So fuckin' what?

The link doesn't work.

Vile.

What, Atrios made it OK to link? How come you never linked to all the NE "Bush is a drunk" stories?

I'm surprised that you'd be surprised. Most of the mainstream media hasn't shown much interest in this story up to now. I doubt some photos are going to change their minds.

So does everyone think Mickey Kaus still blows goats?

It doesn't look real to me but the real question is why you would even mention it?

Come on. Edwards would never show up in public with his hair pasted over his forehead like that!
He'd spend a half hour grooming before visiting his kid.

Why do UFOs and John Edwards both have the ability to make cameras take out of focus pictures?

Looks like CGI to me, blurred to hide the cheapness.

An illegitimate Edwards child is fair game, if true.

But I don't like these photographs at all.

More posts, please, on the claw marks Laura left on W's face.

You mean the story that makes clear he was holding a baby? Who hasn't asked to hold a baby when the opportunity presents itself?

Since when did John Edwards morph into Mark Harmon?
And...how much is the Enquirer paying their photographers? I am sure that I can snap a clearer photo from my cellphone than those they show.

Looks like one of those rapid paintings. Where are the "happy little trees"?
.

Hedge fund flunkies have a lot of excess love to redistribute.

So, um, it's an out-of-focus photograph of a presidential candidate holding a baby (no context), an out-of-focus photograph of a presidential candidate closing some blinds, and an in-focus picture of the blinds themselves. There are, notably, no photographs of the goddamn person that the presidential candidate was supposedly there to see.

SHOCKING. AMAZING. MUST CREDIT NATIONAL INQUIRER.

And...how much is the Enquirer paying their photographers? I am sure that I can snap a clearer photo from my cellphone than those they show.
Posted by: anonymoose

That was my thought. The "close-up" is so grainy that it could be any white male with a receding hairline in a blue T-shirt.

It very well could be Edwards and the story true. However, the Enquirer's photo "evidence" isn't.

I`ve always wondered what drugs those NE people are using. What ever ones they are need to be banned ASAP.

Waaaayyyy too junior high.

"...Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid...." - Voltaire

I dunno, Mickey Kaus + National Enquirer just does not make my "legit" bell ring. As rapacious is our media is these days looking for breaking news and ratings, if there was anything concrete here it would have been all over the place. Mickey can accuse the media of bias all he wants, but if they actually had a verifiable story that would deliver a ratings bump they'd run it even if it implicated Mother Teresa.

Gawds that is bullshit.

So, um, it's an out-of-focus photograph of a presidential candidate

i'm not sure you can even say it's Edwards in that image. all you can conclusively say is that it's an image of someone with brown hair and a blue shirt.

Shocking headline:

Politician held baby!

Enquirer scoop!

As for the pictures, their quality is so low that they suggest a desperate Enquirer faked them for an "authentic" look, rather than admit that they were peddling falsehood all along.

Times v. Sullivan giveth, and Times v. Sullivan taketh away.

National Enquirer? What rubbish.

Now, if it appeared in the Weekly World News, I would believe it.

LOL!

..so conveniently out of focus.

I would have thought Limbaugh's staff would have better Photoshop skills. Although, this might be good enough for Drudge wannabe Kaus to have an orgasm.

I'm all for equal treatment...lets discuss John's love child, and McCain's throwing his wife to the bikers.

Just got off jury duty. Assume these pictures are real. They show a person (maybe JE) holding a baby. When the blood tests come in, please let me know. This, so far, is a non-story.

The photo with the kid is definitely Edwards. Compare it to this one from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/uploaded_images/john-edwards2-773493.jpg

Note the shape of the nose and the forehead. It's him.

Quick someone check teh kerning....er...I mean check whether the digital camera used by NE renders pictures with this type of anti-aliasing...or something like that. Oh, f@#k it. Let's just call bullshit and move on.y?

PS: Why is he so sweaty? No one sweats in LA.

Here's the real pic:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/6/133349/1355

So let me get this straight. Edwards goes through all this trouble to sneak in and out of the hotel, apparently dodging NE photogs and reporters along the way, yet allows a spy camera to be smuggled in the room. OK.

