Thursday, July 24, 2008

John Edwards: Veep or Baby Daddy?


A little while back I posted about the National Enquirer story alleging John Edwards was engaging in an affair that had produced a love child. Now it seems the oft disdained publication was right on the money. I realize I might be the serious minority here, but I LOVE these kind of stories. No 'he said - she said' or 'denounce this or that', but concrete evidence of slimedom. You know Clinton is somewhere reading all this feeling quite superior...

This 'man' was (is?) being seriously considered by Obama as a VP. Before that he was running for president. I got hell for saying he was a bad husband for staying in the race after his wife was told she had end stage cancer. Little did I know just how shady he was... People ALWAYS get caught, but if you're running for the highest (or second highest) office in the land...OF COURSE YOU'LL GET CAUGHT and then you can crash the spirit of your dying wife even further. What an absolute piece of shit.

For those who would dismiss everything because it's the National Enquirer, consider this paragraph from Roger Simon at Pajamas Media:

"...Oh, one last thing, for those of you who say it’s The National Enquirer, how do we know it’s true? I suggest you Google the “National Enquirer and OJ Simpson.” They broke most of the important stories on that case. In general, these days they’re vastly more reliable than The New York Times..." (source)

The LA Times did an interesting blog roundup about the impending scandal. If your fresh out of Ipecac syrup and are in need...just read the comments under that article. The justifications for Edwards are amazing...One thing I can rest assured knowing is I'm NOT a hypocrite and I'd be just as scathing if this were a star Republican (remember why I didn't want Newt to run...)

And this surprising calling out of the MSM double standard from the left-leaning Slate.com:

"Why jump on Larry Craig, and not John Edwards as equally?

Shafer writes: "If Edwards had no affair and fathered no love child, it should be easy to erase the hypocrisy charge, and the press owes him that, pronto. If we give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, which he deserves, visiting the woman who recently gave birth to the out-of-wedlock child of a married campaign aide is completely OK.

But meeting her at a Beverly Hills hotel in the early hours of the morning and running from tabloid reporters when approached and hiding in a hotel bathroom for 15 minutes, as the Enquirer reports Edwards did, is not completely OK. Not if he wants to avoid the hypocrite label."

Shafer continues: "So why hasn't the press commented on the story yet? Is it because it broke too late yesterday afternoon, and news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy (Craig) is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?" (Read the entire article)

No comments: