Edwards’ political currency declines with each day the story goes unresolved
I thought the story the photos would have broken into the big media by now. McClatchy says it’s “clearly getting ready to bust out.” And that there have been consequences even without big media attention:
With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak [at the convention] or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.
“If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is ‘no,’ he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.
Reported or not, media is still the driving factor:
An appearance at the convention would only highlight the unresolved story, said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and former aide to then-Vice President Al Gore. A convention speaking appearance could become the moment that drives news media coverage of the alleged affair to explode.
“You want to address these issues long before you get to that point,” Lehane said. “Otherwise people who haven’t written about it before, now start writing about it.” Edwards’ decision not to take questions about the alleged affair has allowed doubts to linger and political bloggers to speculate. The National Enquirer has reported that he fathered a child with a former campaign worker and met with her in a Beverly Hills hotel last month. He made no response to the National Enquirer’s posting on Wednesday of what it said was a photo of Edwards and his illegitimate child. Two weeks ago, after the National Enquirer ran the story about the hotel liaison, he dismissed a reporter’s question in Houston and used the “tabloid trash” line.
Atrios has a photo that the others don’t.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Edwards’ political currency declines with each day the story goes unresolved”
[...] Original The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © work at home sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
[...] the original post here: Edwards’ political currency declines with each day the story goes … – The Moderate Voice [...]
I had no desire to see that without warning at 10am in the morning.
Startled me a bit!
Lately the major media outlets seem more concerned with reporting on each other and inventing news stories to report on actual issues and events. I think Edwards is smart to ignore this – a public denial only draws more attention to it. And come on people – since when does anyone buy THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER for actual news and factual reporting? They have a couple blurry photos and some poorly photoshopped pictures, nothing more.
It is getting harder and harder for those on the Left to deny MSM pro-Democrat bias in this story.
If this had been a Republican, it would have been over ever MSM outlet in the country and around the world. This cannot be honestly denied.
Joe's argument against the claim of liberal bias a while back was that the MSM regarded this as just another story, and it would inevitably break out. Instead . . . **Crickets chirping**
Some on the Left claimed that there was no bias, since Edwards is now a private citizen, and no longer campaigning for president, and it is speculation that he was considered for the VP spot. Thus, it is different from when the MSM trumpeted similar GOP scandals.
Of course, these events happened PRECISELY when Edwards was running for president. The rumors were circulating then. The media refused to look into them. He is still be considered by some for a Cabinet-level position.
As for the private citizen argument, the New York Times felt NO such compunction when it exposed Bill Bennett's gambling problem when he was a private citizen.
That is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, say those on the Left. Bennett always talked about morality. Thus, the Times exposed his hypocrisy.
After all, it is not as if Edwards – with his love child with a woman not his wife – ever used family values and members of his loving family as a political device.
(Oops . . . scratch that argument.)
The Enquirer has implied that it is timing its release of this story to coincide with the Democratic Convention. The DNC is loving this, you know.
How will the MSM explain to the American public that it has sat on this story for months . . . refusing to investigate it in any way shape or form . . . when Edwards is a No-Show at the convention?
This story — when the dam bursts – will reinforce the impression that polling has consistently indicated: the overwhelming consensus among Americans that the media is biased in favour of the Democrats and against Republicans.
Amanda said: “They have a couple blurry photos and some poorly photoshopped pictures, nothing more.”
Actually, you don't know what they have. As Mickey Kaus observes:
Old MSM claim — there are no photos — if you produce photos, we will investigate.
New MSM claim – Ok, there are only bad photos — we want high definition photos.
We know, conclusively, from multiple sources that Edwards was at that hotel.
Edwards, an experienced litigator who made megabucks from suing people, has no obvious reason not to sue the pants off the National Enquirer if it is not true.
He is not a public figure any more. He is not running for office.
He has the resources and the legal knowledge to take on the Enquirer.
Instead, he was running from photographers at the hotel.
Gawker and other “tabloid trash” sources indicate that Young and the baby Mama are “living large” without visible signs of support. Hmmm…who is paying the bills?
MoveOn . . . MoveOn . . . no story here . . . .
Marlowe,
Even if it's true, it doesn't rise to the freakshow levels we're all used to with the GOP. And have you forgotten about Eliot Spitzer so soon?
ChrisWWW said: “Even if it's true, it doesn't rise to the freakshow levels we're all used to with the GOP. And have you forgotten about Eliot Spitzer so soon?”
Well, while the Larry Craig episode wasn't a freakshow, it was a damn sight more entertaining than this. (I enjoyed the Clooney/Pitt video about public toilet foot tapping
I believe the key difference between Spitzer and Edwards was that Spitzer made TOO many enemies in too many places. The role of the feds with the Spitzer wiretaps troubled me. Curious that Democrats on the Hill . . . eager to pursue the politicized Bush Justice on numerable points . . . have let rumors about that one drop off the map.
Edwards, in contrast, is the fair-haired boy of Democratic Progressives. He has never pronounced a jihad against the GOP in the wacky manner of Spitzer in NY. Plus, his wife's story touched many people.
I think there are a few complications with this story that could explain why the MSM isn't pushing hard on it.
1. When the Edwards/Hunter tryst story first broke last fall the MSM was on it. Then they got tarnished when someone else admitted to being the father of Hunter's child, and everyone involved confirmed that version of the story.
2. The evidence so far this time around is circumstantial. All we really know is that Edwards visited someone known to be a friend at an unusual hour and in an unusual way. That certainly isn't very smart, but that's all the evidence indicates at this point.
3. McCain was accused of a similar impropriety with similarly circumstantial evidence. And the NYT, which broke that story, was severely criticized for it.
4. If the story is true, who will it harm most? I'd say it's Edward's cancer-stricken wife and his family. Edwards would be exposed as cheating on his wife, and that's pretty much it. Heck, even McCain cheated on his wife. The first one anyway. There isn't the same element of hypocrisy vis-a-vis Edward's public message as there is in other stories of the same ilk. It was the element of hypocrisy that made the Craig, Spitzer, Vitter, Taggart, et. al., stories particularly newsworthy.
So is there a double standard going on here? I don' t know. But for the reasons above, I think it makes sense for credible reporters to be careful.
To all the retarded liberal bias media folks, the article above is how you actually report this story. It's unsubstantiated but the fact he wont speak about it does raise some interesting questions about his political future. End of story. Granted the National Enquirer (plus random Security guy) have a little more integrity than the current administration, but I'm pretty sure they aren't the rock solid foundation for a breaking scandal piece.
Marlowecan…. you got me! I did argue and did believe that it would be in the traditional media by now. I'm watching and will be interested to see how it plays out. I don't see the bias you or Mickey Kaus see, but I might if I were in your shoes.
I'm inclined to agree with 1, 2, & 3 of Ricorun's points but it's number 4, hypocrisy, that the traditional media sees as the most legit cover to run with. It's in their DNA to do it, they want to run the story, they just want to be sure they have their journalism ducks in a row so they're not too legitimately vulnerable to the tabloid label.
Amanda, I'm not a tabloid reader, but I understand that under David Perel the Enquirer does a real news job on stories that bridge into its area. This one's great. Tabloid's traditional beat with very real political implications.