This story may be true, but these pictures provide no proof. If Edwards is willing to take a paternity test, that would solve it once and for all. This does nothing.

What's the story here?

"Attractive, affluent former U.S. Senator has mistress."

And this is a story why?

Is having a mistress disqualifying for a cabinet appointment? Appointment to the federal bench?

So an ad with Obama and Hilton is a dog whistle, but a photo with Edwards and a baby is bogus?

How about both events demonstrated little of what their proponents claim them to demonstrate?

Is having a mistress disqualifying for a cabinet appointment? Appointment to the federal bench?
Posted by: Carl Nyberg

Not in the rest of the world. Then again, it didn't stop Shrub's father from getting elected president.

So the Inquirer has a grainy photo of John Edwards wearing a sweaty blue t-shirt and holding a baby.

Then they show a photo of Edwards wearing the same T-shirt, which they acknowledge is taken from a different date and time, with the SAME sweat pattern.

So Edwards shows up at the hotel with the same t-shirt and same sweat pattern that he had months before and somehow the NI snaps a blurry, out-of-focus picture from inside the hotel room? And this despite the fact that the NI said he was wearing a blue button-down shirt? Did he change into the sweaty blue t-shirt in the hotel?

Look, my own feeling is that there's something to this story, but it's just too F'ing weird to figure out what's true and what's not right now. This picture is bizarre and proves nothing.

Two words: So What?

This admittedly tawdry affair concerns only the imediate parties involved with one another. It is most assuredly none of my business, nor is it any of yours.

"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." - Letter of Paul to the Romans, 2:1

Brilliant.

The Beverly Hilton is such a discrete place for a rendezvous.

Yeah. Right.

Now, if it appeared in the Weekly World News, I would believe it.Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 6, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Indeed. They have proven the most reliable. In fact it was their hard hitting issue on
Saddam and Osama's Gay Wedding that finally proved without a doubt a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

I love the miracle which is photoshop. As a result, though, I prefer waiting to condemn until the paternity test comes through.

As for the dog whistle aspect to the ads, the people being judged as scum are the people responsible for producing the ads. If Edwards had taken these photos, I would suggest he take classes to learn how it's actually supposed to be done.

The hairline is all wrong. So is the color. The guy generally resembles Edwards, but not enough to be John Edwards.

This is really beneath you, don't you think, Kevin?

Having worked in a business where we had to deal with tabloids, let me say that I take the Enquirer far more serious than any of the others. They actually fact check some of their stuff, and if you can prove them wrong they'll kill a story. Or at least they did ten or so years ago. Don't know about now.

This is really beneath you, don't you think, Kevin?

My thoughts exactly.

IF HE DOESN'T SUE, IT'S PROBABLY TRUE.

This is really beneath you, don't you think, Kevin?

Uh, yeah. Linking to some blurry photos from the National Freaking Enquirer?

You're supposed to be better than Drudge, man.

Will apparently Edwards never filed a lawsuit, so it must be true.

Edwards would have made a nice VP, but I guess it's going to be Wes Clark instead - at least that is what I think.

There's nothing there. I mean, what are we supposed to take away from a fuzzy picture of a guy holding a baby?

I'm shocked you linked to this, Kevin. Actually, I'm kinda shocked that I followed the link, too. I must be having a slow day.

Carl Nyberg, Out-and-About,

This story (which doesn't rely only on photos, and which is something of an open secret) doesn't necessarily disqualify Edwards, but it hits at his main positive, that he's a guy who does the right thing for the right reason. What else is there?

He was an undistinguished Senator and a mediocre vice-presidential candidate. But, he also ran as the "conscience of the party," a lawyer who fought for "the little guy" and who did the right thing -- who apparently had his moral compass set on some sort of ethical true north. Mickey Kaus is a buffoon, but Lee Stranahan seems to agree with him about why this affair matters for John Edwards, candidate for office.

Short version: in the midst of a campaign where the biggest news about Edwards was that he was campaigning with his wife's blessing while she was battling cancer, it turns out that he may have been cheating on her. And of course, in order not to be accused of "liberal media bias" the MSM is almost certain to run with this story if Edwards sticks around, if he has a major speaking slot at the convention, etc.

