By all means consider the source, but read the story before automatically dismissing it. The details are damning, and total fabrication — even from The Enquirer — is unlikely. (And before ideology swamps reality, remember this is the same publication that uncovered Rush Limbaugh’s doctor shopping and pill popping back in 2003.)
Edwards went out of the hotel briefly with Rielle, they were observed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and then went back to her room, where he stayed until attempting to sneak out of the hotel unseen at 2:40 a.m. (PST). But when he emerged alone from an elevator into the hotel basement he was greeted by several reporters from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
Senior NATIONAL ENQUIRER Reporter Alexander Hitchen asked Edwards why he was visiting Rielle and whether he was ready to confirm that he was the father of her baby.
Shocked to see a reporter, and without saying anything, Edwards ran up the stairs leading from the hotel basement to the lobby. But, spotting a photographer, he doubled back into the basement. As he emerged from the stairwell, reporter Butterfield questioned him about his hookup with Rielle.
Edwards did not answer and then ran into a nearby restroom. He stayed inside for about 15 minutes, refusing to answer questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER about what he was doing in the hotel. A group of hotel security men eventually escorted him from the men’s room, while preventing the NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporters from following him out of the hotel.
I almost felt sorry for Edwards after reading that. Then I remembered his wife has incurable breast cancer. And that she campaigned for him tirelessly even as she battled the disease.
IF the Enquirer’s account even remotely resembles the truth, it would be safe to conclude that John Edwards is a contemptible sleazeball. His better half deserves much better.
The tabloid may have done Obama a favor, as Edwards was rumored to be gaining in the veepstakes. I’ll say this for Sam Nunn — he’s unlikely to be spotted trolling the hallways of a Beverly Hills hotel at two in the morning.
You know what dude?
That’s crap.
The Enquirer is sleazy, their methods are shady, et al, but it looks like they got ‘em, unless there’s a rational explanation for his behavior. And anyone who’d cheat on a woman like he’s married to, going through what’s she going through, working for him like she’s worked for him — I just have zero respect for the guy. Tricky territory, I know, as I don’t endorse their brand of “journalism.” I’m not going to rationalize that. I’m also not going to rationalize what it appears Edwards did. If he did it, and I’ve added all necessary qualifiers, I think he’s scum. Should we not judge a guy who fucks around on his terminally ill wife?
I’ll rationalize it.
You know why the Enquirer got respectability? Not because they got better but because everybody else got worse.
[...] Hotel California. Since Edwards seems seemed to have momentum as a running mate for Barack Obama, ATLMalcontent theorizes this could help Sam Nunn’s chances to become the VP candidate. He also produces our [...]
“Miserable slob?” Sounds like most men if you ask me. Wake me up when all this is real news to women.
Edwards’ response is pretty tepid:
‘I don’t talk about these tabloids. Tabloid trash is full of lies.’
How ’bout: I didn’t do it, and I’m going to sue their asses for implying it’s true.
Edwards is a public figure. Suing the Enquirer requires the sort of malice like they got pegged for before, knowing Carol Burnett doesn’t drink because her father was alcoholic, but claiming she was drunk in a restaurant just to get a rise out of her.
It means Enquirer is sleazy beyond all redemption. But it makes it difficult to sue.
I know the Enquirer is sleazy, but do you really think that entire account — from named reporters, not anonymous sources — is fabricated? If so, that would be malicious (Burnett is also a public figure). Edwards was careful not to deny the specifics of the allegations against him.
John Edwards own version of the two Americas.
Thank goodness the man will not be president or vice-president. I am fearful of anyone I see with the edwards bumper sticker on their car.
They are most likely lawsuit happy and easily deceived by hucksters.
Named reporters? Enquirer is famous for making stuff up. How does putting a reporter’s name on the stuff make it accurate? Edwards was careful to say nothing about what was asked — you can’t say he didn’t deny it, when he said nothing. You would be more accurate to say Edwards didn’t confirm it.
But that’s assuming any of this took place at all.
John Edwards got a jury to force a swimming pool equipment manufacturer to pay for sucking the guts out of a child, a little girl. After a couple hundred others failed, Edwards got them to pay, and got the company to change its product so it would stop sucking the bowels out of little girls.
Such work is the work of God.
When does the Enquirer cover that story? Where’s the fairness? What’s the great concern about showing clay feet of a hero?
Why is such reporting not considered obscenity?
I don’t want to be construed as a defender of The Enquirer, but I’m curious: did you defend Rush Limbaugh after the tabloid uncovered his Oxycontin habit?
I’m no fan of that smug blowhard, and I’m not out to get Edwards, but if you’re going to question The Enquirer’s veracity, be consistent.
And again — not to defend them — but since the Burnett lawsuit the Enquirer has become quite skilled at publishing stories that have either plausible deniability or at least some elements of truth. You know, “sources close to the investigation said” … These reporters would have to answer the specific allegations that they made.
Edwards could easily prove he wasn’t there that night, if he felt the need to. Maybe he doesn’t want to dignify their reporting with an answer. Maybe the truth doesn’t make him look good.
As for the Enquirer reporting on Edwards’ work as a lawyer … that’s not what they do. Giving the people what they want may not be admirable, but it is what it is. It’s naive to expect otherwise.
FYI: Ex-Clinton aide Roger Altman is one of the owners of The Enquirer.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/The_Clintonite_who_owns_National_Enquirer.html
I didn’t pay any attention to who made allegations against Limbaugh. I don’t listen to the man because he’s an intelligence sink. I don’t read the Enquirer because it’s trash.
Lie in the gutter with pigs and dogs, you’re gonna get covered with mud and have fleas.
Why would anyone bother to read a journal that has no redeeming value? Why repeat their charges?
The story was reported elsewhere, I read it out of mere curiosity and came away thinking that he looks bad. I still think that. I have some knowledge as to how the Enquirer operates, and it’s not as black-and-white as you propose. Again, I’m not defending them, but it sounds to me they could have pictures of Edwards in flagrante delicto and you’d deny it.