Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2008-07-25 19:07:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The latest from our "soon to get a 'Dear John' letter... if he's lucky" Dept.
I hate to break Haruhiko's heart, but it looks like our erstwhile former Senator from North Carolina may have a serious mistress / lovechild problem...

The story went straight from the National Enquirer to a Beverley Hilton hotel guard to Fox News... because, obviously, Fox would find it "newsworthy".  Anything to get Obama out of the spotlight, I guess. 

That said, as much as I dislike the source, I fully expect the allegation to be essentially correct. National Enquirer actually has a pretty good record when it comes to political affairs, and investigates with a bloodlust rarely seen in the mainstream media.  

Considering how desperate John McCain's campaign has been lately, obviously any bad news for any Democrat is Barack Obama's fault, and clearly reflects on his morality... whatever that means.  (Sure, it's a nebulous argument, but for people who like to be disagreeable just for the hell of it, it's clearly good enough.

Given that John Edwards' wife is currently fighting stage IV breast cancer, well... let's just say that John Edwards' timing just sucks. I mean, it's really low and disrespectful... almost like something John McCain would've done to one of his wives!

Obama/Edwards, 2008-2008. RIP.  


(Post a new comment)


[info]dabroots
2008-07-26 02:44 am UTC (link)
Hmm. I notice you're citing National Enquirer and Fox News as your sources for this story about Edwards. Uh, did you take up Rupert Murdoch on that Weekend in Australia for Speccy Bloggers?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 03:43 am UTC (link)
I'm citing them because, well, it is newsworthy regardless of where it comes from... and, infact, it sounds likely this is going to check out positive.

I'm not about censoring this kind of stuff, but at the same time, I think it can and should be viewed realistically, and that someone can still report the story while still disliking what other media sources will inevitably do with it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dabroots
2008-07-26 03:45 am UTC (link)
Now, what you makes you say it "sounds likely" to be accurate?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 04:05 am UTC (link)
Based on the witnessed claims that the woman was there that night, and also on the National Enquirers track record for accurately reporting high-level political affairs, and the rather thorough, longterm, laborious muckraking that the National Enquirer go through before they take the plunge on stories like these.

I mean, they pretty much caught Edwards on the other side of a door, in the basement of a hotel at 2:40 am, trying to leave secretly with the assistance of hotel staff... and they have witnesses, in the form of at least one hotel employee. They also apparently witnessed the woman entering the hotel and going up to the room in question.

If Edwards wasn't in that hotel, trying to leave at that time of the morning, it would be an easy thing for him to at least have some kind of alibi. Of course, that opens the whole thing to security cameras and the like.

If I had to put a percentile chance on it... I'd guess 80%. Not certainty, but that's a moot point given that Obama needs to decide his running mate in the next two weeks or so. Clearly, unless he can provide a solid, rapid alibi, it's not going to be John Edwards.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dabroots
2008-07-26 06:29 am UTC (link)
I want to see who else picks up on this story.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 11:07 am UTC (link)
Most papers were scooped on this and won't get involved until the National Enquirer publishes what they know... but after that, there won't the the kind of "waiting game" that normally happens between N.E. publishing an allegation and the MSM picking it up, as that door has been opened.

But yeah, whatever the circumstances, it's going to be seriously looked at soon enough.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ikilled007
2008-07-27 01:08 pm UTC (link)
You want the real answer? Edwards is just another Lawyer-Politician i.e. scumbag, like every other politician. They have no principles and no honor. They lie for a living. They don't take their promises seriously. That's why it "sounds likely" that one of them would engage in the kind of behavior that all of them engage in.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-27 06:25 pm UTC (link)
I know quite a few lawyers, and have met a few politicians. Surprisingly, they're not all scumbags. That said, they certainly have more opportunities and incentive than most to be scumbags, and oftentimes find themselves forced to decide between several different, morally-disagreeable choices.

They aren't saints, but then again, neither are soldiers. Both, however, are called upon to do dirty work, supposedly on behalf of their country.



(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]delusionalangel
2008-07-26 02:50 am UTC (link)
Something about that story seems wrong, even for a tabloid/Fox story.

I think I know what it is... They chased the man into a bathroom or something right... The paparazzi / Enquirer people? But no pics? They rely on Fox to "confirm" their story? Seriously do Enquirer reporters not even have cell phone cameras?

Edited at 2008-07-26 03:36 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 03:50 am UTC (link)
Fox doesn't have pics, but apparently National Enquirer do.

That's not the big story here. It's that the National Enquirer apparently had a dossier of intelligence to suspect an affair, they were tipped off about the meeting, the room reservations were apparently deceptive, and that they apparently confirmed the arrival of the woman in question.

This is one of those situations where reality arguably doesn't matter much, in that serious doubt will taint Edwards' career, regardless of the sitution. Can he get past it and have a viable political future? Probably, yes.... but in this political season? Almost certainly, he won't get the chance to find out.

Obama has only a few weeks to choose his running mate... and this is why it won't be Edwards.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]delusionalangel
2008-07-26 04:12 am UTC (link)
Yeah I figured he wouldn't pick Edwards anyway. Sadly. In fact not even sure why they'd go after Edwards now, aside from stumping for Obama he truly doesn't seem very interested in being high up in Political office though I'd expect the rumours that he'd be offered Attorney General could be true.

I am a little confused as to why they're relying on Fox to confirm their story if they have pics though. They're bragging on their site right now Fox confirmed our story, etc. They could do that much easier themselves with their own photos it would seem. Something seems fishy still. They almost paint it as a bad movie chase scene through the hotel with onlookers too.

Unless someone really believed he was on the top of the short list and wanted to knock him off of it, I honestly don't believe he is/was as much as I wish he was. Otherwise this story seems a little cruel with his wife's medical problems, the woman saying someone else is the father, etc and no REAL proof being offered up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 04:41 am UTC (link)
I don't think is is Fox confirming the National Enquirer story exactly, though.