I'm all for ignoring this, and for leaving Elizabeth Edwards alone, as long as John Edwards keeps himself off the radar screen (perhaps this explains why the Obama camp has been so conspicuously silent on the Edwards-for-veep and Edwards-for-A.G. speculation), but if Edwards pushes himself back into the spotlight, then what do you think is going to happen with this story?

We were (and are) all happy to jump on Newt Gingrich for his infidelities and crass treatment of his wife, and if "perfect marriage" Mitt Romney had been caught in something like this, we'd be busy constructing his funeral pyre; if this story turns out to be true and we subject Edwards to considerably less than the same treatment, aren't we being hypocritical?

What's the story here?
"Attractive, affluent former U.S. Senator has mistress."
And this is a story why?
Is having a mistress disqualifying for a cabinet appointment? Appointment to the federal bench?
Posted by: Carl Nyberg on August 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM

This admittedly tawdry affair concerns only the imediate parties involved with one another. It is most assuredly none of my business, nor is it any of yours.
Posted by: Out & About in The Castro. on August 6, 2008 at 5:27 PM |

Short version: in the midst of a campaign where the biggest news about Edwards was that he was campaigning with his wife's blessing while she was battling cancer, it turns out that he may have been cheating on her.

So if Elizabeth Edwards comes forward and says that John was in this relationship with her blessing because she couldn't have sex anymore, then it's a non-story, right?

I was hard on Edwards during the primaries and would be hard on him now if he was a candidate. Newt's a philanderer and maybe Edwards is. It is not a stop the presses story, but one that adds another piece of evidence that Edwards is the demagogue I always considered him to be.

Since the whole chattering class apparently now believes the story, Edwards must know that his reputation is being destroyed. So why isn't he speaking out?

IF the story is true -- and I'm not fully convinced yet, though it looks bad -- I am really appalled that Edwards ran for president knowing this might come out. IMAGINE if he had won the nomination and this had come out while he was the nominee. IF this is true, he is a despicable person who was knowingly placing the country at great risk for a Republican win. IF it's not true -- and I still really really hope it's not true -- then that would be great.

I saw NE in line at the grocery store. That blown-up pixelated pix could be anybody.

The pics are so blurry as to be worthless. And didn't this rendezvous happen in the wee hours? Why would Edwards be wearing sweaty workout clothes at 2am?

The lack of a denial from JE is all that makes me think it could be true.

Yeah, SG. I agree. It could be practically anyone. Am pretty sure it's not Mitt Romney.

But it's definitely not JE. That guy doesn't sweat. Or have that beaky nose. Or the beginnings of a wattle.

The NE is run by folks who understand very well both revenge and how the MSM runs. The sooner the MSM picks up the story, or if Edwards confesses, the worse it is for the NE. Having been dissed by Mr. Edwards and the mainstream media, and wanting to milk this for all the attention they can they're now quite willing to drive everyone nuts.

Does anyone really believe that with 7 or so reporters in attendance when Mr. Edwards made his ill-fated visit, they did not get excellent pictures of Mr. Edwards scurrying around in the basement? Didn't a security guard threaten to break a camera? Disbelieve that such shots exist if you wish. If anything I suspect that the spy-shots of Mr. Edwards new baby were doctored by the NE to appear somewhat bogus ... casting doubt on themselves and fueling the vituperations of those already maddened by the disclosures.

Nope, the NE has this one figured out perfectly. It's actually quite impressive.

FlyFishing probably has it right. I can't believe folks on this thread are disputing the NE story when Edwards has not even denied it at this point. I am withholding judgment, which is what I think any objective observer should do at this point.

But if true, as to what it reflects about Edwards, consider this answer he gave on March 25, 2008, after his alleged love child was born on February 27, 2008:

"But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make."

hey kevin, thanks for posting this! (LOL)

it appears that john edwards, whether innocent or guilty as charged, will not be obama's running mate.

did edwards just get "roved?"

i dunno...just asking questions...

Sorry, folks, I had the date wrong. The Edwards answer was given on March 25, 2007, not 2008.

