essentially true on the main points, and consequently prevented in from being a continuing campaign issue that would hound Bush.
It bolstered the right's long-standing claim of liberal media bias.
And, it prompted CBS 60 min. execs to scratch a scheduled expose` on Bush and the Nigerian uranium tubes because of the credibility problems which erupted in the wake of Rather's screw-up.
General Rove must have had to suppress a smile each time he denounced it.
Jer
Jer - How can you say it was true?
August 5, 2008 - 23:20 ET by Dee BunkThe only proof they had was the forged documents.
It was a stupid story anyway and I agree that it could have been helpful to Bush because it showed how in the tank the media was for Kerry. They wouldn't listen to actual testimony from lots of Swift Boat Veterans who served with Kerry but used fabricated evidence against Bush.
Had the story stood, without anyone realizing about the forgery, I don't think it would have hurt Bush. I don't think most people cared.
I see
August 5, 2008 - 23:23 ET by Cool ArrowSince it backfired on the MSM, it doesn't count as yellow journalism.
I'm kidding, Jer. I know you don't believe that.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...Rather shouldn't
August 5, 2008 - 23:37 ET by JerCool...Rather shouldn't have been doing the story even if it had been completely nailed down. He was a 'straight' news man with way too much liberal baggage already.
Jer
Disagree Jer
August 5, 2008 - 23:57 ET by Cool ArrowIf there was any truth to it, even the National Enquirer could have done it.
OK, they're more credible than Rather, but you get my drift.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
OK, they're more credible
August 6, 2008 - 00:13 ET by JerOK, they're more credible than Rather, but you get my drift.
Hardy, har...har...har. Veeery funny, Cool.
Still say a purportedly straight news reader [and an unabashed Democrat] shouldn't be doing a specially prepared incendiary hit piece on a Republican presidential candidate during a heated campaign, even if it is one hundred per cent accurate.
Jer
Still disagree
August 6, 2008 - 00:21 ET by Cool ArrowSo Woodward and Bernstein were OK with their investigation only because it wasn't an election year?
Electioneering nowadays starts immediately after the inauguration.
What the heck, Hillary's campaign is already positioning for '12
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...
August 6, 2008 - 00:34 ET by JerWoodward and Bernstein were investigative reporters. Rather was not.
Jer
And, my computer absolutely SUCKS! It is an ordeal to navigate from page to page, and posting is nearly impossible. Throwing in the towel soon.
OK Jer
August 6, 2008 - 00:39 ET by Cool ArrowBut I think Rather was doing this as an investigative reporter for "60 Minutes II"
Rather, Woodward, and Bernstein were all Democrat sympathizers. Only one of them was a contemptible yellow journalist.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool...
August 6, 2008 - 00:47 ET by JerI could be mistaken, but I think Woodward was, at least at the time, a Republican who had voted for Nixon. Bernstein was/is a quasi-communist.
You're right about Rather and 60 Minutes II, but that doesn't change the fact that he was still the CBS straignt news anchor. He shouldn't have been doing the story.
Jer
cool & jer
August 6, 2008 - 00:47 ET by MrShyYeah, Rather totally WAS playing the "investigative journalist" on that show, with that stuff.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Unfortuately Chris,
August 5, 2008 - 21:06 ET by acumenUnfortunately Chris, it appears to me that the establishment media deems themselves to be the "controlling authority who decides when one is off (or on for that matter) the public figure list". I wouldn't have a problem with that media-self-imposed responsibility as long as all public figures were treated equally. However, as we have seen from countless documented cases of everything from 'guess that politicians party affiliation' to 'tingling extremities' public figures (particularly politicians) receiving equal journalistic treatment is simply not the case.
I think even our left-leaning visitors to this site would agree with the above. They might not disagree with the practice of media bias when/if it supports their ideology, but I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that is paying attention that an unhealthy bias does exist were it shouldn't -- in establishment journalism. And that's why I consider:
Journalism is dead
Good argument, acumen, BUT...
August 5, 2008 - 21:12 ET by JerGood question Jer but I disagree with your premise; "...regurgitating tabloid gossip..."
Reading P. J.'s post I didn't see one quote provided by the National Enquirer. I only see two apparently contrasting articles by two writers at McClatchy. [my bold]
acumen...Apparently, you forgot to look up at the right-hand corner of P.J.'s post where there is a reproduction of the actual National Enquirer headline, regurgitated, if you will: World Exclusive--John Edwards Love Child Scandal!
Furthermore, the only references in the post to the scandal are ultimately sourced to the Enquirer.
You did note that "the short list isn't so short". I agree. And I repeat what I said earlier...I doubt he's even on the long list.
In any event, P.J.'s intent was not merely--in fact, it was not in any manner--to generate debate about Edwards' V-P chances. Rather it was to note--as he did in his opening sentence--"the efforts of the mainstream media to pretend that there is no scandal hanging over John Edwards..."
Jer
Let's not forget that this
August 5, 2008 - 21:26 ET by dboLet's not forget that this story was first reported on in Oct/07 when Edwards was running for Dem leadership. It's as much of a MSM scandal as it is about Edwards. In addition, the story is just not about Edwards himself. Hunter is receiving $15,000/month from someone/somewhere. From the NE:
The money is being funneled to Hunter by a wealthy colleague who was
closely tied to the Edwards’ campaign. This same man is also shoveling
cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby.
If you donated to the Edwards campaign, wouldn't you be interested in a little more digging of facts?
dbo... What an excellent
August 5, 2008 - 21:33 ET by bigtimerdbo...
What an excellent thought.
I wonder if anybody has thought of looking into that exact thing.