Here's what I think happened...

1> Guy at hotel witnesses what happens.

2> Guy gets some sort of information packet that one of the reporters left behind, and sees a lot of documented, longterm reporting for a story that National Enquirer has been working on for over a year. (Most normal papers would've dropped that kind of story by then, and wouldn't keep a regularly updated file... but these papers have time, considerable money, and those kinds of stories are their life's blood.)

3> Guy contacts Fox, probably gets something for turning over all the info that National Enquirer has. Intregued by the unpublished details from the N.E. documents, curious about details of the story, but needs to seriously check out the story before running with it.

4> Fox contacts Nat. Enq.. Lets them know what they know and what they were given. Confirms key parts of the story, but reluctant about going forward without having several key things confirmed beforehand, as they need to know that their story won't be a dud.

5> Fox starts asking about what the N.E. knows, can show them, and will run on an upcoming story. Do they have pictures? Do they have fairly good evidence of both Edwards and the woman being there? Based on what they are shown, with some securities from N.E. that Fox won't copy certain bits of evidence and sink their exclusive, Fox decides to go forward with the story.

So, if you ask me, Fox did the story because it's big and because they believe several key facts can be proven. It's good for them, and it's doubly good for National Enquirer, who gets to drum up business for what is likely to be a very well-selling exclusive.

In short, if they're acting remotely like professional reporters, Fox choosing to go forward with this is bad news for Edwards.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]delusionalangel
2008-07-26 05:17 am UTC (link)
Sorry, should have made it clear, when I said they're using Fox to confirm their stories I should have been clearer, I got that from their website -- that is what NE is claiming.

They've posted a small section of the Fox story on their site, with the headline of "Edwards affair: Enquirer Report Confirmed!" here: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/edwards_affair_enquirer_report_confirmed/celebrity/65210

Basically they cut the Fox story down to the line about Fox contacting the security guard, slapped on this is independent proof of our story, and made it the top story on their site as of now anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 05:52 am UTC (link)
Ah, I see.

I would say they are doing it for the same reason they may have helped Fox with confirming some things in order to feel comfortable about their story... because it's essentially building buzz for a potential exclusive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 04:10 am UTC (link)
I think it's more a matter of they apparently do have some photographs and enough information to make *some* kind of story, some of which -- judging from what I have read -- includes emails, friends, assorted witnesses. They apparently also took photos that night... but the question is, how damning are the photos.

If we haven't seen them yet, it's a combination of the story being so new, and also that the Enquirer wants to make sure their story is fully vetted by lawyers before going to print, with a photo exclusive, presumably.

They're in the business of selling papers. It doesn't benefit them to give away the pictures before they print 'em themselves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]denelian
2008-07-26 05:53 am UTC (link)
i don't really care about edwards one way or the other...

but look, i just had a huge bone surgery. for a while there, i almost gave my boyfriend of 4 years permission to have sex with someone else because i couldn't; if Mrs. Edwards is very bad off, it could be very similar.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2008-07-26 10:50 am UTC (link)
Absolutely... but at the same time, "it's okay, we have an open marriage..." doesn't work politically, and there are arrangements that most voters just don't want to know about their politicians.



(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]haruhiko
2008-07-26 09:30 am UTC (link)
If this turns out being true, it'll be a damn shame; not just because it'd say something about his integrity but becauseit's always disappointing when someone of his smartitude behaves in a manner SO STUPID. *lol* I'll wait to see how durable these allegations are and where else they get picked up before coming to conclusions, though - we're talking about a man who made two children pretty late in his marriage with his wife when he chould have been having a mid-life instead.

You're right though: True or not this would be enough to kill any possibility of Edwards being the VP nom... not that I thought he would be. (For some reason I never expected Obama to choose any of the people who participated in the primaries with him to be his VP.)

Edited at 2008-07-26 09:31 am UTC

(Reply to this)

Uh uh...
[info]kaifoxx
2008-07-26 10:45 pm UTC (link)
This smells like a set up to discredit him.

Who is this McGovern guy? Who leaked this info? Why is a guard violating his specified job duties like this? He's no doubt violating privacy papers he would have signed at hiring.

No something doesnt feel right about this. And there is EVERY reason to suspect a set up of this nature.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Uh uh...
[info]insomnia
2008-07-27 02:17 am UTC (link)
It does sound like it certainly could be a setup, as someone notified the National Enquirer in advance about this meeting, which was reserved under another person's name.

That said, it would be easier for those closest to his secrets, so who knows who is behind it, if that's the case.

Who knows... it could even be his wife or one of her friends! Alternately, the motivation could be strictly financial... and the National Enquirer would pay a lot of money to any insider who came to them with such a story.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]denelian
2008-07-26 11:55 pm UTC (link)
tis true, most people don't want to know...

(Reply to this)


[info]ikilled007
2008-07-27 01:17 pm UTC (link)
Classic. Almost everyone replying to this entry is convinced it's not true. It CAN'T be true. The evil Republicans must be behind these FALSE allegations.

If I may... this is the problem with putting your faith and hope in a politician: they look at you as useful idiots, tools in their nefarious schemes. They have no honor and no integrity and they absolutely are guaranteed not to live up to your hero worship.

Yes, the Republicans are evil and have no doubt leaked false information to discredit Democrat politicians. But that's because, like the Democrats, they have no honor or integrity and will stoop to any means necessary to acquire power. Why do so many people delude themselves into believing that because a politician has a party letter behind his name (especially "D"), that he's "The One"? He's a fucking politician! Why did you expect anything else?

I think your Democrat readers need to familiarize themselves with the fable about the scorpion and the frog.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…