Blogs

this blog is trash

The the truth is trash.

I salate you for having the courage to ask an obvious question of a person who only months ago was seeking to be president & who only weeks ago announced he was ready to be Obama's running mate, and is discussed as a top contender for the post.

Where was the reporter from the Houston Chronicle? The Houston Business Journal? The New York Times, for that matter?

It's clear to anyone who thinks about it that Edwards basically just confessed.

He knew about the Enquirer story. He knew he was likely to be asked about it. And he knew there is a pretty good chance that the truth of his paternity will eventually come out.

Edwards is a bright man, a politician, and a trial lawyer. He certainly went over in his head how he would reply to such a question. Edwards deliberately chose an answer which sounded like a denial, while still literally true regardless of the fact that the article about him is true. He did not choose an actual denial which could potentially show him to be a liar, because he knew such a denial would likely do so, sooner or later.

His confession is as obvious as, and more definitive than, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (which obviously meant "I got a BJ" to anyone who cared to open a dictionary), because our language does not contain a word which suits his purposes so well.

If there were only Edwards's hopes (now I think dashed) to be picked for VP, I would merely be laughing about this. (I do not care for Edwards, for other reasons.) But the man does have a family, and likely all of them would be better off if his relationship had remained a secret, either forever or unless and until his wife dies.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (which obviously meant "I got a BJ" to anyone who cared to open a dictionary)"

Bzzt. Wrong, thank you for playing.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sexual relations
–noun
1. sexual intercourse; coitus.
2. any sexual activity between individuals.

It may have been a justifiable lie, but a lie it was. Unless we are to understand that the horndog habitually channels Humpty Dumpty.

I'm not surprised other reporters didn't want to touch this "story" with a ten foot pole because as Edwards said, it's "tabloid trash."

It's typical National Enquirer sleazy sensationalism with no facts, whatsoever, to support it. In fact, it was debunked the first time the National Enquirer put forth this smear.

What next? Will Bush be asked about that "alien baby" he supposedly fathered?

Obviously, the timing of this, is not coincidental, with the VP announcement right around the corner.

The dictionary definition of lying include deception, so Edwards was lying.

I personally do not believe anything that the National Enquire puts out. It is ridiculous to think that John Edwards would indeed put himself in a position that would cast this type of publicity for him. For goodness sake give the man some credit for being honest.

The love he has for Elizabeth and his family is very obvious, and I am glad to see that most media is not playing into this trash sensationalism in order to make money. Years ago, no one would dream of trying to make news by publishing such personal nonsense, the media has lost some of their credibility when they stoop so low to report this sleazy stuff.

If it wasn't true, he would've denied it. If someone makes up a story like that about you, you don't say "I don't want to talk about it". You say "That story is a complete fabrication. I wasn't at the Beverly Hills Hilton that night. Here's where I was and what I was doing."

Simple as that.

"It's clear to anyone who thinks about it that Edwards basically just confessed. ...
Edwards is a bright man, a politician, and a trial lawyer. He certainly went over in his head how he would reply to such a question. Edwards deliberately chose an answer which sounded like a denial, while still literally true regardless of the fact that the article about him is true. "

I think commenter DW Pitelli put this very well. The National Enquirer is a sleazy tabloid that has periodically had to admit stories were false. However, it often gets the story right. They clearly staked John Edwards out and went to a lot of trouble to document confronting him in a compromising position. Since he's a trial lawyer who is experienced at suing people it's unlikely the Enquirer would print this story without being able to prove the story.

I suspect John Edwards does love his wife and family. He'd obviously like to spare them the embarrassment that an affair and an out of wedlock childbirth would cause. Unfortunately for his family and this new baby, he's made a series of bad choices that are likely to blow up in a very painful fashion.

KWF,

Other dictionaries (e.g., my Webster's New Collegiate) only list "coitus" as a definition for "sexual relations."

But at any rate, I was right in my analysis as to how Clinton thought and spoke when he wanted to lie, in that upon hearing Clinton on live TV, I immediately said "he got BJs!"

One reporter, at a press conference that afternoon, said the same thing, noting the narrow dictionary definition to Clinton's press secretary, who ridiculed him for saying something so cynical.

"It's typical National Enquirer sleazy sensationalism with no facts, whatsoever, to support it."

I'm sure you said the same thing when they revealed Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction.

As for facts: They gave a specific date, time, and location. If Edwards, Hunter, and the McGovern (the man who is alleged to have rented the rooms and brought the two of them there) weren't there that night, I'm sure they can account for their whereabouts. They want to disprove this story, right?

"In fact, it was debunked the first time the National Enquirer put forth this smear."

Refuted, yes. Debunked, no.

DWPittelli and Jill: Hey I have a bridge to sell you..cheap. Be real. If this trash tabloid had a stake-out and surprised him as they claimed, where are the pictures??? Well, where are they? You want this garbage to be true because you don't like Edwards.

If the story weren't true, then you'd expect John Edwards to say something like, "I categorically deny everything in that false story. It is all untrue, and I will file a lawsuit for libel next week." But you don't hear him expressing any moral outrage or righteous indignation. All you hear is, "That newspaper is full of lies. Next subject...."

I wonder what compelled Edwards to risk ALL in order to show himself at her hotel. Did she threaten to go public if he didn't visit?? File a paternity lawsuit??