The context of the quote was during a joint interview by Katie Couric of Edwards and his wife shortly after they announced the cancer had returned.

He also made the cancer a focal point of his first television ad in November 2007:

"And Elizabeth and I decided in the quiet of a hospital room, after 12 hours of tests and after getting very bad news, what we were going to spend our lives doing. For all those that have no voice. We are not going to quietly go away."

So if Elizabeth Edwards comes forward and says that John was in this relationship with her blessing because she couldn't have sex anymore, then it's a non-story, right?
Posted by: Mnemosyne

Wrong

Big deal. It shows Edwards with a child, but that doesn't say anything about paternity. I think it's no more credible than the recurring rumors that Dubya is gay, and the twins were conceived by IVF.

"If Edwards is willing to take a paternity test, that would solve it once and for all."

Why would he take a paternity test when the mother of the child is not claiming he's the father and someone else has claimed paternity?

Oh jeez, man. I was really hoping that you were just Rickrolling us. Spare me "Breaking News" like this. And thanks a lot for giving this bullshit more legs than it had before you decided to make "news" out of this.

What's next, Kevin, Bigfoot? Hey, I have it on good authority that Obama is secretly being advised by a Bigfoot on his energy policy, which automagically makes it news! Folks have a right to know about Sasquatchgate! Pictures forthcoming! DEVELOPING...

I don't think Edwards would be sneaking in and out of a hotel to see a child if it wasn't a scandal.

Considering the details published in the story, there would be a huge lawsuit if the Enquirer was lying about this.

Usually, when they report a story it is reported as "people are telling us this". This one is reported as "our reporters".

And why does it matter? Well, he was running for president, for goodness sakes. And you are denying that this is important? If this is true, he should have dropped out for the good of the Democratic Party. That he didn't (if it is true) says volumes about his character.

The Charlotte Observer is reporting that the baby's birth certificate has left off the name of the father - but supposedly Edward's friend Andrew Young has claimed it is his and gave Hunter a house in N.C. where she was living last winter - hmmn.

The NE never says the pics were taken the night they caught Edwards at the hotel, only that they were taken in a room at the hotel(see matching hotel curtains) - NE says they have had more than one meeting (if you read the original story). So pics could have come from a previous rendevous.

So here you have Edwards - accussed of fathering a child out of wedlock where the birth certificate for the child leaves off the father's name, getting pictures taken of himself holding a baby in a room at the Beverly Hilton - that alone is very suspicious. The fact that NE already says it caught him at the hotel visiting said baby makes it very problematic.

Let's see if he gets invited to speak at the convention.

Wow. Linking to the National Enquirer!

It's hard to get lower than that.

Pardon me if I don't follow the link. Also, (and I hate to do this), but I must now deduct 15 credibility points from this blog. In the future, I'll need to increase my skepticism quotient commensurately so that I'm not unduly influenced by anything I may read here.

Science has proven that is physically impossible for a man to hold a child that is not "his."

So, unless this was Photoshopped (poorly) the baby MUST be Edwards.'

If you can hold, it must be told.

Or something like that.

John Edwards either needs to deny it, and sue for Libel (Come on now, do I need to tell him this?). Or fess up and admit it, because the longer he waits, the worse it's going to get.

By the time the "main stream media" acknowledges John Edwards affair and illegitimate child. They will convinced America that John Edwards is a Republican...

I don't know why you posting on this Kevin; it's really pathetic. Please leave it alone.

OK, everyone can stop having a fit over kevin posting the story and link. If you don't like it don't click it. This is a blog about politics and this is a story, whether false or true, that is probably going to be picked up the the MSM and become an issue to some degree. And please don't say that linking to it or talking about it here is going to somehow legitamize the story or popularize it. The right wing media machine will have no problem doing that and posting it here will have absolutely no effect. Everyone get a grip and relax.

Yo, Kahner: if this thread is too rough for you, it might be best to avoid the rest of the internet.

These comments amount to "having a fit" the way Muzak amounts to a mosh pit.

Is the real Kevin Drum tied up and stuffed into a closet, while a home-invading troll has taken over his keyboard?

I expect better than this.