The John Edwards issue
There's a lots of chatter over at Your Voice at the Table about the nasty rumors swirlng around John Edwards.
The commenters make good points on both sides of the issue. This is an ethical conundrum. And I repeat: Edwards has not been helpful by being so evasive.
I also am surprised at the number of defenders of the Enquirer, which is gossipy at best and downright wrong on many stories at worst. Even when it knows better.
Yes, the tabloid has broken legitimate stories. But those tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.
As for whether Edwards could put this all to rest with a paternity test, would you? That would create a spectacle worthy of one of those soridid Maury Povich "baby daddy" shows. And then some.
There is another option: Rather than disprove Edwards' paternity the man who came forward to claim that the child is his could prove his paternity.
But would it would be worth the circus? And should private citizens have to do submit to such an indignity?
Finally, say what you will about The New York Times. The Enquirer does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
Update: Reports a story in today's Charlotte Observer: "With two weeks before their national convention, several prominent Democrats are saying Edwards must publicly address anonymously sourced National Enquirer stories that claim he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby."
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I agree. The Enquirer often makes more entertaining reading. Mind candy as opposed to mind poison.
Until fairly recently, John Edwards was running for President (it seemed never-endingly). Some people have argued that he should be Obama's choice for VP or US Attorney General (horrors!). The pity-the-poor-private citizen argument falls pretty flat.
The child caught in the cross-fire of selfish/moronic adults is the big looser here. After-all, we live in a slimeball world . . .
. . . and along those lines, I wonder if someone somewhere hasn't already done the paternity tests. It would be fairly simple . . . ala comparing a discarded baby diaper against a glass or personal item abandoned in a hotel.
Sounds right up the Enquirer's alley.
Posted on August 6, 2008 4:54 PM
Sorry, Allen -- looks like the National Enquirer was right on the money.
I give the Enquirer credit for breaking a story that the mainstream media (including the N&R) didn't want to touch until they had no choice. John Edwards has long been a Golden Boy among the media, particularly here in North Carolina.
However, it looks like he was a phony after all. Time to face facts, N&R -- your belovedJohn Edwards admitted that he was low enough to cheat on his dying wife.
Posted on August 8, 2008 3:31 PM
I never said the Enquirer wasn't right. In fact, Edwards' silence made it pretty clear that they were on to something.
I still don't trust their credbility. They get more wrong than they get right, and they've got the lawsuits to prove it.
Posted on August 8, 2008 3:43 PM
Reminds me of the Clinton/Lewinsky story....the liberal mainstream media tried their best to ignore and bury the story because it involved a big Democrat until they were reluctantly forced to accept the truth.
If this had been Karl Rove instead of Edwards, how long would the MSM have ignored it??
The NE was right, and the N&R was wrong.
Posted on August 8, 2008 4:23 PM