...bet that $$$ is so washed it is squeaky clean, plus untraceable him being a democrat trial lawyer and all.
Connections matter..probably had lessons from Clinton.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I'm going to put words in
August 5, 2008 - 21:36 ET by dboI'm going to put words in Jer's mouth.
"Move along folks, nothing to see here".
Move along, dbo...ya got
August 5, 2008 - 22:54 ET by JerMove along, dbo...ya got nothin'. :-)
Actually, you do (have somethin'). But, why doesn't Fox News or the Wall Street Journal--I think they could be reasonably classified as conservative components of the MSM--pick up the story and run with it...every day? Put some of their best reporters on it and get to the bottom of the story. Let's see their evidence, and then P.J. can start posting pictures of headlines from those news sources instead of the National Enquirer.
Someone noted that Fox had telecast a news segment referring to the "scandal". Have they really advanced the narrative, or just parroted the NE?
My point is this: the National Enquirer may be right, and it may be wrong [about Edwards--and Bush's drinking, for that matter], but I don't consider it a credible news source.
Jer
Facts? The left don't need
August 5, 2008 - 21:37 ET by Clear thinkerFacts? The left don't need no stinking facts!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ha Jer
August 5, 2008 - 22:08 ET by acumenacumen...Apparently, you forgot to look up at the right-hand corner of P.J.'s post where there is a reproduction of the actual National Enquirer headline, regurgitated, if you will: World Exclusive--John Edwards Love Child Scandal!
Tough crowd tonight. Feeling a little stretchy? Silly me, was only paying attention to the content of the post and the links provided when I should have been paying attention to the pretty pictures. And here I was thinking I was spending way too much time staring at T-shirt girl.
Furthermore, the only references in the post to the scandal are ultimately sourced to the Enquirer.
Awww, go ahead and finish that thought....the only references in the post to the scandal are ultimately sourced to the Enquirer...not P.J.
Jer, you are too smart to be suggesting NB Posters refrain from providing media content. I can see it now; Today The Boston Globe stated....well, we can't show you because it originated at the NE....but take NB's word for it, it's bad and demonstrates confusion by Globe writers.
In any event, P.J.'s intent was not merely--in fact, it was not in any manner--to generate debate about Edwards' V-P chances....
Never said it was. What I said was P.J.'s post is not a regurgitation of tabloid gossip but the discrepancy between one writer at McClatchy and another.
I'm not trying to twist your arm Jer, just attempting to answer your question of; "Just curious...Why is time and band width being wasted regurgitating tabloid gossip concerning a political irrelevancy like John Edwards?" I will sleep tonight if you don't accept my answer.
And if it turns your crank, please accept my apology for doing such a poor job and allow me to join you in your outrage at P.J., NB and anyone else we can point a finger at for wasting good bandwith and time over some clueless reporter at McClatchy....er....regurgitation of Tabloid gossip.
As penance let me unequivocally state I'm extremely hopeful Johnny Edwards will be offered the VP slot in any future Obama Administration. In fact I would be delighted. I'm just still not sure which family he will be dragging on stage at the convention....or going home with at the end of the day. Oops, was that wrong? And so soon after confession.
Take care Jer. I've got to go do some chores before crashing for the night. Nice chatting with you.
acumen...I should have
August 5, 2008 - 22:22 ET by Jeracumen...I should have amplified a little more in my earlier response. Your arguments were not only good, but they effectively undercut my central thesis.
Not saying you completely dismantled my argument, but you inflicted some serious wounds.
Do your chores. Have a good night.
Jer
If NE reports prove to be
August 5, 2008 - 19:16 ET by Eileen RightIf NE reports prove to be true (so far it appears they are), you could add Jesse Jackson stunt double to possible positions.
Bill, Oh!
August 5, 2008 - 19:46 ET by TexndocBill O'Reilly discussed the story last night and said 'Factor' isn't going further at this time, but if pictures and/or video is released, 'Factor' will be "polite" and "respectful", which made me think 'Factor' is still smarting from the loofa-Andrea thing.
The "tabloids"
August 5, 2008 - 19:56 ET by ahusserThe NE's shtick is celebrities, their lives and hi and low jinks. Edwards qualifies as a celeb. Apparently no other newspaper wants to touch this story (Bias anyone? Naw that couldn't be it). I would imagine that the NE has to be careful about what they print as they are a defamation and libel suit magnet of the first order. I don't see Edwards denying anything or as an experienced ambulance chaser, I mean trial lawyer, he is uncharacteristically quiet on this matter. The other papers are not picking this up because of their bias and their innate snobbishness against a tabloid. Of course if the scandalee was an individual from the other party it would be "Hold the presses" all the way. Jer and Biff's lame excuses don't hold water.
ahusser...
August 5, 2008 - 20:02 ET by Clear thinkerDoes the NYT's qualify as a tabloid?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Yes
August 5, 2008 - 20:11 ET by general companyClearly they do
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Even though the NYT is very biased
August 6, 2008 - 09:05 ET by ahusserto the left of course. It probably turns it's collective nose up at tabloid newspapers such as the NE believing it is the purveyor of "real" news or "serious" news and is therefore much higher on the food chain. Personally I think the NYT is on a par with the other lower order "tabloids" with headlines such as "My baby is an alien" for all the traitorours lying drivel that is printed in their rag.
My point being
August 6, 2008 - 09:03 ET by ahusserThe NE "Tabloid" is more credible than most "real" newspapers especially when it comes to celebrity scandal.
"Smile..you're on Candid Camera"
August 6, 2008 - 11:40 ET by sawing battaSay it aint so, Silky. Photos? I hope this story is false (not for you, but for your wife and family)
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebrity/65258