Edwards is from North Carolina. He did not realize that oral sex was sex and could result in pregnancy. Correct me, but wasn't Larry Craig headline news on MSM for months because sex sells? No mention by any MSM? No AP, no NYT, no WaPo, no CBS, no NBC, no CNN, no Fox News,...No, MSM bias? No way, right?

John Edwards for President? VP? Attorney General? And this guy chases ambulances for a living! Who woulda thunk it?

Sparkleon, what flavor Kool Aid do you drink? Is your tinfoil hat homemade or storebought? You could rival the Goracle carbon credit income if you would sell those two items.

It's entirely possible that Edwards didn't know about the Enquirer article. I didn't know about it, simply because, like anyone above the sixth grade level, I don't read the Enquirer.

But I guess this is a really important issue, much more important than a tanking economy and perpetual war. Congratulations!

But I guess this is a really important issue, much more important than a tanking economy and perpetual war. Congratulations!

Got him there. Birth control (or self control) is a lot harder to figure out than these easy issues. I can see why not fathering bastards in this era of the pill, condoms, etc., is too high a standard.

Max, I agree that I want it to be true because I do not like Edwards. I do not agree that I am thus made irrational.

Edwards was there. If he weren't even there, he would have said so, and the Enquirer wouldn't have used such a readily falsifiable claim, and one so "unsexy" (his mere presence at the hotel) as the hook to "prove" his adultery and paternity.

The weakness of the Enquirer story is that they only have evidence that Edwards was in the hotel, from which we must deduce he was visiting the woman (and child) in question (perhaps almost certain), and from which we must deduce that she was his lover and the child is his (not quite so probable, and certainly refutable given Edwards' cover story to date).

If the Enquirer wanted to make up a paternity story from whole cloth, they could have come up with some claim that is both more damning and probably less falsifiable, than their claim which involved a bunch of people (reporters, security) in a public place together -- any of the hotel or Edwards security people could call them out as liars, if they are.

For example, the Enquirer could have claimed that they obtained a baby bottle with DNA on it which matched a sample from a glass Edwards had drunk from. This would get them a huge story, lots of money, lots of attention, and less risk of being disproven than a false story involving 15 security men.

They could have found some sleazy PI to work with. And submitted false samples to a reputable lab to confirm the match. Since the samples would actually have matched, Edwards would know that to sue them, or even to make a public claim that they were lying, he would almost certainly have to submit actual samples. This he would be reluctant to do. Even if he were innocent, the Enquirer would not likely be liable for the PI's fraud or the lab's "mix-up" and the PI would not have deep pockets and could also claim a lab mixup.

I don't read the National Enquirer, but I did see the LA Times when it picked up the story. Curious, I looked around and found this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuou_n_66070.html

Something very odd is going on, and Sam Stein was vilified for pointing it out. Frankly, I don't care what it is, unless John Edwards is serious about his intent to be Attorney General. If he is, he needs to be vetted. If it is true, and he cares about his wife and children (i.e., he does not want this to come out and publicly shame his family), he should step out of contention for high level government positions. If it is false, he should sue the National Enquirer for libel (this is a classic case). Truth is a defense to libel.

However, lawyers are careful in how they word things. He didn't say, "that story is a complete and utter lie," he said, "That's tabloid trash," (true) and "They're full of lies," (possibly true). Neither statement specifically refutes the allegation made against him.

Here's an idea: John Edwards already denied the claims of an affair with Hunter in October and he is sick of answering to tabloid accusations.

"Edwards deliberately chose an answer which sounded like a denial, while still literally true regardless of the fact that the article about him is true. He did not choose an actual denial which could potentially show him to be a liar, because he knew such a denial would likely do so, sooner or later."

In regards to this quote, he already denied it in October. If his comment were actually a strategy, he would have been consistent and said the same thing at the start of all of the accusations. As it stands, he would still be found to be dishonest if the reports are found to be true, because he ALREADY denied it. So why would it be a strategy at this point? It's a little late for that.

My guess is that Edwards is disgusted by these claims and thus chooses to ignore them. The focus of the press should be the issues and stories that are fact-based. I think that's what Edwards was telling you when he said, "I'm here to talk about helping people." Pay attention to the stories with facts, instead of hearsay and you might be a legitimate news source.

The entire story is false.

These 'major National Enquirer reporter' supposedly corners Edwards and HAS NO PHOTOS OR VOICE RECORDING to prove it?

Its all BULLSHIT. R.Hunter has made a statement-
It is all trash. Not one thing is true.

This entire "issue" will be kept alive because the GOP wants to get someone on the Democratic side of the aisle.

John Edwards is not Larry Craig. Larry Craig brought himself down by being an anti-gay homosexual.

Before anyone "screams" about the silence from the media -- where was the mainstream media when the story broke about gay male prostitute Jeff Gannon/ John Guckert was granted Bush White House Press clearance although he had no journalistic qualifications?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

Hypocracy is everywhere . . .

"Years ago, no one would dream of trying to make news by publishing such personal nonsense, the media has lost some of their credibility when they stoop so low to report this sleazy stuff."

Really? Years ago? Like the years ago when yellow journalism was all the rage?

Hey Max:

Who's buying the Brooklyn Bridge now?